Adam Lanza Destroyed His Computer Before Rampage

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Here's some breaking news I saw MSNBC this morning that I haven't seen reported anywhere in the print media yet. NBC reporter Pete Williams reported on Chuck Todd's The Daily Rundown that (police) 'had been hopeful that they could extract some information from the computer at (Lanza's) home. He was very into computers. Before he left his mother's house on the morning that he shot his mother while she was sleeping, he damaged extensively his computer. He took the hard drive out, pulled the disk out, and did a lot of damage to it,' said Williams. 'It's not clear that (police) are going to be able to extract any information or not.' It has previously been reported that Lanza left no online footprint. Police had been eager to examine Lanza's computer in hopes of determining a motive in his killings or finding records of purchases of firearms and ammunition. 'If he visited certain websites, they are going to glean whatever information they can from that and see what it means,' said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly. 'Does he have friends he communicates with online? Was there a fight with somebody?'"

Comments

it tells you one thing, at least

[X0563511]

Premeditated. This wasn't an impulsive act.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CanHasDIY]

Premeditated. This wasn't an impulsive act.

Full body kevlar (as reported by the media, anyway, though I have my doubts) isn't something people put on as an impulse, either.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[godrik]

I heard a psychologist on NPR last week saying that most massive shooting are long time premeditated actions. Almost no shooter just goes crazy take a gun and shoot everybody. They all spend weeks at it.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the motive of the police; the more they know about his mind(they obviously aren't doing this to try to catch him or his accomplices) the more they are going to go after anyone else with the same symptoms (this can be a good and bad thing). Expect a lot to come from this about how wrong/dangerous it is to be an "off the grid" loner.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[cayenne8]

Full body kevlar (as reported by the media, anyway, though I have my doubts) isn't something people put on as an impulse, either.

Speak for yourself...

Some of us like to think that S.W.A.T. is a fashion statement, especially if you accessorize.

Talk about sexy on the catwalk..sporting kevlar and flashbangs!!!

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[YodasEvilTwin]

Yeah, you'd think you'd have to work up to that sort of thing. It's too complex an action for it to just come out of someone at random; it's the result of long-term turmoil and a damaged pysche.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Jeng]

So prepare for "Voices from the Hellmouth Part 2"

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[alienzed]

I take it you don't live in New York...

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[operagost]

Which is why mandatory waiting periods are pointless. The wait should be no longer than it takes to make the federally mandated background check-- which apparently somehow needs start taking people's mental health into account. He was only 20, so the known issues he had in school should have been flagged. I imagine the privacy laws in regards to minors may be an issue.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CanHasDIY]

I take it you don't live in New York...

No... but I thought guns were basically illegal there.

Do many people in "gun-free" cities walk around sporting BPVs all the time?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Talderas]

He didn't purchase any of the guns he used so a background check wouldn't matter. The purchaser and owner of all the weapons was his mother.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Talderas]

Shooting her while she slept probably indicates that her death was also premeditated. It doesn't appear to be that she caught him taking her guns and he shot her in reaction.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[erotic_pie]

He wasn't the one that purchased the weapons though, he stole them from his mother. All the laws and wait periods in the world wouldn't have stopped him from stealing them from a law abiding citizen.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you don't live in New York...

No... but I thought guns were basically illegal there.

It's a good thing, too. Otherwise New Yorkers would have to worry about getting shot sometimes.
Thank God for gun control!

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[NatasRevol]

There are no gun-free cities in America.

There are, however, lots of mentally disturbed people.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[jittles]

Which is why mandatory waiting periods are pointless. The wait should be no longer than it takes to make the federally mandated background check-- which apparently somehow needs start taking people's mental health into account. He was only 20, so the known issues he had in school should have been flagged. I imagine the privacy laws in regards to minors may be an issue.

The background checks are supposed to already take your mental health into account. You also have to self-certify that you do not have any mental illnesses (though really, how can anyone really know if they have a mental illness, unless they were diagnosed and told said diagnosis?). In any event, Federal law prevents a 20 year old from buying any weapon with a pistol grip, including the Bushmaster .223 and the two semi-automatic pistols he was reported to have on his person. His mom could buy those items, and transfer them to him after his 18th birthday, but that can also be illegal if she thinks he has a mental illness or if it falls under the rules and regulations barring a straw-man purchase.

In any event, I would not consider the mom to be a responsible gun owner. You should have everything properly secured that you are not presently using. If she was using one of those weapons for self-defense, it should have been on her person. If you leave your guns out, they can be used against you, as she likely learned prior to her death./P.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

I think part of the point here is that if SHE hadn't have been able to buy the guns legally, then there would have been no guns to steal. Yes, criminals will resort to crime to get guns illegally... but that doesn't change the fact that most of the guns USED illegally in this country are just one or two steps from a legal purchase. Outlawing guns doesn't STOP bad guys from getting them, but it sure as hell curtails the process. Q.v. "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels."

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say lots. This is 5(?) major incidents in the past few years... 5 / 300 million == insignificant% of the population.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[DarkOx]

Exactly.

As other posters have pointed out these things are almost always planned. A guy in China stabbed twenty some people the very same day. Imagine how easy and cheap it would be to put together a few pipe bombs jacketed with small ball bearings; that would create every bit as much horror and death in a room for children as this guy was able to do using guns. You can't control the materials for that either without really crippling society. Any intelligent (though not necessarily sane) person who wants to hurt a large number of people in our society can find a way to do so, with or without a gun.

Guns are not the problem. The real danger is the mentally and our total lack of will to deal with them. This guys mother knew and had talked about him burning himself days before the incident. She obviously understood things were very wrong but did nothing. As a society we at most pump people with dangerous mental pathology full of drugs their own doctors hardly know what effect will have and send them back out among us. In probably the majority of cases we do nothing about them at all. Certainly its true in the 20th century, having people committed was abused. It might be unfair and cruel to lock many of these folks away in psych wards but at least they'd not be out hurting people. Lord knows I don't like health care reform the way it was done but at least some seriously disturbed people might get near to a profession who could possible declare them a threat and get something done about them.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ColdWetDog]

Thinking that owning a couple of guns is a paranoid delusion is a paranoid delusion.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

start taking people's mental health into account

It's likely that this will happen, but it is a strawman remedy. The mentally ill are only as violent as the general population, i.e., 1% have violent tendencies, just like the general population. Demonizing the mentally ill this way will not deter this kind of crime for the reason that it is too big of a net... nearly half of all american households have someone seeking psychological treatment.

What I think would work is holding gun owners up to the light. The Second Amendment is CLEAR.

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.

What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia. The meaning has been twisted over the years, but the original intent is obvious because it is literal. What we need is to tell the NRA they, as a group, will now be held responsible for the actions of their members, thus they need to police themselves. If all gun owners were compelled to be members of a militia with regulation oversight from that militia (responsible gun owners having veto powers over other members, to legally disarm them that have shown irresponsibility with a weapon), then maybe things could change for the better. If the NRA wasn't spending all its money on lobby power to arm everyone, but rather instead be forced to watch its ass because its own members will burn them, then things could get better.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[joh]

Exactly.

As other posters have pointed out these things are almost always planned. A guy in China stabbed twenty some people the very same day.

Not a single one of these twenty people died, though.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[NatasRevol]

Lots of guns/lots of mentally disturbed people.

Fortunately for the rest of us, a low intersection.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

No guns were involved in the worst school massacre in United States history.

The Bath School disaster was a bombing, and it killed 38 people, more than any school shooting before or after.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[NatasRevol]

Guns AND mentally disturbed people are the problem.

Well, really, mentally disturbed people and anything that can kill lots of people.

Treat first, but limit their access to dangerous things as well.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ArsonSmith]

I guess that makes him not mentally disturbed then. otherwise what does that have to do with the parent post?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[pastafazou]

“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns. The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals.”

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CanHasDIY]

weapon of choice

Which, in this case, was 2 9mm pistols and standard capacity magazines, neither of which would be affected by a ban on "assault weapons" (whatever that means this week) and high-capacity magazines.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Beardo the Bearded]

I remember Timmy McVeigh running through that OK building shooting everyone. Horrible time.

Same when those guys stormed the twin towers and the Pentagon and shot everyone inside. It was on the news for months.

You don't need guns to kill people. Any of us could build a weapon powerful enough to kill hundreds of people with stuff you can buy from Home Depot. I could probably build a so-called "dirty bomb" for a couple grand.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Obfuscant]

What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia.

They intended no such thing. They gave one example of why the right to be armed is important, but one example is not the complete list.

Do you think all those founders who had just used their arms against the government were really thinking that the only reason people should be allowed to own a gun was so they could be part of a "well regulated militia" -- i.e., part of the government used to suppress the public should THEY ever be so uppity as to oppose a government they found to be oppressive?

What you are arguing is that the same people who just won their freedom from an oppressive, abusive government were now saying that nobody except the government (in the guise of the "well regulated militia") should have weapons. That's ridiculous.

If all gun owners were compelled to be members of a militia with regulation oversight from that militia (responsible gun owners having veto powers over other members, to legally disarm them ...

Well, Mr. President, those people in Tennessee are starting to get riled about those new laws we're forcing on them, you better kick them out of the "militia" and gather up all their weapons...

From the font of all human knowledge:

Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

That's a pretty clear statement about the difference between an armed populace and the militias that would be "well regulated" by the state. "The whole body of the people" is much more than any militia, in your terminology, but it truly was "the whole body of the people" to the founders. Continuing from the same article:

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

You're now arguing that this "paramount right", what the founders thought was "a basic human right", is really intended to be a way of keeping the populace under control because it should be afforded only to those who are "part of the system", and, when the right is most needed, will be part of the problem.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Nadaka]

Its really hard to flash someone with all that velcro on the vest.

You are better off with just a trench coat if you want to flash people.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CrimsonAvenger]

What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia. The meaning has been twisted over the years, but the original intent is obvious because it is literal.

Note, for the record, that back in 1791, "regulated" was a form of the word "regular", as in "regular army".

In other words, it meant, more or less "trained".

Note also that under the Militia Act, we're ALL members of the militia. And, under that act, required to own and be reasonably capable of using firearms....

Strange but true.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[X0563511]

This was HORRIFIC but.. 21 people died while DUI in the last 5 days. Where's the national news and the Obama tears?

Indeed. This really pisses me off - not because of the perspective disconnect, but because political entities use it to advance their agendas.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Nadaka]

There have been other mass stabbing attacks, some with double digit numbers of deaths.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[kilfarsnar]

Meh, I don't know. I think at the end of the day, someone determined to do something will find a way to do it.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[barre]

Imagine how easy and cheap it would be to put together a few pipe bombs jacketed with small ball bearings; that would create every bit as much horror and death in a room for children as this guy was able to do using guns

As demonstrated by the number of people who did as much horror and death in the US with a few pipe bombs and small ball bearings, because it's so easy and cheap.

Oh wait no, that was with guns.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[spiffmastercow]

Lots of guns/lots of mentally disturbed people.

Fortunately for the rest of us, a low intersection.

You really need to clarify your sarcasm, it doesn't come across as well over the internet as it does in person.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[doggo]

Note: Though the AC is an AC, he/she has a point.

Much like the "pertectin' mah fambly" gun nuts who build up arsenals against the mythical home invasion, and like terrorism, the likelihood of a school/public mass shooting near you affecting your family directly is small. Not impossible. But small.

And surprisingly, less likely to happen in a big city.

Though in a big city you're more likely to get hit by stray bullets from a gang gun fight. But only if you live in a poor neighborhood with lots of gang activity.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[radtea]

Guns are not the problem.

No, gun nuts are the problem.

The rate of gun ownership in Canada is about half what it is in the US, with 22% of households having guns vs your 45%. In Canada, only about 2.3% of households have handguns (under very restrictive conditions and with limited magazines) as opposed to about 25% of American households.

The rate of gun suicide in Canada is about equal to that in the US, which is significant because the primary purpose of owning a gun is to kill yourself: that is the most common use of guns against humans in both the US and Canada, and why wouldn't we identify the most common use as the purpose of the tool?

The really interesting thing, though, is that the rate of gun homicide in Canada is less than 20% of that in the US (0.7 per 100,000 vs somewhat more than 4 per 100,000)

One intriguing possibility that would explain this difference is that while we have lots of guns, we have very few handguns and virtually no assault weapons.

This is intriguing because handguns and assault weapons are designed specifically to kill other people, and the difference in gun use between Canada and the US is specifically in the use of guns to kill other people.

Anyone who isn't a gun nut can see this, and is at least very intrigued by the possibility that Canadian-style near-elimination of handgun and assault weapons from the United States might lead to a factor of five reduction in gun homicide. Unfortunately many people (the ones I've designated "gun nuts") think this would be a bad thing.

So you're right: the problem is not the guns. The problem is the nuts.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Ksevio]

So that's saying that guns kill more than all other personal weapons combined! Bombs/fire are a different kind of mass murder.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Petron]

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.

What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia. The meaning has been twisted over the years, but the original intent is obvious because it is literal...

The Second Amendment does *NOT* say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says "people"... Militia are not soldiers employed by the government, but everyday citizens. This country was founded by people who didn't trust the government... A government that distrusts government. The founders know how governments can trample on the rights of the people and two defenses for the people against over bearing governments are: The right to protest, and be heard (first amendment), and the right to protect yourself by force if needed (second amendment). Ice-T put it very well, The Second Amendment isn't to protect hunters.... It is the last line of defense against tyranny.

When a tragedy hits, we always feel a need to do something. Record setting Earthquake + Record tsunami + Nuclear reactor = Ban nuclear energy (despite it's extremely low death per Terawatt/hr). Plane crash? Is air travel safe (despite it being the safest way to travel). A nutjob kills a bunch of people? Must be guns fault (despite the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, vast majority not used illegally).

So lets not pass any knee-jerk laws at this. Lets mourn the fallen, take some time to collect ourselves and discuss reasonable actions that will target only those who do wrong, catching them before something bad happens, and leave those who do right alone.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[NatasRevol]

That's not sarcasm. At all.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[butalearner]

Imagine how easy and cheap it would be to put together a few pipe bombs jacketed with small ball bearings; that would create every bit as much horror and death in a room for children as this guy was able to do using guns. You can't control the materials for that either without really crippling society. Any intelligent (though not necessarily sane) person who wants to hurt a large number of people in our society can find a way to do so, with or without a gun.

The Columbine shooters tried to build and detonate pipe bombs, and they failed. If they only had knives to fall back on, how many people would have survived? A line has to be drawn somewhere, and you simply don't know enough to say that, had he been unable to obtain that rifle, nothing would have changed. Just because a sufficiently motivated druggie can get high doesn't mean we should just go ahead and legalize cocaine.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[BKDotCom]

When is it a good time to talking about reforming bare hands control?!

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[tburkhol]

The problem has two parts: mental illness and guns. In China, with no guns, a mentally ill guy assaults 20 people and none of them are dead. In the US, with prolific guns, a mentally ill guy assaults 28 people, and 26 are dead.

The knee-jerk suggestions for dealing with mental illness amount to preemptive jailing of a large number of people, the vast majority of whom will never assault anyone. The knee-jerk suggestions for dealing with guns amount to taking away tools, the vast majority of which will never be used in anger. Neither of those is right, but the best answer should include aspects of both. Hopefully, some reasonable people can work through the politics and come up with a reasonable solution that addresses not just extremely infrequent mass-violence, but individual shootings which have become so mundane we only hear about them when someone "interesting" is the victim.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Those numbers may well be right. But they're meaningless unless you combine them with the frequency at which it happens.

For examples: death by explosives may well take out 20.82 persons/incident, but if it only happens once per year, the total is still: about 21 deaths/year. Compared to e.g. motoring deaths, which (for the sake of argument) kill 0.05 people/accident, it still makes for around 30000 deaths/year...

Also, saying that "Only 52% involved guns" is not really an endorsement of guns, is it?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Oakey]

Timothy McVeigh was merely rising up against what he thought was a tyrannical government. He was declared sound of mind. He wasn't mental, he believed in his cause. Kind of ironic considering one of the arguments from the pro-gun side is the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Given Mcveighs success with that, how do the rest of you think this is a scenario that will ever happen?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[jedidiah]

In the context of the times, the 2nd amendment basically meant you getting together with your neighbors and practicing close order drill and marksmanship. The offer of FREE BEER was a common incentive to attend your local militia gathering.

The militia was no more organized than "the guys from my homeowners association". That's opposed to the HOA itself. An HOA is far more organized and regimented.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Razed By TV]

And who is going to fucking pay for them? Because I can fucking tell you that society doesn't want to pay for them to be locked up in a hospital, and they don't want them to be free to interfere with the rest of society, which leaves killing them or forcing the family to pay to lock them up, and I'm not sure which one is more humane.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[45mm]

So "20 people stabbed by a maniac" is somehow better than "20 people shot by a maniac" - that's pretty twisted logic.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Razgorov Prikazka]

>> Well, really, mentally disturbed people and anything that can kill lots of people.

Exactly! Never have mentally disturbed people handle:
Knives, scissors, cars, diesel, fertiliser, glass bottles, a television that shows American Idol, chainsaws, nailguns, hands, arms or legs, trucks, matches, gasoline, cigarettes / cigars / pipes (Don't forget 2nd hand smoke y'all!), bleach, old refrigerators that contain CFC's, nitrogen, capacitors, LPG, lighters, and much much more!

Actually... We should ban them all. And blind children as of birth on one eye so they can never do any harm because of a lack of depth perception. Really... The answer here is not ban all guns/ammo. The issue here is a sociological one. How come that these kinds of accidents never happen in Switzerland where guns are really abundant, but 99% of the gun related deaths are suicide (1% is made up from unintentional, homicide or remains undetermined). It is because there is a different society that handles its (potential) problems differently.
Obviously the US has some research to do around the world. Not only in this field by the way. Take a look at how other countries teach Darwinism for example, and make a comparison of Sweden, The US and Iran... Where do you think the US is heading?
Take a look outside the US, it doesn't harm to ask around. See what practices are developed elsewhere and deliberate. What is harmful is to be too cocky and proud to ask for help while your civilians are shooting each others brains out.
Or at least that is IMHO.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[n7ytd]

The real danger is the mentally and our total lack of will to deal with them. This guys mother knew and had talked about him burning himself days before the incident. She obviously understood things were very wrong but did nothing. As a society we at most pump people with dangerous mental pathology full of drugs their own doctors hardly know what effect will have and send them back out among us. In probably the majority of cases we do nothing about them at all.

Please don't be so quick to say that his mother "understood things were very wrong but did nothing". What would you have her do? The guy was legally an adult, and she couldn't possibly have kept a 24-hour watch on him.

A very good friend of mine has a son with schizophrenia; people that only he can see tell him what to do. On several occasions, he has traveled over 1,000 miles because imaginary people told him to. Once he was instructed to drive across country to witness the second coming of Christ. Another time he ended up in the middle of Los Angeles and destroyed his cell phone and wallet so that "they" couldn't track him. He was instructed to set his parents' house on fire while they were at work, causing about $100K of damage and forcing the family to move out for about 6 months while it was repaired.

His parents bend over backwards to try and keep an eye on his condition and get him the help that they are able, but the guy's in his mid-twenties; if he doesn't consent to staying in the hospital more than 72 hours, they can't keep him there. He can walk, drive, or ride a bus just like anyone else. Short of keeping him locked in the basement with no shoelaces or metal utensils, what should they do?

My friend once told me that at least when he's in jail (which happens frequently), he can at least sleep knowing where his son is.

Everyone has to sleep sometime.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[epyT-R]

So? he would've used an improvised bomb or some other method if he couldn't get access to firearms. People intent on things like this have crazy amounts of focus and motivation. The guns were just the easiest available method. Make them not the easiest available method and something else (possibly more deadly) becomes the easiest.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[painandgreed]

Speak for yourself...

Some of us like to think that S.W.A.T. is a fashion statement, especially if you accessorize.

Talk about sexy on the catwalk..sporting kevlar and flashbangs!!!

Ah, I remember my gothic-industrial club days.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[NatasRevol]

Yeah, you might want to get your facts straight before you start jumping off the deep end.

Switzerland has ~0.5 homicides per 100k population.
US has 3.7 homicides per 100k population.

In spite of having about the same number of guns per population.

It's less a gun problem, and more a mental health problem.

Feel free to try to reductio ad absurdum, but should mentally disturbed people really be operating cars or chainsaws?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[drinkypoo]

This is intriguing because handguns and assault weapons are designed specifically to kill other people,

Yes, although a handgun as a backup is a good idea while hunting dangerous game.

and the difference in gun use between Canada and the US is specifically in the use of guns to kill other people.

Now you're just making things up. You know, Canada helped us build our gun culture in the first place, not least by selling us guns. Can't get high on your own supply? We learned well; the country with the guns has a massive advantage. Can't complain because we learned too well.

Anyone who isn't a gun nut can see this

Ah yes, anyone who doesn't agree with you is crazy.

and is at least very intrigued by the possibility that Canadian-style near-elimination of handgun and assault weapons from the United States might lead to a factor of five reduction in gun homicide

I don't actually care if it results in a reduction in gun homicide, only if it results in a reduction of homicide — and without giving up freedom. I am nowhere near convinced that it is the only possible solution which might reduce homicide rates, and I am fairly certain that it is not the best way. There are other countries with lots of guns, and countries with half as many guns as we have don't have half as much gun crime. This suggests at minimum that reducing the number of guns won't necessarily proportionally reduce the crime.

Meanwhile, a firearm continues to be a valid means of self-protection in many circumstances, and many believe that widespread firearm ownership among the populace has a cooling if not chilling effect on tyranny, at least limiting its severity and scope. Why do you think gun laws are biased against minorities? Scope.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Lehk228]

I prefer my bangs to not be over in a flash.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[drinkypoo]

McVeigh was merely rising up against what he thought was a tyrannical government. He was declared sound of mind.

Of course he was, because people wanted his blood, and giving it to them is good press in our life-hungry country. But seriously, blowing up an office building was supposed to change things? He was obviously a nutter, working on a bad set of assumptions.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[msauve]

You don't follow the news much, do you? Not long ago, there was this uprising in the middle east, called "the Arab Spring..." It's still going on. There are a few dead/deposed tyrants who now wish they had had better gun control, even though they had government scale weapons to use.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[msauve]

"The offer of FREE BEER was a common incentive to attend your local militia gathering."

Then someone confused "free, as in beer" with "free, as in libre," and we had a revolution!

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Oakey]

The ones where the freedom fighters had backing from other nations? How's that working out in, say, Egypt, for example?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[sycodon]

The Second Amendment is CLEAR.

The Supreme Court was CLEAR that you are WRONG.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[camperdave]

From the font of all human knowledge:

Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Those words were written at a time when there was essentially no difference between a soldier's weapon and a civilian's. Any band of regular US troops now-a-days has far superior firepower available to them than the civilian population. Today's reality is that the only thing preventing a military takeover is the moral qualms of the officers in charge.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Obfuscant]

But seriously, blowing up an office building was supposed to change things?

Tell that to TSA as you pass through the X-ray machines the next time you want to fly somewhere. Or is the entire security theater we undergo not a change based on "blowing up an office building"? The paranoia and fright the 9/11 perps caused wasn't their intent, even though they were called "terrorists"?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[HornWumpus]

I'm hoping 'Breaking Bad' will encourage nuts to make ricin. That almost always ends with dead bathtub chemists.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[sycodon]

Hello! Is anyone home in there?

The meaning of the Second Amendment was never addressed by the Supreme Court until 2003. A previous decision regarding what kind of weapon is a militia weapon ruled out sawed off shotguns but did not speak to whether the 2nd provided a collective right or an individual right.

In 2003, the matter was ruled on and it is now settled law.

Which makes your post not worth the flakes of skin you shed while typing it or the booger that dropped into your keyboard.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[TechnoGrl]

That guy in china you referred to who stabbed 20 people ..... all of them survived. Sadly not so much Lanza'a gun assault.
Guns ARE the problem. No one "needs" and AR-15 semi except police, military and mass murderers.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

We'll have to have everyone register them as lethal weapons, take classes in their safe use and have a safety certified observer on hand whenever they are used.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

Now now, don't go bringing FACTS into a discussion about gun control. That won't do at all.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[arf_barf]

Friends of mine were in the exact same boat. It's a situation without a solution. If the patient is force medicated, they are unable to function in day to day lives. If they get of the meds, it's just a matter of weeks until they land in trouble. The worst thing is, even here in California, there is virtually no State sponsored support for mentally ill people. Ultimately the solution was to send their son to Europe to spend the rest of his life in a live-in/half-way house mental clinic. It's not cheap, but it's a fraction of the cost of what it was here in the states (for a private institution) and based on his facebook updates, he lives a almost normal life.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

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

Hunting rifle.

Granted it took actual marksmaship in that case so your point isn't totally invalid, but it's perfectly doable.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[jayveekay]

The rate of gun suicide in Canada is about equal to that in the US, which is significant because the primary purpose of owning a gun is to kill yourself: that is the most common use of guns against humans in both the US and Canada, and why wouldn't we identify the most common use as the purpose of the tool?

Look, I'm a supporter of very restrictive gun control laws, but what you wrote above is wildly incorrect. For every shot from a gun that is aimed at a human, dozens are aimed at paper targets, non-human animals, or just into the sky. So I would say that the most common use of guns is target shooting or killing non-human animals.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[sudnshok]

Firearms account for approximately 18,000 suicides annually in the US and approximately 10,000 homicides.

So, even if we lump in homicides with your suicides AND assume homicides are committed by legal gun owners (which most times they are not): 28,000 is 0.035% of 80 million gun owners in the US, which means it is NOT the "primary purpose of owning a gun". It in fact accounts for a MINISCULE use of firearms.

The primary purposes for owning a gun - BY FAR - NOT EVEN CLOSE - are self defense and sport (including competitive shooting, recreational shooting and hunting).

Also, I suspect that you are misinformed on what an "assault rifle" is which is not your fault since the media spreads so much hysteria and disinformation...

An assault rifle is a marketing term. These rifles function EXACTLY THE SAME as semiautomatic hunting rifles. The only differences are: they look more menacing, have accessory rails and a different grip. You can buy a wooden rifle - not considered an "assault rifle" - which fires the EXACT same caliber bullets, at EXACTLY the same rate with EXACTLY the same capacity.

Also, while you did not mention it here, let me also bring up "high capacity magazines" since a lot of "anti-gun wackos" (as I'll call them) bring these up for argument. The difference between shooting a 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines is about 4 seconds. With just a small amount of practice, anyone can reload in under 2 seconds.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[jayveekay]

The mother did do something: She purchased the assault rifle use to commit the massacre and kept it in her home where her sone could get it.

Could she have done something different? Sure. The mother could have kept her assault rifle and hanguns locked up at the gun range in secure storage that only she could have access to. Instead, she kept the guns at home where her son could access them, apparently without her permission since she was apparently shot in her bed that morning of the massacre.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[drinkypoo]

Tell that to TSA as you pass through the X-ray machines the next time you want to fly somewhere. Or is the entire security theater we undergo not a change based on "blowing up an office building"?

Well, no. It is a change based on how we were told to feel about blowing up an office building, and the pentagon, and allegedly almost the white house.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ehiris]

From my observation, Asperger can make people pretty impulsive and violent for no reason. Not bat-shit crazy, just very impulsive and driven. That would mean that his mental condition could have led him to the massacre even if he rationalized his actions.

One thing for sure though, he did have a lot of pent up anger at his mother.

Really sad for those children, what did they have to do with anything? There is nothing that can be done for them anymore and none of the knee-jerk reactions our politicians are about to have for political gain will help this in any way.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Obfuscant]

Saith the fellow who thinks it is just fine that TSA confiscates jars of peanut butter from elderly Korean women because he doesn't think they need to have them:

Today's reality is that the only thing preventing a military takeover is the moral qualms of the officers in charge.

No, today's reality is that the men those officers would be ordering to perform that military takeover know they'd have to shoot those civilians who have less superior weapons. Those men know that the civilian population is armed, and that dying from a gunshot wound from a rusty old .357 is still dead. When they enter the neighborhood they are taking over, they know they're going to have to kill their brothers and sisters and sons and daughters because if they don't they may wind up dead. THAT'S what's going to stop them from doing it, not some "moral qualm" of the guy who told them to do the dirty work.

What, we're supposed to give up our guns because we know the "enemy" would have superior firepower; that the second amendment is meaningless because anyone who respects it would lose in a skirmish with the government it was intended to keep in check? That we should roll over because you don't think we need to do anything more?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[canadian_right]

Too easy access to guns is a problem. If you flipp out and only have access to kitchen knives you might stab a few people, but you are very unlikely to kill 30. With a gun killing is easy.

It isn't just too many guns, but also a very cavalier attitude to gun safety. To often you read about the wrong people easily getting a hold of legal guns that are not stored safely in the USA.

The other issue is cultural - the belief that using a gun to protect yourself and solve problems involving people is a-ok. We have guns in Canada, but I don't know a single person, gun owner or not, who would consider using a gun for anything other than hunting or target shooting. Guns are not tools used against people up here unless you are a criminal. We call the police.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

The knee-jerk suggestions for dealing with mental illness amount to preemptive jailing of a large number of people, the vast majority of whom will never assault anyone.

How about removing the stigma of mental illness and encouraging people to seek treatment be it counselling or pharmacology or a combination of the aforementioned treatment types?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

It's amusing to see people alternately arguing that we shouldn't have access to "military-style" weapons and then arguing that the military will vastly outgun us. It's true that tanks and the like would be problematic, but on the other hand I like to think our rebels would learn from Iraq and work around civilian areas where heavy weapons can't be used.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[X0563511]

You know Asperger's is not a thing anymore, right? It's just autism?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ArsonSmith]

"For the moment, politically powerful pro-gun groups â" "the child-killing lobby," as the New Yorker's Adam Gopnik, another Canadian, called them Friday"

And this is why nobody thinks Canada even maters.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[kaatochacha]

I heard he used the bushmaster in the class, but i may be wrong.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[quenda]

OTOH, there were zero legitimate uses for assault rifles in the US in that period.
It sort of seems an obvious win to ban assault rifles, or at least the sale and import.

However the numbers are small, and could be seen as a distraction from the much bigger problem of handguns in America.
Which of course is tried up with Race and Drugs ... good luck there.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[PlusFiveTroll]

Not a single one of these twenty people died, though.

Which leads me to believe one of two things.

1. He wasn't trying to kill the kids
or
2. He was using a small or very dull knife.

A sharp knife is deadly.

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

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[PlusFiveTroll]

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

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[chill]

My first suggestion would be for her NOT to have several guns and associated ammunition kept in the house. Or, if she insisted, kept under lock and key with her having the only key.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[PlusFiveTroll]

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

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[kaatochacha]

Technically, you're thinking of "assault weapon". And assault rifle is a standard term.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[quenda]

It is pointless comparing gun violence between US and Canada without controlling for race and ethnicity.
Demographic differences explain the majority of the difference, though I'm sure handgun availability is important too.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[PlusFiveTroll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

Hey, you know how to get a gun when only the police have a gun? Stab the cop and take his gun, then your fucking superman against the unarmed populous.

The last group that needs guns are militarys and governments. They have shown they will wholesale genocide entire races and populations.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[quenda]

Which is why mandatory waiting periods are pointless.

Maybe pointless for mass-murder, but that is just a tiny portion of US gun homicide.
A waiting period will stop a lot of hot-blooded revenge/domestic murders.
The most common use of a gun in the US is suicide, which is also relevant.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[kaatochacha]

It wasn't an assault rifle, as it wasn't fully automatic.You're thinking of "assault weapon", which is a term that means "scary looking firearm".
But your point stands: you don't keep guns around available when mentally unstable people can get to them.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Obfuscant]

Well, no. It is a change based on how we were told to feel about blowing up an office building,

Uhh, no, it was a change based on an office building blowing up. We could have been told 100 times how we should feel were it to happen, but it actually happening is the trigger event.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ScentCone]

In China, with no guns, a mentally ill guy assaults 20 people and none of them are dead.

Right. Whereas in Japan, a guy with a kitchen knife can kill lots of school kids at once because ... knives are sharper in Japan, or knives cause more crime there? It is indeed the person, not the tool. The Chinese guy with the knife wasn't as mean or skilled, obviously. And that's really what's it all about: bad people doing bad things. They have opposable thumbs and brains - they'll kill people by one means or another if they're damaged goods enough to want to.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[barre]

Oh good, you found one, and it's only from 1927.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[jayveekay]

You are correct. The definition of "assault rifle" is a weapon that is capable of firing multiple bullets with a single trigger pull. The BushMaster does not meet that definition. My apologies for the mistake.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[cold fjord]

Much like the "pertectin' mah fambly" gun nuts who build up arsenals against the mythical home invasion,...

National Crime Victimization Survey - September 2010
Victimization During Household Burglary

*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007.

*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

*Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was present and violence occurred.

*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.

*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.

*Households residing in single family units and higher density structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be burglarized (8 per 1,000 households) while a household member was present.

*Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home
and experienced violence during a completed burglary.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[shadowofwind]

I think the demographic and economic differences between the two countries dwarf the differences in laws relating to firearms.

I'm not saying this pro or against gun control laws, just pointing out how misleading it is to compare the two countries without attempting to account for that.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[anagama]

Don't forget that the high capacity mags have a tendancy to jam so there really may not be all that much of a firing rate distinction between ten reliable ten round clips, and a jam prone 100 round clip. In fact, the reliable mags might well end up being more effective in the long run. As an example, the Colorodo Batman shooter was stymied by a jam in his 100 round magazine.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Culture20]

Then ban moral and ethical corruption. Problem solved. I feel like Reed Richards now.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[jrumney]

The knee-jerk suggestions for dealing with mental illness amount to preemptive jailing of a large number of people

Part of the problem is that dealing with mental illness has come to mean jailing the mentally ill in the US.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[brantondaveperson]

It seems that gun ownership is Switzerland is a little different to gun ownership in the US.

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

This article disputes the high level of gun ownership in Switzerland (although it talks more about Israel).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

I personally think that the existence of high-powered fully-automatic assault weapons with large magazines have no place in the hands of the general population in any society that would call itself civilized. I would go further though, I would argue that firearms of any type do not have a place in society.

Who knows, perhaps the US will start to think a little differently about its huge arsenal of weapons in public hands now that so many children have paid with their lives?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[camperdave]

Saith the fellow who thinks it is just fine that TSA confiscates jars of peanut butter from elderly Korean women because he doesn't think they need to have them:

If the lady can't survive a few hours without peanut butter, then it is a medical issue. Otherwise stow it in the checked baggage. They serve food on flights, so there's no need to have it in the carry-on.

What, we're supposed to give up our guns because we know the "enemy" would have superior firepower; that the second amendment is meaningless because anyone who respects it would lose in a skirmish with the government it was intended to keep in check? That we should roll over because you don't think we need to do anything more?

I didn't say that. I'm simply making the point that the aforementioned argument for the second amendment no longer carries the weight that it had. If the US Army turned all corrupt, the US citizenry would have a really hard time bringing it under control due to the disparity in weaponry. Some would argue that it would be impossible. It's no longer a simple numbers game like it was in the past.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[sl149q]

At some point carrying and swapping three times as many magazines gets a bit cumbersome.

I'm less likely to get shot on purpose in Canada (600 for 300+million population).

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[laxr5rs]

My thoughts exactly. For some reason I want to know what was in his mind about what he was doing, as if it matters.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ahabswhale]

"Assault rifle" is not a marketing term, it's technical term that's almost always used incorrectly. Assault rifles are combat rifles with selective fire capability and a detachable magazine. 99.9% of all weapons that civilians have are actually assault weapons -- not rifles. That is, they have detachable magazines but no selective fire capability (they are semi-auto only). (Which I'm sure you know but just posting to educate others.)

The rest of what you said is pretty much spot on.

Sadly, what will happen is that there will be intense focus on gun legislation and almost none on mental health. This country has pretty much mastered the art of ignoring those with psychological problems. And often, even when people take it seriously, proper medical care isn't affordable. If this kid had proper medical attention, this whole thing could have been avoided. When he was in high school it was well known he had problems and they watched him to make sure everything was ok. After he graduated, there were no professionals to watch him.

Personally, I'm not against reviewing current gun laws but they better be focused on what could have actually prevented recent shootings, like what happened at Sandy Hook.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ahabswhale]

She was extremely irresponsible. This kid had issues since birth.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Boronx]

When you live far enough into the boonies, and many Americans do, you really do need a gun for the same reason you need a stash of food and fuel: you're out there pretty much on your own.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Boronx]

Yeah, but as FMJ likes to point out, he was a Marine.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

True, but then there's a TON of ex-military people floating around the country right now and a lot of them are mentally/emotionally damaged. Additionally there's plenty of sport shooters and hunters that can probably give a typical Marine a run for their money.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

Given the reality of full-auto firing it's not as bad of an idea as is widely thought. The first couple shots will be on target, all the bullets after that wil be anti-aircraft fire.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[rastos1]

Guns are not the problem.

I live in a country where guns are allowed but not very common. You can see semi-automatic weapons in hands of cops and sometimes private security services transporting money. Normal guns are owned by private security services, hunters and sometimes rich people that are worried about being robbed. And criminals (I'm repeating myself in some cases). You can get a gun if you fill the paperwork, undergo some basic training and are reasonably healthy to handle it.

Now if I went berserk, I have no idea where I would go to get a gun illegally. If I would break into 100 of homes on my street while their owners are in work, I would not find one single gun. Yes, perhaps I could start visiting shady streets of the city and after half a year I could perhaps get in touch with some criminals that would sell me a gun. But going rampage because I got pissed on someone ... no way I could get a gun for that.

Perhaps the high density of weapons on square km indeed makes it easier to get one.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[dinfinity]

The PDF is more informative:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Apparently, making less than $7500 a year is pretty dangerous for a household.
Also dangerous: running a household as a single parent, an American Indian, or as someone under the age of 20.

Of course, if you are worried about violence during a burglary, know that your enemies are close to you:
"One or more household members knew the offenders in some manner in 65% of the 266,560 burglaries that took place while someone was present and experienced violence (table 17). Overall, household members knew approximately a third of these offenders as intimates (current or former) (31%), or relatives, well-knowin individuals or household acquaintances (34%)."

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[dinfinity]

So, even if we lump in homicides with your suicides AND assume homicides are committed by legal gun owners (which most times they are not): 28,000 is 0.035% of 80 million gun owners in the US, which means it is NOT the "primary purpose of owning a gun". It in fact accounts for a MINISCULE use of firearms.

I'd like to hear your opinion on the purpose of fire escapes.

An assault rifle is a marketing term. These rifles function EXACTLY THE SAME as semiautomatic hunting rifles. The only differences are: they look more menacing, have accessory rails and a different grip. You can buy a wooden rifle - not considered an "assault rifle" - which fires the EXACT same caliber bullets, at EXACTLY the same rate with EXACTLY the same capacity.

One could of course argue that that just means that semiautomatic hunting rifles can wreak equal havoc.
What does adding 'hunting' to the phrase actually change? That you can't attach a grenade launcher?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[chthon]

But in Switzerland, all gun owners are part of the army, so they are taught professionally how to handle and store guns.

I have nothing against the availability of guns, but I think that every gun owner has a responsibility, which should be taught to him by professionals, e.g. the police or the army, or pensioned people of said services.

Also, a distinction can be made between hunting rifles which need to be manually reloaded, and multi-cartridge weapons.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[chthon]

If you look at the different ways Switzerland and the USA handle these issues, it just comes down to one thing: discipline. And that is the issue with the NRA: they do not want to take the responsibility of instilling a sense of discipline and duty upon their members and gun owners in general.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[TwentyCharsIsNotEnou]

The difference between shooting a 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines is about 4 seconds. With just a small amount of practice, anyone can reload in under 2 seconds.

Are you saying that doesn't make a difference then? Four seconds sounds like a very significant amount of time for a gunman to drop his defences - both for the possibility of people escaping, or attacking the attacker. Plus, who's to say he won't fumble the reload, especially if he feels someone is about to fight back?

By the way, when people speak out against high capacity magazines, perhaps they also include 10-round ones. Reduce magazine capacity to 6, make it harder to reload... your argument gets weaker again.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Fjandr]

Just a note, the term you wanted was "assault weapon." An assault rifle is well-defined: capable of automatic or select-fire operation. "Assault weapon" is a political term for a gun that looks like an assault rifle but is not actually capable of firing more than one round with a single trigger pull.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[SecurityTheatre]

And you might note that as a result, buying a truck full of ammonium nitrate will get you a visit from the men in black... as will bringing box cutters onto a plane.

Do you disagree with all of these security measures as well?

I guess I don't have a problem with a strict libertarian argument, but guns aren't special. Either I can buy trucks of ammonium nitrate, an industrial sized vat of pseudoephedrine and an FAA approved box cutter, along with my AR-15, or I can't.

I don't think having it both ways is a good practice. It leads to the "it's OK as long as I approve of it" angle. That sorta sucks.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[SecurityTheatre]

One of the problems with this is that the military is capable of quelling almost any civilian uprising today, given technology.

I can't think of too many examples of a full-scale civilian assault on a trained military team other than the battle of Mogadishu, where the Marines and Delta teams had a kill ratio something on the order of 200:1. And these were civilians armed with AK-47 and RPGs who had experience shooting them at fleshy targets in an urban environment, not a fat housewife with a 12 gauge from Walmart who hasn't walked further than from her car to the parking lot in 10 years.

I'm on the fence about gun control laws, honestly, but I certainly don't think the weapons serve their purpose today in the way the founders intended...

Yeah, I've heard all the stupid arguments about "soldiers wouldn't shoot civilians". History denies that. Syria, Lybia, Germany, France.. hell, basically every country on the map has had a time in its history where political views drove people to rebellion which saw the military entrenched and killing civilians and civilian militias en masse.

Germany, and other places make a point of stationing security forces away from their home, so they don't run into dilemma of having to shoot their own mother or uncle and it's easy enough in human nature to dehumanize pretty much any other person as "the enemy".

It's a pretty tricky argument to make.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

"The meaning has not been twisted, the use of the word "regulate" has changed in common speech over the years since that document was written. Today we use the term "regulate" to mean control, but that is a fairly recent, modern use of the term. The correct definition of the phrase "well regulated" as it was used during that time period, and as it can still be used today, is "well trained and supplied". Back then it did not refer to controls or limits, even though that's how we use the term today."

Do you have a citation for this? I'd love to have one on hand but I'm lazy.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[toutankh]

Firearms account for approximately 18,000 suicides annually in the US and approximately 10,000 homicides.

So, even if we lump in homicides with your suicides AND assume homicides are committed by legal gun owners (which most times they are not): 28,000 is 0.035% of 80 million gun owners in the US, which means it is NOT the "primary purpose of owning a gun". It in fact accounts for a MINISCULE use of firearms.

Although to be fair, you should also take into account that each of these gun owners will own guns for more than a year of their life. Imagining they own a gun for 30 years on average (I have no clue if this is realistic) and the gun owner population stays around the same size, then 1.05% of gun owners in the US will at some point use their gun in a suicide or homicide. I would worry about it, although probably less than about tobacco.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[DarkOx]

Apparently you missed the '96 Olympics and a number of school bombings over the past 100 years. I never suggested that pipe bombs were easier than guns, just that they are easy enough such that taking guns away fails to raise the bar high enough to really stop, the sort of individual we have seen in most of these mass murder incidents.

These people are not waking up in the morning and going "I think kill 20 some people today", they plan these things for weeks even months. The choice is clear either we implement real security and address mental health issues in society or these things will continue to happen occasionally guns or not.

A few good starts would be to bar anyone on psychoactive drugs outside perhaps a narrow classification of commonly prescribe anti-depressants for going anywhere near a school, the same way we do with sex offenders.

Move all those expensive nude airport scanners to schools and have only one entry point; thru the scanner. Far few civil rights issues at schools as well, a much better application for the technology.

Stagger arrival times of students by neighborhood (so busing still works) to prevent a large number of people being all clustered together waiting to enter. Yes this means you will need to group classes by grade and geography or simply move to smaller neighborhood schools.

Mandate at least some school administrators or building security be armed, task them with and train them for responding to a potentially violent actor.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[doggo]

Yup. Like the detectives who investigated the murder of my last girlfriend, (and I paraphrase) most murders happen to people involved, in some way, in crime. The cops were pissed 'cause she was a "civilian". Violent crime happens mostly to criminals, and the poor.

After that, it's crimes of passion (Yeah, I was the prime suspect for a few hours.)

My girlfriend was innocent, she had a degree from a prestigious university, and was successfully working in her field and building a career. She was 26.

So, numbers are numbers, and there are exceptions. FWIW, no weapons were involved, firearms or otherwise. The Chicago Police caught the murderer a week later. He was convicted 3 years later. He was 17, he'll serve 45 years without parole.

My point is, crime happens. These shootings happen. And they are certainly regrettable. But the news media blow it way out of proportion.

There are too many guns in the U.S., too many arsenals. I'm a gun owner too. But I know we have a problem.

But it's less the guns, than it is the society. There's too much fear in the U.S. That's what the suburban arsenals are all about. Fear. Read a gun or knife forum, these guys talk like they're walking around in a war zone. When in reality, they live in relatively safe communities.

It's not only the fear, it's lack of mental healthcare, and healthcare in general (see the stats on suicide by firearms). It's lack of community. It's lack of social support. It's poverty, unemployment, and anger at not being able to achieve the "American Dream" we all grew up believing in. And the stupid drug laws that put marijuana smokers in hardcore prison for the equivalent of drinking a six-pack. But let's drunk drivers stay on the street.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fearofcarpet]

Exactly.

As other posters have pointed out these things are almost always planned. A guy in China stabbed twenty some people the very same day. Imagine how easy and cheap it would be to put together a few pipe bombs jacketed with small ball bearings; that would create every bit as much horror and death in a room for children as this guy was able to do using guns. You can't control the materials for that either without really crippling society. Any intelligent (though not necessarily sane) person who wants to hurt a large number of people in our society can find a way to do so, with or without a gun.

Guns are not the problem. The real danger is the mentally and our total lack of will to deal with them. This guys mother knew and had talked about him burning himself days before the incident. She obviously understood things were very wrong but did nothing. As a society we at most pump people with dangerous mental pathology full of drugs their own doctors hardly know what effect will have and send them back out among us. In probably the majority of cases we do nothing about them at all. Certainly its true in the 20th century, having people committed was abused. It might be unfair and cruel to lock many of these folks away in psych wards but at least they'd not be out hurting people. Lord knows I don't like health care reform the way it was done but at least some seriously disturbed people might get near to a profession who could possible declare them a threat and get something done about them.

Notice how every, single argument against gun control follows the same "why bother" pattern: Guns aren't the problem, murderers are murderers without or without them, therefore (and this is the important part) there is no point to attempting any reforms because they are pointless. Why bother banning high capacity clips when you can make them so easily from some sheet metal or springs? (I heard that one this morning on the radio.) Why bother regulating assault rifles when there are already so many of them that it won't make a difference? Why bother making it harder for people to buy handguns when criminals will get them illegally anyway? Why bother regulating one type of gun when any gun is potentially lethal?

Sure, it makes no sense to treat the symptoms of mental and emotional disorders rather than the cause and pumping depressed kids full of drugs is a bad idea, but WTF does that have to do with guns? The problem is with insane policies, not insane people (except maybe the crazies that keep voting for them.) Does it really make sense that I can only hunt ducks with three shells in the gun (which is enforced by game wardens), but that I can walk around in public with a 36-round clip in a concealed handgun? I mean, seriously, we regulate the crap out of guns when it comes to hunting, while we let people with violent criminal records who are on terrorist watch lists buy handguns over the counter, but not board airplanes. And any idiot can buy an RPG and an assault rifle at a gun show. There aren't even any laws against gun trafficking in the US. I can sell rifles from a lemonade stand on the street corner or over the Internet, but not marijuana seeds because somehow drugs are a far bigger threat to children than gun-wielding maniacs.

I am just so goddamn sick of the "guns don't kill people, people do" crap. We banned non-metallic guns in the 80's (i.e., guns that would not show up on X-ray or magnetometers) unequivocally and the King of England did not invade, nor did the black helicopters descend in droves to unsuspecting suburban neighborhoods. We can certainly ban guns whose only purpose by design is to kill as many people as possible and it won't infringe on the sacred rights of hunters, target shooters, or collectors... either that are charge $5,000 a bullet. Maybe Chris Rock should run for office. How's Al Franken doing?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ultima]

Manually reloaded? I'm not sure what you mean.

The Ruger Mini-14 is a typical hunting rifle, semiautomatic action, that uses magazines that are similar to NATO STANAG (they look like AR-15) but lower capacity.
The Remington 1100 is a typical hunting shotgun, semiautomatic action, capable of firing 00-buckshot, where each shotshell contains 8+ pellets, each potentially lethal on a human-sized target.
The Uberti Revolving Carbine is a fancy black-powder muzzleloader, suitable for hunting, that can fire six .44-caliber shots before reloading, thanks to a revolving breech (like a revolver pistol). And it's not even Federally a firearm, since it doesn't use fixed ammunition.

These three weapons are also specifically identified as hunting rifles in the expired Assault Weapons Ban. They are so far in the realm of intentioned and effective hunting weapons that they were called out.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ultima]

The issue with your approach is that it still allows someone to get close to the school while armed. The solution we found in the military was the concept of remote Entry Control Points. You don't do much other than move the scanner and entrance a few hundred (or thousand) feet away from the school. The military doesn't even typically even have to build fences to keep people from skirting around the ECP - they just shoot anyone who happens to go over a particular painted line. (You wouldn't want to do exactly this at the school, but the point is that it doesn't need to be complicated or expensive). But, even if we did that, we'd stop in 5 years, because with an ECP, you wouldn't catch criminals, you'd deter them, so there'd be no evidence they were working, and they'd be defunded eventually.

There's a good point that if the school administrators had been armed, it's not that the attacker would have been shot down, but that he would have never tried in the first place. The concept is that he went for the softest target, and that if there were no soft targets, he might have killed just his mother and himself. The compromise is to find a way to keep malls and schools from being soft targets without arming everyone.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[JMandingo]

If 20 kids were injured and none of them killed then the attacker wasn't really trying to kill them. He must have been slashing instead of stabbing. FBI statistics say 6 out of 10 gunshot victims die from sustained injuries 8 out of 10 knife attack victims die from sustained injuries.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[sl4shd0rk]

Not a single one of these twenty people died, though.

You're missing the point. Gun, knife, screwdriver, razor blade, hammer, baseball bat -- all have been used to kill people. You can argue the numbers too, but being stabbed in the Kidney and suffering from a lifetime of disabilities isn't the lighter side of a tragedy just because it "wasn't a lot of people".

Regulating the method or device simply puts in place an unrealistic feeling of security. The nut jobs are still going to pop. Time and time again these tragedies are oftentimes a follow up some deranged behavior which was previously known and should have been taken as a warning. Society does not have an adequate way to deal with mentally troubled people so nobody does. We wait for them to do something tragic, or just lock them up. That's where the focus needs to be. Not closing down every Sporting Goods store.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Grizzley9]

The problem has two parts: mental illness and guns. In China, with no guns, a mentally ill guy assaults 20 people and none of them are dead. In the US, with prolific guns, a mentally ill guy assaults 28 people, and 26 are dead.

That's rather selective of events though. In OKC, McVeigh blew up 19 kids and killed 150 more with some fertilizer and other common ingredients. No guns needed.

Hundreds if not thousands (esp worldwide) of children die every year from starvation, which is long drawn out death vs instant, 'more bad' IMHO. Thousands to millions more die via a simple knife and suction before they get out of the womb. Yet these children are not at the forefront of discussion. Should AR's be regulated? Of course. Should we limit gun ownership where reasonably possible, yes. Yet, none of that would have prevented the event.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Nadaka]

Why, nothing, of course.

Go raw dog, unless your partners have not been tested recently.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[redwraith94]

His knife wasn't sharp enough, wanna guess where it was made?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[sharkey]

"Assault Rifle" is a technical term, for a light rifle firing an intermediate round that is capable of selective fire, switching between semi-auto (one round fired per trigger press) and full-auto (more than one round fired per trigger press). It IS abused by the media, either through ignorance or to grind a political axe, as a term to describe any long arm used in a crime that does not look like Elmer Fudd's shotgun.

"Assault Weapon" is the made up term by the Brady campaign to sound scary, as part of the campaign described by Eric Holder to brainwash people to their way of thinking. The truly extremist "journalists" tend to use this term.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CanHasDIY]

And that is the issue with the NRA: they do not want to take the responsibility of instilling a sense of discipline and duty upon their members and gun owners in general.

Of course they don't, for the same reasons the American Cancer Society doesn't give a rats-ass about curing cancer: they are lobbying organizations, that only exist for the purpose of purchasing political favor.

FWIW, I'm an adamant gun-rights advocate, and I think the NRA are scum,for the reasons you list and more.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CanHasDIY]

The interesting thing is that the guy in China who stabbed all those kids didn't kill anybody. I think this proves how the tools that a crazy person has access to really does have an effect on the outcome.

Or, it proves that intent to kill is necessary.

Or, it proves none of the above, as correlation != causation.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ImprovOmega]

How come that these kinds of accidents never happen in Switzerland where guns are really abundant, but 99% of the gun related deaths are suicide (1% is made up from unintentional, homicide or remains undetermined).

We're not so far off the mark though. 65%-70% of gun deaths in this country are by suicide, and your are 5x as likely to die in a car accident than be killed by someone else with a gun.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[BasilBrush]

Don't forget these two:
*According to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports, 430 burglary-related homicides occurred between 2003 and 2007 on average annually. This number translates to less than 1% of all homicides during that period.

* Between 2003 and 2007, approximately 2.1 million household burglaries were reported to the FBI each year on average. Household burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all burglaries during that period.

So, 430 burglary related homicides. Now, how many homicides are caused by the ownership of guns? Bear in mind that guns kill the owner or a family member or an innocent visiter far more often than they kill an intruder.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[sfsp]

> What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia.

"Regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the language in 1787, "well regulated" essentially meant "using standardized equipment".

>If all gun owners were compelled to be members of a militia...

You have this entirely backwards. By US law, you are probably already a member of the Militia:

"UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

        Â 311. Militia: composition and classes

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b) The classes of the militia are --

        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

        and

        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

As always, your "rights" have associated "responsibilities". Along with the right to bear arms, you have the responsibility to know how to use said arms and be prepared to take them up in defense of the nation and the Constitution.

As a militia member, do you know how to secure, maintain, and operate your arms? Do you even HAVE arms?

> tell the NRA they, as a group, will now be held responsible for the actions of their members...

Do you really think that all gun owners are members of the NRA? I assure you, they're not. NRA membership is about 4.3 million; number of gun owners in America, about 52 million. Further, the NRA is by no stretch of the imagination a "militia".

Further, the number of criminals with guns, compared with the number of responsible gun owners, is such a small percentage as to be ignored in most common circumstances.

> The meaning has been twisted over the years, but the original intent is obvious because it is literal.

The 2nd Amendment has not been twisted; it's a complex sentence, but not hard to understand. It is a dependent clause, followed by the independent clause. The independent clause, which stands alone, is:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If you don't LIKE this, you have only one choice: have an amendment passed repealing the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[BasilBrush]

I'm saddened buy your loss. And I'm impressed by your clarity of thought. That was the most insightful post I've read on Slashdot for a while.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[wiggles]

Fear - the most concise explanation I've read so far for all these shootings. Paranoia, fear, mistrust of the government, of one's own neighbors, of one's own family. You nailed this one on the head.

That fear is bred by our divisive politics and our sensationalist media. I blame the news more than I blame guns and gun ownership. I think gun ownership is another symptom of the problem - not the problem itself. Banning assault weapons won't work.

What's the solution? Funding public mental health hospitals and asylums are a step in the right direction. Treatment over incarceration is the right direction as well. Psychological testing of school children might help identify potential problems and get kids the help they need before it's too late. Finally, ratchet down the political rhetoric.

Ultimately, though, history shows that whenever we have a dramatic shift of how society functions, we have an increase in violence. Either we have a war (American Revolution, American Civil War, etc) or we have riots like in the 60's, anarchist bombings like the Haymarket Riot, assassinations like Lincoln, or many other examples throughout history. Unfortunately, we live in turbulent times currently, where we have a national conversation on moderately changing the entire direction of the country - changing how we operate for the first time since Jimmy Carter left office. Naturally, it's going to lead to a lot of fear, and as a result, a lot of violence.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CanHasDIY]

I can... tell you... society doesn't want...

Fuck you, you don't get to speak for me or anyone else outside your own head.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[BasilBrush]

The sum total of school massacres with guns is greater than the sum total with explosives.

Explosives are tightly controlled, so why not guns?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CanHasDIY]

That guy in china you referred to who stabbed 20 people ..... all of them survived. Sadly not so much Lanza'a gun assault. Guns ARE the problem. No one "needs" and AR-15 semi except police, military and mass murderers.

Am I really the only person who remembers how the 9/11 hijackers managed to take over the planes?

They sure as fuck didn't do it with guns.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Nadaka]

That or a flashmob that descends into an orgy.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[schn]

pretty ballsy to say that 52% is only. in aus after one mass murder we locked up / bannd all the guns and haven't had one since and the gun kill rate dropped 30x.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Razed By TV]

Society has desires. Whether or not you go along with them is another matter entirely.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CanHasDIY]

Sure.

And who died to make you Lord King and Keeper of Society's Desires? Nobody. Therefore, my original "fuck you" and it's addendum stand, with an additional "go fuck yourself" for arguing about it.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

Guns are part of the problem. What legitimate reason could anyone have for owning an AR15? Don't you dare say hunting. If you can't kill a deer with a standard hunting rifle, you need a new hobby. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with a disturbed individual trying to build a bomb than getting their hands on an assualt rifle. No matter how easy you think it is to build a bomb, firing a gun is far simpler. Anyone looking up how to build a bomb is also going to end up on watch lists and could potentially (chances are likely slim though) be picked up before something happens. If he had come in wielding knives, there is a decent chance the principal and other staff member that died trying to stop him would have succeeded. They may still have died, but those 20 children would be alive.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Cederic]

One of the problems with this is that the military is capable of quelling almost any civilian uprising today, given technology.

Ah, the fucking irony.

Yeah, I've heard all the stupid arguments about "soldiers wouldn't shoot civilians". History denies that. Syria [...]

Yes. Syria. Where soldiers shoot civilians and yet haven't quelled a citizen uprising. Despite having tanks, artillery, modern air support..

Get a fucking clue.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Reziac]

When I was a kid, firearms safety was taught even in grade school (you didn't have a choice, you attended the class). Now, if a school required such a class, the anti-gun wackos would throw a fit about "teaching our kids to be violent", and guess which side would "win" in the news media.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[sd4f]

Today's reality is that the only thing preventing a military takeover is the moral qualms of the officers in charge.

That's why they're trained to follow orders, and not think!

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

cant wear those, only mass killers wear those like in 99, or im told anyway

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

oh, I guess its ok then.....ass

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

true, they have been illegal for most of the past 50

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

so aus has a full ban on guns... yet guns still kill people there......

yeah gun bans work... only a 30X drop when we take away 100% of the guns it should be a complete stop

criminals ARE criminals, they dont care what is legal/illegal

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

ok.. im not a gun nut

you are an idiot

any of those state u decided to post, have no meaning. Ok so gun suicide is lower, who gives a flying fuck if someone offs themself? and on top of that who cares HOW they do it??

when 61 of 62 mass murders in the past 30 years happen in gunfreezones, its clear the problem isnt guns, its crazy

work on crazy, we might fix the issue, MIGHT being the key word, there will always be crazy

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

at some point you are right, but by that point ive shot a whole lot of people

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

yeah and if i am in a gun free zone, I can take all the time in the world

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

4 seconds is a HUGE amount of time.... that is unless you are the shooter in the gunfree zone, than 4 seconds is not shit. 61 of 62 mass murders in 30 years took place in gun free zones... in that case, 4 seconds has no meaning for all but one situation

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[rmdingler]

As per a wise poster in a previous thread, the guns are force-multipliers. Pipe bombs require a bit of mechanical skill and some additional time to build, meaning there's a chance someone could've hugged the Connectinut and altered his path. The guns were too readily available to him at a moment when he was prepared to watch the world burn.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[rmdingler]

Agreed...and we lived on a ranch near the Mexican border in south Texas. I have heard folks say they were in the middle of nowhere, but this outfit was as far removed from emergency services as I would imagine you could be outside of some of our Aussie brothers. Thirteen miles of bad (5 mph) road to the highway, and hitting the highway meant you were still two hours from Del Rio. Illegal border crossing emigres came by the house every week or two, We had hunting rifles and shotguns. There was never a need for anything else.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Ol Olsoc]

Guns are not the problem.

Yes, we know Guns don't kill people People with guns kill people

I've heard so many alternative killing methods in the recent past, You really have to wonder why perps don't use them, instead of the trusty Bushmaster.

Well, the reason is that that Bushmaster is an obvious choice for mowing down a lot of people quickly. It's an assault weapon.

So simple statements like "Guns are not the problem" just become wordplay, not unlike falling out of an airplane doesn't kill people, it's the place where they land.

I have no problems with people owning firearms. I own a few myself. But I cannot find a good logical reason for people to have assault weapons. If you want to hunt, there are many fine rifles out there designed for that purpose.

Another issue is of the self-polarization taken by the NRA and their more intense supporters. For too long, any sort of discussion instantly descends into name calling, because they are trained to see any sort of regulation as a slippery slope that will end only in "jack-booted government thugs". That is from the NRA in fact, and the term was defended by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne La- Pierre.

Would an assault weapon ban stop school killings? No. But it would be a step in the right direction. It's just too easy to pick up one of these things, load up some clips, and become a really efficient killing maching. So easy. Way too easy.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Ol Olsoc]

Not a single one of these twenty people died, though.

And that is a really good point that puts the lie to the false equivalences that some people like to engage in.

We could take this to an extreme: People kill themselves and others in cars....

Let's ban cars!

Remember that woman who drowned her children the bathtub in Texas 10 or so years ago?....

Let's ban Bathtubs - heck let's ban water!

We have knives and cars and bathtubs for a reason. To cut the many things that need cut, to get from place to place, and to engage in personal hygeine. An assault rifle has a more lethal purpose as it's primary reason for existence.

I enjoy and use guns - but there has to be a middle ground where assault weapons are not the device of choice for mass killers.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

more likely to be hit with lightning than killed in a mass murder. Yeah the stats dont bother me 1 bit

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ganjadude]

not in a gunfree zone they dont... which is where 61 of 62 mass shootings have happend in the past 30+ years....

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Falconhell]

And neither does spelling apparently. Child killing lobby seems a fair description to me. Still the rest of the world now gets Americans are totally out of touch with reality when it comes to guns. We go about our daily lives never once feeling the need to have a gun because they are almost never seen in our societies, and shake our heads in sadness every time there is yet another mass killing in the US, wondering if you will ever get it. Getting rid of the guns was the best thing our government ever did. It WORKED bitches, and all the bullshit in the world will not change that.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Nothing2Chere]

Someone mentioned the Catwalk, so I was thinking "Ahh, the 90's in Seattle...I remember them well." It amount to the same comment as yours, I think. n2ch

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Falconhell]

Well put AC, pity Americans will never get it. Their love a violence, and belief in violence to solve problems is endemic. Just watch a Us cop drama, you can bet there will be at least 6 people shot and an explosion during the intro credits for goodness sake. It is utterly pointless trying to reason with them. Plain clear statistics prove the case beyond all doubt, but all they will do is pick a very rare incidence in other countries and cry shrilly " It doesnt make any difference".

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[X0563511]

Malice/spite.

Doing so would make it harder on everyone investigating, meaning he managed to adversely affect more people. More bang for the buck.

Bastard.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Algae_94]

You're splitting hairs to make an anti gun argument. I didn't realize there were kinds of mass murder.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Algae_94]

banning "assault weapons" is a fools errand. It is nigh impossible to come up with a definition of an "assault weapon" that conveniently allows the sale and use of large caliber hunting rifles. I mean, look at the previous "ban". They were counting attributes like bayonet lugs, threaded barrels, and grenade launchers. Surely those elements make a gun more combat ready, but lack of them does not prevent large scale shootings.

Restrictions on high cap magazines would be the best of a lot of questionable choices. Then any type of firearm would still be allowed, but any spree killers would have to carry more magazines and spend more time reloading. Unfortunately, as we saw after the 1994 ban, the plethora of pre-existing large cap mags was still available and could be purchased. The only people the ban helped were those that had stocked up on these mags pre-ban as they started to fetch a large price during the ban and gun manufacturers right before the ban as people bought up everything they could get. Looking at news reports of current gun sales shows this pattern repeating.

Most of these gun control laws serve to benefit the firearm manufacturers. Look at the 1989 ban of importing non-sporting weapons (AKA "assault rifles"). All that did was allow domestic manufacturers to become the go to source of foreign designed guns (AK's, SKS, etc.), and even if you wished to import a wholly foreign made gun, a number of the parts had to be replaced with American made parts.

When laws that are intended to limit gun availability serve to benefit American gun manufacturers, you realize that the gun lobby does indeed have a lot of power.

For what it's worth an AR-15 was used in addition to the 2 9mm pistols.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Algae_94]

The rate of gun suicide in Canada is about equal to that in the US, which is significant because the primary purpose of owning a gun is to kill yourself: that is the most common use of guns against humans in both the US and Canada, and why wouldn't we identify the most common use as the purpose of the tool?

You've made a logical error. You have equated the most common use of guns against humans as the most common usage of guns in general. I think very few people would agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill yourself.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[M2616]

Accidental gun discharges in the US kill 10 times more people alone then actual gun homicides in a country like Japan that prohibits gun ownership.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[schn]

1. no we have proper gun control. every gun must be registered and have a purpose, i.e. you must belong to a shooting club or own a license. 2. therefore not 100% of guns have been taken. and a 30x drop is the opposite of not working, if you aren't stupid 3. adam lanza was not a criminal he was mentally ill

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

Compare the homicide rates in Australia pre and post-ban. They went up, slightly, but up. Guns aren't the problem, taking them away won't stop murders, probably won't have a significant positive impact at all on crime. Of course GUN crime would go down, which people would trumpet as proof of the new utopia.

We already HAVE "responsible gun regulation", we just have terrible social issues that cause violence.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

Hows the overall murder rate? My understanding is that it went UP after the gun ban. The latest number I saw are down but it took 6 years. Gun crime dropped immediately, murders stayed high until about 6 years later. I doubt there's causation between a drop 6 years after the ban.

That's not counting non-murder crime either.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

"Surely, the self-defense argument is voided if there are no guns with which to attack you."
I loled heartily, taking away guns in Britain and Australia caused significant increases in violent crime. Without guns the physically powerful can act with near impunity as they don't fear retaliation.

"And I'd have thought the sacrifice of gun-sports would be a small price to pay for any kind of reduction in the number of school shootings."
It's not just shooting sports, it's self-defense, defense of the nation (against external OR internal threats), and it's freedom. More to the point it's addressing the symptom rather than the disease.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[SkimTony]

The really interesting thing, though, is that the rate of gun homicide in Canada is less than 20% of that in the US (0.7 per 100,000 vs somewhat more than 4 per 100,000)

It's also important to note that Canada's population is about 10% of the population of the US, and population densities are similarly much smaller. Population density is a huge indicator, if not cause, of crime rates.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[schn]

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html It has been on a declining trend with no statistically significant fluctuations (note only 300 total homicides). Note also that a constant homicide rate is actually about -5% year on year in per capita due to pop growth. Australia never had gun culture or ghetto culture so the homicide rate was always really low. Regardless it's all a strawman. Most of the calls for gun control stem from preventing massacres not low number homicide. In that regard the Australian gun control worked perfectly - we have had zero since Port Arthur.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[SkimTony]

Yeah, this should be an interesting show-down. "Well, Tea Partiers, you have a choice; turn in your guns, or pony up for universal heath care, including comprehensive mental health care."

I don't think this episode in our history will end without some kind of change being made. Hopefully it's meaningful, and not (as a coworker mentioned) having to take off your shoes to enter a school (as we do to enter an airport).

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[SkimTony]

Calling the police is only useful if you have a reasonable expectation that the police will show up and help you. In the United States, that is not the case. Therefore, people who feel unsafe will find other ways to protect themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Lumpy]

I can kill far more people faster with a car than you can with a fully automatic weapon. And cars dont require a background check to get them, plus the things are lying around everywhere ready for use.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Lumpy]

"What would you have her do? The guy was legally an adult, and she couldn't possibly have kept a 24-hour watch on him."

Call the local police and tell them he is dangerous and armed. They typically respond to that kind of stuff.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[SecurityTheatre]

Lets be clear here, the Syrian military IS NOT taking losses. They have lost a few dozen soldiers to almost 50,000 civilian deaths.

No planes have been shot down, no tanks have been lost.

The Syrian military could certainly continue doing what they're doing indefinitely. The only reason they face trouble is extrinsic to the conflict. International pressure, sanctions and the threat of invasion from Turkey or the UN is the only threat against a semi-modern military. The people themselves, are little threat, except politically.

How's that for a clue?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[scot4875]

I would like to thank you for keeping a rational sense of perspective about the world, despite your loss. Too many people have the attitude that "something horrible happened to me! Everybody should live in fear because of it!" and it's created an incredibly unhealthy environment of distrust for us to live in, despite the fact that violent crime has been on the decline for decades.

--Jeremy

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[fredgiblet]

Those number are slightly different than the ones I saw before, probably because the year is starting in the middle on those charts. It's nice you didn't have any massacres, I'm sure that's consolation to the higher number of people who died in '98-'02, at least they can know they died alone. I wonder if you have insight to what happened in '02, the numbers I saw indicated that most crime dropped like a rock around then, it looks like that was far more effective than the gun ban in preventing crime.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Occams]

The problem is that he has to kill himself too. Doing that with the bomb removes all the fun of watching people die. Doing it with a knife is too difficult.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[mikael]

He wasn't wearing body armour:

http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/12/27/news/doc50dce5187860b303917697.txt?mobredir=false

Rookie

[kc67]

Should have used DBAN.

Re:Rookie

[The MAZZTer]

How do you know he didn't?

Re:Rookie

[kc67]

It wasn't a joke, even if it is modded as such. I was simply stating that he should have used DBAN... a little nerd insight. The guy is scum and I wish the families the best during this tough time.

He was on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

His behaviors match that of typical anonymous posters.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do anything this guy did? Maybe he was just a crazy paranoid asshole.

Whatever

[sunking2]

The fact that he tried to physically destroy things means he isn't nearly as smart as they want us to believe. They'll get quite a bit of it back. And more than likely will be able to get a pretty good profile of him by sequestering logs from various services, be it ISP, Xbox Live, etc.

Re:Whatever

[cwebster]

Given his willingness to use a gun and the article states the disk platter was removed from the casing, its not a stretch to imagine he put a couple of bullets through that too. That will make data recovery a bit harder.

Re:Whatever

[The MAZZTer]

That's funny, everything I've heard says the ONLY WAY to be completely sure your data is wiped is to physically destroy the disk.

Of course it wouldn't hurt to do a software-based wipe first, and who says he didn't?

Re:Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get why you'd say this?

I mean, yeah, DBAN would nuke data... but that takes HOURS when I can drill, shoot, or microwave a drive in minutes. Even an oven to degauss would be quicker.

Shattering a hard drive immediately takes it beyond all off-the-shelf forensics providers without leaving any doubts about the firmware, disk recovery sectors, MBR backups... It also takes it beyond the capabilities of most agencies that aren't commercial. You simply *can't* plug it into a purchased capture device at that point.

Yes, it's theoretically possible to recover it with cleanroom techniques at that point... but I'm pretty sure recovery is exactly...that... theory -- when you're pulling dust, debris, and shards of glass out of it... And even if it's not -- it's a massive time difference.

Are you trying to allude to the cloud data that should exist? I think half the point of the physical destruction was to delay and wholly prevent discovering any cloud sources he may have used as long as possible.

They'll have to get his email address from friends and family now, look up the logs, check with the ISP for any traffic from that originating address... look for any traffic on a huge list of known providers from the same address ...filter that down.

Unless his ISP has incredible capture, it's going to be near impossible to find what website or forums he's visited in a timely manner... much less chat programs or other likely mediums like WoW/Ventrilo

Their best bet is probably actually checking the home router to see if it has logs or DNS cached...

Re:Whatever

[i kan reed]

You can nuke the bits and destroy the disk. They aren't mutually exclusive operations.

Re:Whatever

[Jawnn]

The fact that he tried to physically destroy things means he isn't nearly as smart as they want us to believe. They'll get quite a bit of it back. And more than likely will be able to get a pretty good profile of him by sequestering logs from various services, be it ISP, Xbox Live, etc.

No, they won't. This is a simple murder case, a high-profile one to be sure, but it's not going to get the very expensive resources needed to recover the data that was stored on now-shattered hard drive platters.

Re:Whatever

[icebike]

The fact that he tried to physically destroy things means he isn't nearly as smart as they want us to believe. They'll get quite a bit of it back. And more than likely will be able to get a pretty good profile of him by sequestering logs from various services, be it ISP, Xbox Live, etc.

Ah, no, they will get nothing back.

There is a huge myth around data recovery from physically damaged hard disk drives that all stems from an article written by Peter Gutmann as a research paper.
In the real world (Even the NSA's real world) this can not be done.

They have a much better chance of getting something back from the nvram in a cell phone uses as a clay pigeon.

Re:Whatever

[blueg3]

Gutmann's paper is actually the basis for the myth that you can recover data from a logically-wiped drive: that is, one that's been entirely overwritten with other data (e.g. zeroes).

That, too, cannot be done.

Re:Whatever

[MichaelSmith]

Maybe just attack the surfaces with an angle grinder.

Re:Whatever

[LordLucless]

That's funny, everything I've heard says the ONLY WAY to be completely sure your data is wiped is to physically destroy the disk.

That depends on your definition of "completely sure". From what I understand, data recovery by measuring the differences in accumulated charge on individual bits has been theorized for ages, but has never actually been managed in reality - even on platters that were far less dense (and thus, theoretically easier to perform this procedure on) than current ones.

Re:Whatever

[idontgno]

As long as you do them both in that precise order.

Re:Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you trace back the origins of Gutmann's paper, you'll find the dead hand of NSA propagandists. A scientific or mathematical lie, well told, in an apparently respectable paper, will be massively influential. It is the job of the NSA to ensure targets use the WORST possible security protocols. It is infinitely easier for the security services to handle weakly protected data, than to build massively expensive tools to recover strongly protected data.

This leads to a two-fold strategy. The NSA inserts its people into every major software company, and degrades the security methods, and inserts backdoors. The second part is targeting sites like Slashdot with fake nonsense about the ease with with data recovery can be done by the government, even when best security protocols have been applied.

Why does Microsoft own Skype, for instance? Because, heaven forbid a Skype-like service became popular with Truecrypt strength encryption available end-to-end. Microsoft safeguards the popularity and laughably easy interception properties of Skype, just the way the NSA and other security agencies desire.

Contrary to popular propaganda, strong encryption cannot be effectively banned, but it sure as hell can be discouraged.

PS only a complete idiot would attempt to erase a HDD with a repeated data value. Erasing must be done with a data stream indistinguishable from normal data, so that the firmware of the HDD cannot fool the erasing attempt by using sector-empty flags alone. HDD manufactures, like printer manufactures, have all adopted NSA friendly firmware. Your printer identifies itself on ever document it prints, for the same reason the old Soviet Union use to register each typewriter in the bad old days. Your HDD attempts to preserve the data in a sector, so will simply flag the sector empty with the data preserved, unless you make this impossible by writing (NEVER by using the HDD erase functions) new data into the sector.

Re:Whatever

[timeOday]

Of course, he may have also wiped it before smashing it.

Re:Whatever

[GigsVT]

You can sometimes recover overwritten data on media that has huge bits like old floppy disks. The "shadow" of the overwritten data will remain, or in some cases, tracking errors will leave an edge of the old data behind.

Scaling that down to the near quantum level that modern disks operate on is not really feasible though.

Re:Whatever

[PlusFiveTroll]

Not really, smash the disk apart, then heat it up glowing read.

Re:Whatever

[blueg3]

Doesn't really matter. If he succeeded in damaging the platters much at all, it's unrecoverable. (A damaged drive with undamaged platters is recoverable.) If he didn't, then we'll find out if he wiped it or not. If he wiped it, that's also unrecoverable.

Re:Whatever

[blueg3]

That's what Gutmann's paper is about, actually. As far as I know, it may have been done on test data in a lab, but it's never been put to real use in the field even once.

Re:Whatever

[Methuseus]

It can be, depending on what writing program was used. There are supposed wipe programs that don't actually write the bits in a proper way, but if he used DBAN, or another easy to find tool, you're right.

Re:Whatever

[blueg3]

I'm not counting disk-erasing programs that don't erase the disk in any meaningful sense. Those aren't really disk-erasing programs so much as they are a pile of crap. (Alternately, they're a confusion about what a feature is supposed to do.)

Sadly, one of the techniques that sometimes does nothing is a vendor's implementation of the ATA (ENHANCED) SECURE ERASE UNIT command, which is a shame, because the vendor could have just declared that it doesn't implement the command.

Re:Whatever

[YodasEvilTwin]

The impression I had was that you can certainly infer (if not recover) data from magnetic media since it's essentially an analog medium; the magnetic charge has a variance and overwriting a 1 with a 0 will result in a different charge than a bit that never had a 1 written to it at all. Your statement is certainly correct for flash media.

Re:Whatever

[blueg3]

You roughly have the theory correct -- it's based on magnetic hysteresis. There's actually electrical hysteresis for flash memory (which is a thoroughly different mechanism), but it's a much different effect and not useful for trying to read remnants of past data.

However, even old, simple hard drives don't quite follow the simplistic model you're thinking of and applying this in the field is particularly challenging. (Note that in the field you don't get a copy of the past state of the drive and your ability to perform tests on it is limited. So while you can demonstrate in a lab that there is a reasonable probability of differentiating between a 1-bit written to a location that used to contain a 0-bit and one written to a location that used to contain a 1-bit, in the field all you get are measurements of the current magnetic state of the drive. Each cell could have been overwritten many, many times. Even if you have a similar disk to perform testing on, working back from a single measurement of the drive's magnetic state to its previous contents is a very challenging task.)

Modern hard drives store data in a form that is nothing like that simple model. Signals are complex and packed very closely together, to the point that hystersis effects are impossible to measure accurately enough for any attempt at data recovery. (Even Gutmann has said this.)

Re:Whatever

[YodasEvilTwin]

Makes sense, thanks!

100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America. Roughly about 1/3 accidents, 1/3 suicides, and 1/3 deliberate homicides. Dwelling on massacres like Sandy Hook is not really a good idea for many reasons. Most gun homicides are committed with handguns, by people with long records of violent crime, and are done more often than not in heated emotion. But these school massacres fit none of those patterns. They are usually done with rifles, by people that are "odd" and loners but without any record of violent crime, and they are usually meticulously planned. In many ways these make them the hardest violent acts to prevent. We should focus on preventing more on the everyday killings, many of which should be preventable, instead of focusing too much on the black swans where any plausible effort is unlikely to make much difference.

We should try to learn from history: On January 17th, 1989 Patrick Purdy walked into a school yard in Stockton, California, and opened fire on the children playing there, killing five and wounding 29. In the months that followed, legislation was rushed through to outlaw rifles similar in appearance to the one he used. Back in those days, it was common for gun owners to support "common sense" gun control. But they watched gun control advocates, who often claimed that they wanted to restrict handguns and not hunting guns such as rifles and shotguns, use this tragedy to push through bans on rifles and only rifles, and do so on the basis of appearance (shape of the grip, bayonet stud, etc.) rather than functionality. The result had a negligible effect on crime, but resulted in a significant decline in support for gun control in America. There was also a strong political backlash. Many pro-gun-control politicians lost elections, and the urban-rural split between the two major political parties became more pronounced. I really hope that we do something more sensible this time.

Re:100 more will die today

[cayenne8]

I really hope that we do something more sensible this time.

So, what are you going to do?

Unless you outright ban guns....or possibly legislate it so that only single shot weapons are legal, you're not going to change or do anything.

Only law abiding people follow the laws...criminals, by definition, aren't going to abide by them.

And banning guns tomorrow, totally...would not affect gun crime in the US for decades, there are just too many guns and ammo to be had out there. If you did this...again, only the law abiding would suffer at the hands of criminals which would still be fully and heavily armed.

I'm sorry, shit happens. Crazy people are out there, and will pop up from time to time, and kill lots of people.

Hell, wasn't there recently a killing spree at a grade school in German or somewhere else in Europe where the killing and damage done was with a knife?

Re:100 more will die today

[NevarMore]

I really hope that we do something more sensible this time.

What do you consider sensible? Banning guns outright? Banning different features of guns? Requiring more burdensome checks on law-abiding gun owners? Improving mental health care? Creating an avenue to report pre-crime?

I hear a lot of people saying that we gotta do something, but that completely fails to skip over our disagreements on what needs to be done if anything.

Re:100 more will die today

[dingDaShan]

++++ This is the most sensible thing that I've heard on the situation. Let's mourn the victims, but not let this be a cause to further erode freedom.

Re:100 more will die today

[jkrise]

Your lengthy post makes for very chilling reading... I ask because I do not know - how easy / difficult is it for an adult in the US to buy a gun / rifle / whatever that can be used to shoot people dead?

Re:100 more will die today

[hondo77]

And banning guns tomorrow, totally...would not affect gun crime in the US for decades, there are just too many guns and ammo to be had out there.

It would be worth the wait.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you outright magically cause all guns everywhere to vanish into thin air....or possibly legislate it so that only single shot weapons are legal, you're not going to change or do anything.

Fixed for accuracy, as banning a thing doesn't make it go away.

Re:100 more will die today

[fermion]

To some extent I agree. For instance we waste a huge amount of time and money with USDA and the FSIS inspection and certification of meat. We don't really need it. Yes a few people will get sick and die but all this legislation has been hastily passed over the years in reaction to the fact that a few people can't make responsible choices. I mean if someone gets sick over meat, won't that mean that firm will go out of business and the situation will correct itself. otherwise it is just a matte of safety education. Educate users how to inspect and use the meat they need. Allow local producers to build reputations with consumers.

In broader terms, gun regulation may not in fact be the best reaction. And it is true that real security does not focus on eliminating all risks, but rather minimizing the risks and victims. Which is what i think is at issue here. The security failed catastrophically and a large number of children died. So as rational security people we can ask why.

One thing that is clear is that there are things we can't defend against economically. For instance, I can imagine it would be cool to own a mortar launcher or a tank or a missile. Clearly this is not something that is generally allowed because, like a large capacity clip or a high powered rifle, the only practical purpose of this is to kill large number of people. Under the second amendment I should be free to own any of these, but practicality, i.e, we don't want to have to defend an office building against a tank, mean they are not readily available.

What bothers me is that we have people, like this guys mother, who apparently had all these things that are only honestly useful more mass murder, who may have thought she had to defend herself against some unspecific threat, and this is considered normal. I remain safe with minimal armament, I am not seriously ready to defend myself against a zombie attack, and if the worlds end i think I will be busy with other things than killing my neighbors. Hopefully we will be developing a plan to survive. And if the government comes in with tanks and drones, I don't think I have the ability to actually acquire anything to defend myself, at least not off the shelf.

So yes the gun control freaks do hav the upper hand at the moment. That is because so many crazy people seem to believe they need to have the tools of war to survive in a place where the most difficult daily decision is where to park your SUV.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

In exchange for 20 dead children, you can have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder#Mass_murder_by_a_state

Re:100 more will die today

[medcalf]

Well, since any firearm can be used to shoot people dead, let's just talk about how easy it is to buy any firearm. For most firearms for most people in most places, fairly easy. For any firearms for any person with a criminal background or mental illness (to a much lesser extent, as this is usually not reported), pretty difficult to get one legally, but no more difficult to get one illegally than anywhere else. For certain types of firearms (automatic weapons, for example, or crew served weapons), it ranges from very difficult to impossible (legally) for anyone. For certain places, such as Chicago, NYC or Washington DC, it's pretty hard for anyone to get any weapon. Of course, those are also the places with the highest gun violence rates. Odd, that.

Re:100 more will die today

[gQuigs]

Yup.. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/

Many very bad injuries. But no fatalities.

Re:100 more will die today

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If the price of so-called "freedom" is 20 dead children, then either you do not know what freedom is or the price is too high and I no longer wish to be "free".

Roughy 500 kids go permanently missing each year in the USA and are presumed dead. Millions of public monitoring cameras would surely reduce that number. Are you willing to sacrified the freedom to go about your daily business unwatched in order to save an order of magnitude more children? At what point does the price for a child's life become too high for you?

Re:100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

YI ask because I do not know - how easy / difficult is it for an adult in the US to buy a gun / rifle / whatever that can be used to shoot people dead?

It is easy. Here is the algorithm:
1. Get money.
2. Go to store.
3. Buy gun.
4. Depending on the state, you may need to wait up to 30 days to pick up your gun and take it home.

The seller is required to do an instant background check to make sure you have no criminal record. This only takes a few minutes.

About half of American homes have at least one gun.

I own a Remington 870 pump action shotgun, and an AR-15 assault rifle. I haven't fired the shotgun in over a decade, and the ammo I have is probably too stale to work reliably. I fire the AR-15 annually, and replace all the ammo so that it is fresh. If I have to defend my family (or join in an insurrection) the AR-15 is definitely my weapon of choice because it is functionally identical to an M-16 except for the full auto mode, and I had extensive experience with M-16s during a former employment.

I do not own a handgun, and I never will. There are not safe, especially around kids (I have two), and would be less effective than a rifle in almost any defensive scenario.

Re:100 more will die today

[Sarten-X]

Wait a minute...

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying we should consider exceptional events to be exceptional, and not panic over shocking tragedies?

That's not what our Dear Leader says. He says "We can't accept events like this as routine" and promises that he'll try to work through the politics to stop things like this from ever happening again.

Let's not forget another major outlier like this, where a foreign adversary successfully executed an attack in an unexpected manner, using our own infrastructure against us! A brilliant maneuver by the enemy, and thanks to our kneejerk response, we've managed to avoid any recurrences for only a few trillion dollars in cost and a few thousand more American lives lost! With such a clear success rate for a panicked reaction, how can you possibly be advocating moderation?

Obviously, the politicians in charge know that the current public outrage will be the catalyst to move us forward into a safe future, where all risk is eliminated, violence is practically unknown, and environmentally-unfriendly customs have been replaced with three shells.

Re:100 more will die today

[jkrise]

Have no felonies and over 18 years old?
Drive to WalMart and buy one...

Is that all? With such a low threshold for acquiring an easily operated killing device, how can there be any feeling of safety? It is asking too much of the collective sensibilities of millions of citizens.

$300 would get you a 12gauge.. but, honestly it may be possible to get around that even.. a little effort and a ramset could probably be pretty deadly... or a bbgun... or a paintball gun... or you could make a pretty nice spear with a tiny amount of work....

As I said, I am highly ignorant on the capabilities of the above listed equipment; I would just like to know if one can kill several people at once with these devices, without reloading.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

A paltry figure given the number of people who die from automobile accidents every day. And far fewer of those are suicides.

If you want to save lives, urge laws that make more saftey features mandatory in all cars, including the emerging self-driving technology. You will save many, many more lives, at far lower cost, that way.

Re:100 more will die today

[medcalf]

My understanding is that Lanza's rifle was left in the car. He only used pistols in the shooting. So in what way does banning semi-automatic rifles help prevent such acts, even presuming it could be successfully done and the existing semi-automatic rifles removed from circulation, which is doubtful?

Re:100 more will die today

[Jawnn]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day

[citation needed]

Re:100 more will die today

[fatboy]

You can go to Walmart and purchase firearms and ammunition just about anytime, by anyone that can pass an instant background check here in Tennessee. Just as easy as buying any other tool that can be used to kill people.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the vast majority of handgun-carrying criminals got a permit or otherwise bought their firearms legally then you're delusional.

Restricting firearms only restricts law-abiding citizens.

Re:100 more will die today

[medcalf]

What qualifies as actually needing them, though? Most people who use guns in self defense are not expecting to need them at the time that they do. Such regulations as you propose simply make it too hard to defend one's self and one's family/property. In particular, such regulations tend to lead to armed politicians (Dianne Feinstein has a CCW, for instance, from a place that grants almost none of those) and unarmed subjects.

Re:100 more will die today

[Obfuscant]

If the price of so-called "freedom" is 20 dead children, then either you do not know what freedom is

"Excuse me, sir, do you have any liquids or gels in your carryon? Please remove your shoes and belt and take off your jacket ... your laptop out of its case, please... hold your hands over your head, put your feet onto those yellow pads and stand still..." Don't you realize that 3000 people were killed, and this abandonment of your freedoms is required to keep it from happening again?

Freedom is the right to be a nut, up to the point that you harm others -- which is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. So the correct solution is to create more laws that the evil/nutcases will ignore while law-abiding citizens get their freedoms limited.

the price is too high and I no longer wish to be "free".

Those who would give up ... I think we all know the quote. You should also know that you are free to give up your freedoms, but you are not so free to take them away from others.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

Handguns are useful if you are under siege by an enemy with much greater firepower. All you do is have your handgun in your pocket, get close enough to a soldier with a much nicer gun, kill him and take his gun, and give your handgun to another member of the resistance.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it's time for you to leave. The guns stay. This is America, you ignorant little cunt.

Re:100 more will die today

[GryMor]

"Improving mental health care" and access to it.

Re:100 more will die today

[jkrise]

I can purchase a large knife even more quickly.

Killing 26 people with a knife, however sophisticated, would take atleast 10 minutes, as opposed to 10 seconds or less with guns.

I can also purchase a car ... can be used for evil purposes as well as good..

Are you being facetious here???

Re:100 more will die today

[Stormshadow]

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

-- Samuel Adams

Re:100 more will die today

[fatboy]

As I said, I am highly ignorant on the capabilities of the above listed equipment; I would just like to know if one can kill several people at once with these devices, without reloading.

Depends on if the targets start shooting back :) Usually once faced with any opposition, these mass killers take themselves out. I don't recall many cases where a rampage continued in the face of opposition, with the exception of the robbery in LA where the guys were wearing body armor.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

Source? Everything I have seen shows the opposite. Gun crime has been virtually eliminated in these countries.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

which is about as many as will die on the highways. The difference is, most firearms deaths are:

  - suicides (so w/o firearms, they'd kill themselves in some other fashion)
  - criminals (up to 22 times more likely, and they're for the most shot by other criminals who are barred by law from owning firearms)

So getting rid of firearms won't significantly change the numbers, just shift the deaths to other tools --- but it would take away the usage of firearms in self-defense ---- which total well over a million instances per year in the U.S. (some citations have this as high as 2 million).

Far more effective would be effective mental health care (including monitoring of adminstration of drugs) and prison reform and effective job creation for ex-convicts.

Re:100 more will die today

[FrankSchwab]

If you don't have a felony conviction, or various other disqualifying issues, it takes anywhere from ten minutes to ten days, depending on the locality, to purchase a rifle or handgun.

I'll ask another question - how easy/difficult is it for an adult in your country to buy a knife/car/whatever that can be used to kill people?

These are horrific events, whether they happen in Connecticut or Scotland (http://news.yahoo.com/scottish-town-shares-agony-u-school-tragedy-182038462.html) with guns, or China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)) with knives and hammers. But they pale in comparison with the number and tragedy of single deaths that occur daily. Children are killed in car accidents, playground accidents, by parents, caregivers, and other children, in horrific and tragic ways. But, because they happen one or two at a time, they're a footnote in a local newscast and quickly forgotten. Nothing is done about them.

Heck, even the events of Sept 11, 2001 here in the US were a statistical blip - the 3000 people killed in the attacks are roughly the number of people who die every month in car accidents in the US. And yet we treat it as a national day of mourning, and disassemble our freedoms, to prevent it from happening again.

We as Humans grossly overreact to the extraordinary, and become accustomed to the ordinary. 20 Children killed with a Gun? Time to ban all guns. 40000 infants born in the US every year with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (http://fasdcenter.samhsa.gov/documents/WYNK_Numbers.pdf), and we show a few public service announcements on the TV. Which is the greater tragedy?

Re:100 more will die today

[medcalf]

Crazy people? Tell it to the person in Milwaukee who, on November 21, used his carry weapon to defend himself in a hair salon. Two men knocked, were let in by a customer, then one of the men pulled a gun and aimed it at the customer, who knocked it away and then used his own gun to kill his attacker and wound the attacker's accomplice. Or tell it to the 12 year old Oklahoma girl a couple of months ago, who used the family handgun to defend herself against a home intruder whose history included kidnapping a girl.

Re:100 more will die today

[Meyaht]

Banning guns won't help, there are countless ways to take a life, people will just start making Oklahoma city bombs if there are no guns. I think if we just focus more on different laws in different states and let people move to a place that suits them we would be better off.

Re:100 more will die today

[DarkTempes]

I agree a lot with your post except for that leading statistic.

2009 Cause of death stats by the CDC:
Accidental discharge of firearms: 554
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms: 18,735
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms: 11,493
Total: 30782
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

That's 16% less than "over 100 a day" and nowhere near even third splits
A less misleading and sensationalist introduction would be "about 31 people died a day from gun-related homicides."

I honestly don't see guns involved in suicides as an issue as people that want to kill themselves are going to find ways to do it.
The number we obviously need to work on is the 11.5k gun homicides, especially when you compare us to other countries.

Re:100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

So, what are you going to do?

Doing nothing would be more sensible than what we did in 1989 in California. Not only was it pointless (banning weapons based on appearance rather than functionality) but was probably downright counter-productive by outlawing thousands of existing guns and pushing them onto the black market.

Right now there is a big push to "do something", and I hope we don't do something that stupid again. I am not an advocate of more gun control, but if we are going to "do something", than it should be aimed at cheap handguns that are used in killings everyday rather than a futile attempt to prevent the next Sandy Hook.

Re:100 more will die today

[jkrise]

About half of American homes have at least one gun.

For me, that is the most important point in your reply. Puts your original point of about 100 people dying every day due to firearms, in perspective. Where enormous commercial interests are involved, the first casualty is truth, followed by public good. I can see no easy solution to this mammoth problem; but thanks for your informative reply anyway.

Re:100 more will die today

[icebike]

Given that 2/3rds of these alleged 100 fire arm deaths per day are intentional, its easy to see the futility of attacking the tools. Intent has a way of finding means.

In China the tool of choice for these so called "Black Swans" is the kitchen knife.

We might just as well start banning Men, because these mass murders are almost entirely Male, 17 to 30.

Re:100 more will die today

[Certhas]

No. There was one in Germany which was perpetrated by an illegally acquired gun. There was one in China recently with a knife. 22 injured, no one died.

The US has about 3.2 homicides by firearm per year and per 100.000 people, out of 4.8 homicides total.
Germany has about 0.2 homicides by firearm per year and per 100.000 people, out of 0.8 homicides total.

So the US has "only" about 2.7 times as many non-gun homicides as Germany, while it has about 16 times as many gun homicides.

If you want to argue that the freedom to have guns as a hobby, or for the illusionary purpose of self defence, is worth this many deads, feel free to argue as such. But don't hide from the facts.

Guns make killing a hell of a lot easier. And if you make it easier to get guns, you end up with more killing.

Re:100 more will die today

[hotdiggity]

And banning guns tomorrow, totally...would not affect gun crime in the US for decades

Maybe. But not banning guns will affect gun crime never.

Imagine if the 'Patrick Purdy' incident referenced in the GP caused a gun ban to be enacted on everything but single-shot long guns. That was two decades ago.

Got to start sometime. Plus, if you do a total ban on certain weapons, you have the moral authority to hike up punishment on gun crimes with those weapons, right away. There is no excuse for a crime-of-passion, as you are already knowingly breaking the law by possessing a banned weapon.

Re:100 more will die today

[EvilSS]

You might get your wish. Guns are not the only thing there are rumblings on. They want hearings on violence in media (TV/Film/Video Games) as well. Exactly how much freedom are you willing to surrender?

Re:100 more will die today

[swillden]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America. Roughly about 1/3 accidents, 1/3 suicides, and 1/3 deliberate homicides.

No, it's more like 50% suicides and 50% homicides. Accidents constitute less than 2% of the total (~600 accidental firearm deaths per year of ~30,000 firearm deaths, per the CDC) and are declining every year.

As for what we can do, here are some ideas:

To tackle suicides, the solution isn't to disarm the suicidal -- after all, someone who wants to kill themselves has many, many options -- but to address the root cause of nearly all suicides: mental illness. Better focus on mental health could probably help to reduce mass murders as well, by getting these people help -- or else determining that it's not safe to have them on the streets, in the event that we don't know how to help them. A big mental health awareness ad campaign, perhaps based on the Ad Council approach used to attack drugs (though hopefully with much more success, since it'll be a positive message rather than scare tactics), could be used to reduce the stigma of mental illness and encourage people to get treatment, and more funding of mental health research would also be extremely productive.

To tackle homicides, I think the biggest single thing we could do is to end the war on drugs. The majority of gun homicides are criminal-on-criminal murders, and nearly all of them are related to gang violence and the illegal drug trade. Our war on drugs is pumping tens of billions of dollars annually into the criminal underground, and essentially funding all of this violence. If drugs were legalized and regulated, the money would instead be flowing through corporations, which fight their battles with lawsuits and advertising campaigns rather than guns. In the short term, we'd probably see an uptick in violence as all of the suddenly-destitute criminal organizations sought frantically for another lucrative line of business (this is exactly what happened when prohibition was ended, BTW, the gang violence of the 30s was from people whose illegal liquor business had suddenly disappeared), but violence should decline dramatically afterwards.

There are plenty of other things we can do, I'm sure, but these would be a very good start. If you also want to work on reducing the already-low rate of accidental firearm deaths, education is the key. The NRA has some great educational materials targeted at kids, including the Eddie Eagle program which focuses on teaching younger kids that guns are dangerous and that they should 1) stop, 2) don't touch, 3) leave the area and 4) tell a responsible adult, if they find a gun or ammunition, and another program aimed at older kids to teach them how to safely and responsibly handle firearms. Getting some basic firearms education added to the public school curriculum would do more to reduce accidental firearms deaths than anything else, I think.

(For anyone turned off by my mention of the NRA, please consider that the NRA consists of two organizations, a firearms training and education organization which is undeniably excellent and completely uncontroversial, and a political organization which is... not uncontroversial).

Re:100 more will die today

[jader3rd]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America.

True, but if we could prevent massacres - or make them substantially more difficult - we could reduce the number even more. I'd rather try to improve the situation than to throw my hands up in the air and say that nothing could be improved. The national discussion isn't about how to stop shootings, it's how to stop massacres.

Re:100 more will die today

[coldfarnorth]

Can you please cite some data?

I've only looked around for a minute or two, and here's what I've got:
  * The US had roughly 3 gun murders per 100 000 population in one year. (Data from 2008 - 2010)
  * The UK had 0.04 per 100 000 population (2011)
  * Australia had 0.09 per 100 000 (2008)

The (gun) murder rate in the US is 7.5 times larger than in the UK, and more than 3 times larger than in Australia. This would tend not to support your point. Since you mentioned crime, I did not cite the Suicide and Accidental Death numbers, but they make the US look even worse.

Incidentally, the country with the highest gun homicide rate in the EU (that I could find data for on short notice) was Luxemburg - 0.6 gun murders per 100 000 population (2009). The US gun homicide rate is 5 times larger . . .

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

You can own a tank. You can't drive an unmodified tank on the streets because of the damage caused to the street.

Re:100 more will die today

[ColdWetDog]

Yes, that might actually do something useful. Unfortunately, it is the most difficult and most expensive of all potential avenues to mitigate violent crime. Not likely to happen in any coherent fashion.

Re:100 more will die today

[BMOC]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America.

Nearly a hundred people die from automobile accidents in America every day. Do you want to ban the privately owned sportscar because they're built to be driven dangerously?

Freedom is never the problem, but the individual responsibility applied to protecting the freedom of all is. The person who violently murders innocents is sick. Those people don't appear in a vacuum, they manifest over time and interaction with others in our society. When you tease someone you consider a loser instead of getting to know them, you're contributing to the problem. When you bully those you consider beneath you, you're contributing to the problem. When you ignore people who are clearly suffering from a mental problem, you're contributing to the problem. When you entirely neglect and ignore your fellow free man your fellow citizen who may be hurting, you are expecting your freedom to be free. That is a fatal mistake.

Armed communities are often polite communities, but polite communities reduce the need for arms.

Re:100 more will die today

[ColdWetDog]

Is that all? With such a low threshold for acquiring an easily operated killing device, how can there be any feeling of safety?

You can go to your local shopping mall and acquire lots of different things that could be "easily operated killing devices". You could probably make a bomb out of things found in every home. Focusing on the particular tool used is not the answer.

You could simply drive up on a crowded sidewalk....

Re:100 more will die today

[coldfarnorth]

Knives are very ineffective weapons, compared to guns, especially for harming numbers of people.

Re:100 more will die today

[nschubach]

The legislation that I would support is the requirement that all guns purchased require either a safe being purchased at the same time and/or a certificate of safe ownership big enough to contain such a weapon. You can't force someone to use the safe, but they would own it and it may help curb some of the opportunistic "night stand" situations.

I would also support a requirement that purchasers have taken a mandatory gun safety class. I'd expect it to be more involved than the concealed carry class I took that mainly covered legal ramifications for drawing your weapon and some basic terminology and gun types. I find it a bit annoying that it's easier to own a weapon than it is to drive a car.

What I would not like to see is an outright banning of certain types of guns, or overly restrictive mandates (like must not have had a parking ticket in 3 years.)

Re:100 more will die today

[Obfuscant]

Just as easy as buying any other tool that can be used to kill people.

This.

I have the most beautiful tomatoes in my home garden because I use a wonderful high-nitrogen fertilizer on them. I drive a diesel truck. And I am planning on re-roofing my house, so I'll need a large box of those nails, please. And two rolls of duct tape like the government tells me I should buy to prepare for disasters. And I've got a few rats I need to get rid of, so a large package of that rat poison ...

Is there a U-Haul truck rental place anywhere close by?

Re:100 more will die today

[afaik_ianal]

What an absolute load of clap trap.

Why do people get modded up as insightful for spouting the same old NRA propaganda? Analysing the statistics for violent crime, suicide and accidental deaths is a complicated area of research. Finding localised peaks in violent crime figures does not negate the massive drops in gun incidents we saw in Australia following the effective banning of firearms almost 20 years ago.

And what's with this view that being able to shoot someone who wrongs you is better than the tiny risk of being robbed? Seriously? People with that view are exactly who I don't want having weapons anywhere near me.

Re:100 more will die today

[ColdWetDog]

You can also go to a gun show and bypass any and all checks (except the one you give the dealer). You can even act batshit insane - you fit right in with a significant part of the crowd.

Re:100 more will die today

[ColdWetDog]

Apparently that's incorrect. Later stories indicate that he used the AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine (which jammed).

Re:100 more will die today

[Roachie]

So, what are you going to do?

1) We should make killing children illegal. This will deter people who want to kill children from killing children.

2) We should do with guns what we did with pot- make them illegal -so nobody, especially teenagers and young adults cant get a hold of any.

Re:100 more will die today

[BlueStrat]

Have no felonies and over 18 years old?

Drive to WalMart and buy one... $300 would get you a 12gauge.. but, honestly it may be possible to get around that even.. a little effort and a ramset could probably be pretty deadly... or a bbgun... or a paintball gun... or you could make a pretty nice spear with a tiny amount of work..

Pish!

Just buy one from the neighbor down the street, as far as rifles and shotguns (and black powder weapons as well, but not as relevant) are concerned. There are no legal requirements in the US to register or report private ownership or sales between private individuals of standard semi-auto rifles and shotguns at either the Federal or State level that I am aware of.

No neighbor with the firearm you want?

Try here, the "craigslist" of guns: http://www.armslist.com/

Strat

Re:100 more will die today

[nschubach]

Have no felonies and over 18 years old?
Drive to WalMart and buy one...

Is that all? With such a low threshold for acquiring an easily operated killing device, how can there be any feeling of safety? It is asking too much of the collective sensibilities of millions of citizens.

Honestly, if you have to ask that question, I have to question your trust in your fellow citizen or neighbor. It's incredibly easy to own a weapon and there are lots of them all over the US. It doesn't make living here deadly by any means. The truth is that a majority of the weapons in this country are used for non-deadly (to human) sport. There are far more bullets spent on paper targets and the occasional wild animal than there are to humans. The simple fact that the weapon exists doesn't presuppose that people will instantly grab them to solve disputes. Humans are very reasonable people and they can handle a little responsibility. There are a very few percentile of the millions living here that cannot, but you get that with any society and any laws.

Re:100 more will die today

[fizzer06]

That's my position.

ACs don't get to have a "position".

Re:100 more will die today

[PhxBlue]

Even the M-16s don't have full auto these days. The M-16A2 has three-round burst instead, IIRC because the DOD determined that "spray and pray" isn't an effective method for engaging the enemy.

Re:100 more will die today

[LunaticTippy]

Citation

Re:100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

What do you consider sensible?

Of the things you listed, I would definitely support improving mental health care. I have a cousin that had a head injury while he was in the military, and now has many symptoms of schizophrenia and paranoid delusions. I have gone with him to the VA about a dozen times. We never saw the same doctor twice. They will usually prescribe routine treatment, such as Haldol, which is effective against schizophrenia, but actually makes the paranoia worse. We then have to explain to the doctor that we already tried that a decade ago, and perhaps he should take a few minutes to actually read the patients medical history. The amount of waste and duplication is so immense, that I am not sure improving things would even cost more. One cheap way to improve the situation (while cutting costs) would be to empower the nurses, who usually know far more than the doctors about individual patients, to make more decisions, and then fire the dumbest doctors.

Better mental heath would not only reduce gun deaths, but would lower all crime. It has been estimated that half the people in prison have untreated mental conditions. How many of them wouldn't be there if they got treatment earlier? If we spent less on prisons and more on mental health, we would probably come out way ahead.

Re:100 more will die today

[deroby]

honestly : citation needed !

I really don't have a clue where you are getting this from ?!
Sure, I agree, Breivik surely upped the average about a year ago and gets plenty of attention. And I'm sure there's plenty of crime going on all over Europe, some of which involves guns; but whenever I hear of some guy (it's always guys it seems) going mental and starting a killing spree at the local school : my bet is it's in the USA.

Re:100 more will die today

[nschubach]

Because the way crimes are reported today skews the results to make it seem like guns are more of an influence in the crime. If there's a gun in your car, they assume to intended on using it.

Re:100 more will die today

[hondo77]

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is against the law but nobody is seriously complaining that it is an unnecessary surrender of freedom. The notion that the Second Amendment is more sacred than the First would laughable if it wasn't so deadly wrong.

Re:100 more will die today

[Sarten-X]

Really? It's almost as though that was a part of the desired effect. With just two mere words, the tone of my post goes from simple derision to complete mockery. Why should I stop short of that tantalizing line of satire, when I could take a running start, jump over the line, then strip naked and dance a jig on the other side?

Oh, I get it... you just don't want to see my naked jig. I understand.

Re:100 more will die today

[cayenne8]

And what's with this view that being able to shoot someone who wrongs you is better than the tiny risk of being robbed? Seriously? People with that view are exactly who I don't want having weapons anywhere near me.

I DO want to be able to shoot someone that is trying to rob me...

Any criminal in my house that has broken in, is fair game.

Re:100 more will die today

[txsable]

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

"At 12:33 p.m. JST, a man hit a crowd with a truck, eventually killing three people and injuring two; he then stabbed at least 12 people using a dagger (initially reported as a survival knife[1]), killing four people and injuring eight.[2][3][4][5]"

Re:100 more will die today

[hondo77]

America is what we make it. Get a penis implant. A gun won't fix your problem.

Re:100 more will die today

[mcgrew]

For one, don't make the background checks more burdonsome, but some gun sales need no background checks. However, that wouldn't have helped in this case because the guns were his mother's. I see her as the guilty party here, she knew he was crazy and should have never let him near a gun. If I were living with a nutball there's no way I'd have firearms in the house.

As to improving mental health care, that would go a long way to stopping suicides, by guns and other methods. Most health insurance doesn't cover mental health, and there are crazy people walking around in pain that should not be in pain.

As to pre-crime, well, if you think someone's about to commit a murder you would be evil not to tell the authorities.

Re:100 more will die today

[hondo77]

I don't think you and Mr. Adams are referring to the same kind of liberty.

Re:100 more will die today

[afaik_ianal]

The catch-22 is that your relative value on human life makes you an incredibly inappropriate person for making those life-and-death decisions.

There are a million and one reasons why someone might be in your house (or why you might think someone's in your house).

I'm not suggesting being robbed isn't most likely explanation, but it's just stuff. Your stuff is not worth extrajudicial killing someone over.

Re:100 more will die today

[cayenne8]

or for the illusionary purpose of self defence

What do you mean by illusionary?

Anyone that has broken into my house, gets shot...multiple times.

I'm basically not even going to check to see if the body is still breathing or calling the cops till I'm putting my 3rd clip into the gun....

That's not an illusion. Any criminal in my house, I assume is armed and means me harm, and therefore will be hauled out dead by the police when I do call them.

I have no problem with this.

I've not yet had to do this, but I have friends who have.

The police are NOT here to protect you, otherwise they would get there faster than a delivery order pizza does. They are only there to investigate and try to solve crimes that have already happened.

It is up to you to defend yourself.

Re:100 more will die today

[pastafazou]

March 2010 8 children killed in knife attack on school in China.
May 2010 7 children 2 adults killed in cleaver attack on kindergarten school in China.
August 2010 3 children 1 teacher killed in knife attack on kindergarten school in China
September 2011 child and 3 adults killed in axe attack while taking their children to school in China.

Re:100 more will die today

[MightyMartian]

But here we hit another interesting issue. How many criminals actually go on wild killing sprees in elementary schools, college campuses, temples or theaters? Sure, they shoot each other up with wild abandon, and civilians sadly get caught in the crossfire, or may be the targets of robbery. But when we talk about gang violence and that sort of thing, we're not talking about maniacs who will plan out the execution of a bunch of small children.

In other words, you're equating two types of users of guns for illegal purposes and acting as if they're the same. I hate armed robbers, outlaw biker gangs and the Mafia, to be sure, but none of these group, however evil and violent they may be, are going to target a movie theater filled with people that have nothing to do with their illicit activities. Even the likes of John Gotti or Al Capone, men who did not hesitate to kill or order killings, went around shooting up college campuses or Sikh temples.

Re:100 more will die today

[hondo77]

Again, if your "liberty" demands the blood of 20 innocent children, then I don't believe you know what liberty really is.

Re:100 more will die today

[bill_mcgonigle]

If you want to argue that the freedom to have guns as a hobby, or for the illusionary purpose of self defence, is worth this many deads, feel free to argue as such. But don't hide from the facts.

Guns make killing a hell of a lot easier. And if you make it easier to get guns, you end up with more killing.

The surest and most proven way to have millions and millions (and millions ... ) of killings is to ban guns. Just ask the survivors of Cambodia, the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Uruguay, Turkey, Germany, Guatemala where disarmament lead directly to mass murder. II

The ability to resist a tyrannical government is the reason for the second amendment - not hunting, target shooting, or home-defense (though they are inherent uses of the right). Domicide was a leading cause of death in the 20th Century.

Re:100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

Roughy 500 kids go permanently missing each year in the USA and are presumed dead.

Where did you get this number? About 800,000 kids go missing annually in the USA, but nearly all of those are runaways, intra-family abductions, etc. When I looked for actual figures the best I could find was a Slate Magazine report that found only 115 kidnappings by strangers where the kid was held over 24 hours. Presumably only a small number of those were killed. So I think the actual number is far far below 500.

Re:100 more will die today

[Archangel Michael]

This is about to get much much harder to deal with. Coming soon, 3D Printers that will be able to print just about any part needed to make a gun. That and a good set of Metal Milling and Machine Shop equipment can make any "gun". I cannot wait to see how the rest of the world is going to outlaw 3D printers and Machining tools, when some idiot fabricates a gun in his garage and kills a bunch of people with it.

All the hand wringing is nice and we should be evaluating this, however, we also shouldn't give in to our emotions either. For that always leads to tyranny.

“When one with honeyed words but evil mind
Persuades the mob, great woes befall the state.”
  Euripides, Orestes

Re:100 more will die today

[CrimsonAvenger]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America.

Well, no.

More like ten per day. Nearly 2/3 of which are suicides.

Re:100 more will die today

[MichaelSmith]

You can run away from an edged weapon.

Re:100 more will die today

[EvilSS]

Do you really believe that people who are willing to bend on gun control due to this tragedy won't jump on regulating violence in media?! Really? Do you even think there are more people who would care about that issue than would care about gun control measures? Most people wouldn't even look at it as a first amendment issue.

You think that politicians will make the same distinction you are? They will not. They will pass knee-jerk measures to address "the problem" and prove to their constituents that they "did something". None of these will do anything to solve the problem but by the time anyone figures that out, everyone will have long forgotten about Sandyhook anyway (we have a very short memory these days, thank the 24 hour news cycle for that one).

Re:100 more will die today

[eth1]

If the price of so-called "freedom" is 20 dead children, then either you do not know what freedom is or the price is too high and I no longer wish to be "free".

Roughy 500 kids go permanently missing each year in the USA and are presumed dead. Millions of public monitoring cameras would surely reduce that number. Are you willing to sacrified the freedom to go about your daily business unwatched in order to save an order of magnitude more children? At what point does the price for a child's life become too high for you?

That's nothing. I couldn't find more recent data, but in 2000, over 6,400 children (age 0-18) died in motor vehicle crashes. That's a Sandy Hook EVERY TWO DAYS. Where's the outrage over that? (and the car-control lobby trying to ban cars?)

Re:100 more will die today

[mapsjanhere]

Well, it's only 2008 by your calculation, we wait until Australia catches up to 2012 . Bloody time zones

Re:100 more will die today

[Zalbik]

We should try to learn from history:

Yes, we should try to learn from history:

On May 18, 1927, Andrew Kehoe bombed an elementary school in Bath Township, Michigan, killing 38 children and 6 adults. He used a combination of dynamite and pyrotol.

The point I'm trying to make is twofold:
1) People can commit these kind of acts without any kind of firearms whatsoever. Rather than spending time, money, resources on costly and ineffective control measures, we should be spending this on identifying and treating individuals suffering from mental instabilities so they don't attempt this sort of act in the first place.

2) This sort of thing has happened for a long time. I'm certain some people are going to try and make a connection between this act and violent media, video games, refined sugar, etc, but the 1927 disaster indicates these things aren't always a factor in this sort of act.

Re:100 more will die today

[sadr]

We have about 10,000 firearm homicides in the US per year (and similar numbers of suicides), compared to 600 accidental deaths. Your "1/3 of deaths being an accident" is seriously miscalibrated.

Overall suicide rates have not changed in countries that banned firearms (Australia), so those probably wouldn't change even if guns are banned.

Re:100 more will die today

[afaik_ianal]

Wait - what?

Japan's murder rate is 0.3 per 100,000.
China dominates that at 1.0.
UK comes in even higher at 1.2.

The US? No single US state comes in lower than Japan. Iowa, Vermont, and New Hapshire are the only states/territories that come in lower than the UK. The average across the US? 4.2.

Make no mistake - murder rates in the US are unacceptably high.

Re:100 more will die today

[Obfuscant]

You can also go to a gun show and bypass any and all checks (except the one you give the dealer).

Not in the US. US law requires firearms dealers to perform background checks whenever they sell a firearm. That's true for a sale in their store or a sale at a gun show.

In addition, many states have regulated private transactions and require background checks, especially at gun shows. This is another example of someone not being able to do what he wants with something he owns.

You can even act batshit insane -

Also untrue. Federal law prohibits even private sales of weapons to people who the seller has reason to believe would be ineligible for ownership. Like insane people.

you fit right in with a significant part of the crowd.

Your personal opinion of gun owners aside, the right exists and is even written down. It's right next to this right of privacy that everyone keeps talking about.

Re:100 more will die today

[CrimsonAvenger]

You can also go to a gun show and bypass any and all checks (except the one you give the dealer).

No, you cannot do that!

The DEALER is required by law to perform the instant background check in order to sell a gun, even at a gunshow.

Re:100 more will die today

[Zalbik]

+1 Sensible.

Re:100 more will die today

[MichaelSmith]

++++
This is the most sensible thing that I've heard on the situation. Let's mourn the victims, but not let this be a cause to further erode freedom.

Why can't I own hand grenades again?

You need nukes if you ever want to overthrow the Government.

Re:100 more will die today

[Darinbob]

Provide more checks, that's common sense. This includes checks at swap meet sales, which is a big loop hole in many gun control laws. And yet people support check-free swap meets, claiming something about rights to sell private property to any individual they like. If a gun store has to do background checks then a gun store at a swap meet must do this also.

Everyone should also be required to take a safety class, much in the same way that we have testing before being allowed to drive a dangerous machine on the roads. Remember when the NRA used to be about safety? More people are killed by accidental use of guns than are killed in the rare shooting spree. We need to move away from the swagger culture of gun ownership and towards a safety minded one.

The checks are not burdensome. There is no constitutional right to easy to acquire weapons.

Re:100 more will die today

[Ksevio]

But that's just an arms race where everyone needs to have the most powerful weapon to counter the other powerful weapons. If just reduce the whole number of dangerous weapons, then things get a lot safer.

Re:100 more will die today

[Darinbob]

I think people react to things they can't control more than things that they think they can control. Thus driving isn't as scary to them because they think it is under their own control (despite the lunatic drivers next to them being out of their control). Shooting sprees are out of their control so it causes a bigger reaction. Ie, fear vs dread.

Re:100 more will die today

[LordLucless]

It's not a made-up classification. Of course, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle either - at least, not the civilian version. An assault rifle is a rifle with automatic fire capability (either full-auto, or burst). The AR-15 has a military version which is an assault rifle, which leads media outlets desperate to rile people up to report the civilian version as an assault rifle.

Re:100 more will die today

[Rennt]

Ah ha! And now my poor math is recorded for prosperity.

Re:100 more will die today

[iluvcapra]

The DEALER is required by law to perform the instant background check in order to sell a gun, even at a gunshot.

Only if they are "dealers" in the sense of Title 18 USC 921; someone who doesn't do business across state lines and only makes "occasional" sales is not required to do a background check.

Re:100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

That's 16% less than "over 100 a day" and nowhere near even third splits

Yes, you are right, and I was wrong. The source I used listed "accidental shootings", but didn't separate fatal from non-fatal, and I was reading quickly and didn't pick up on that distinction. Thanks for the correction.

I honestly don't see guns involved in suicides as an issue as people that want to kill themselves are going to find ways to do it.

I am not so sure. I think making it easier makes it happen more. Pulling a trigger is so simple and easy compared to stabbing yourself or jumping off a bridge or whatever. I have know people that attempted suicide, survived and recovered, and went on to have a relatively happy and productive lives. That wouldn't have happened if they had put a gun to their head.

Re:100 more will die today

[bill_mcgonigle]

I do not own a handgun, and I never will. There are not safe, especially around kids (I have two), and would be less effective than a rifle in almost any defensive scenario.

Lots of things aren't safe around kids if you don't train them properly. For example, swimming pools are nine times more dangerous than firearms for accidental deaths among children (note to all: check the CDC database for yourself).

In the US, approximately 125 children die each year from handgun accidents. Anywhere between 10,800 and 240,000 homicides are prevented by people carrying handguns (the low end of the range is for people who will admit to a federal agent that they used a firearm to diffuse a violent crime, the high end includes 'mere mentions' of a firearm and criminal-on-criminal gun use but strictly from a "victim's" perspective; also that 1 in 100 violent crimes turn into a homicide - see FBI data).

If you are going to use a rifle at close quarters with other people in the house; please use appropriate ammo and night sights. A short shotgun with a tight choke and home defense rounds (good pattern, will not penetrate 1/2" drywall) might be more appropriate. Remember, these things usually happen at night. But even a short shotgun can be hard to swing in a small house. I realize handguns require a higher degree of concentration to achieve accuracy, so there are downsides.

Re:100 more will die today

[SeaFox]

I can also purchase a car ... can be used for evil purposes as well as good..

Are you being facetious here???

He's making the point you're focusing too much on the form of the tools themselves.
Banning all guns and being concerned about ease of legally acquiring them use does not make the world a safe place because all sorts of very benign objects can be used as deadly weapons just as easily. Creating a truly safe environment would make civilization grind to a halt because we'd lose automobiles, butter knives, household chemicals, etc. And it doesn't matter if guns are illegal when so much gun violence if perpetrated by those who have no regard for the law to begin with.

Re:100 more will die today

[Hatta]

I have a rock that repels mass murderers.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop fighting fellas! I propose a new alternative. Socialized medicine will reduce the violence. I offer these wikipedia maps:
Homocide rates
Universal healthcare

Re:100 more will die today

[big_e_1977]

So what is your solution to the home invader breaking into your house? He's certainly not there to help you bake some brownies. Do you beg for your life, try to appeal to his rational side so he won't decide to extrajudicially kill you because he doesn't want to be identified and face jail time? Maybe if he's nice he will make the proper life and death decision and let you live or simply beat you to within an inch of your life. Pity if he decides that your stuff is worth killing you over.

Re:100 more will die today

[DougDew]

Where did you get your statistics from?

Re:100 more will die today

[hpycmprok]

You forgot a branch after get money:

1. Get money.
2. Go to gun show.
3. Buy gun. (no background check or registration)
4. Take it home (no waiting period)

Re:100 more will die today

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't have the sources off-hand. A year or two ago I looked them up because some people were throwing around that totally bogus 800,000 number - a number that does not count children, it counts incidents. So a kid who runs away 5 times in one year contributes 5 to the total of 800,000. At the time the "real" number was on the order of 500, maybe 400. To me, the most interesting thing was that despite an enormous increase in population, that number had not really changed over the past 2 to 3 decades.

Re:100 more will die today

[epyT-R]

Fine, I'll support more gun control, when washington shows a significant track record of restraint and respect when it comes to civil liberties..for at least half a century. Their activities to date have been anything but. Of course, the parties pushing for more control are the same ones that want more control everywhere else too. ..and this comes from someone who doesn't own firearms.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not suggesting being robbed isn't most likely explanation, but it's just stuff. Your stuff is not worth extrajudicial killing someone over.

What if they're in their to rape your mother/wife/daughter? Is that worth killing someone over? Or is it just sex? What if they intend to rape then kill? Do you want to wait around for them to act out their crime so you can determine their motives?

The self defense issue is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Re:100 more will die today

[SeaFox]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America. Roughly about 1/3 accidents, 1/3 suicides, and 1/3 deliberate homicides.

Here's the statistic for 2009. They average out to 85.88 deaths per day for firearms in combining those categories. The figure for accidental deaths was not accessable without sifting through the sorce tables, but of that 31,347 deaths homicides made up 11,493 of them (source) and suicides 18,735 (source).

Do you have something to back up your "over a hundred every day" claim?

Re:100 more will die today

[swillden]

Finding localised peaks in violent crime figures does not negate the massive drops in gun incidents we saw in Australia following the effective banning of firearms almost 20 years ago.

Are you sure that's what you saw?

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/GunLawsSudden%20DeathBJC.pdf

Re:100 more will die today

[painandgreed]

And banning guns tomorrow, totally...would not affect gun crime in the US for decades,...

No, it would affect crime fairly quickly. First there would be about a year of less murders as guns are banned and there is increased enforcement and policing. Then things would go back to normal as people just changed weapons as weapon choice does not really affect the outcome. Before that, crime would rise as the criminals would know there is much less of a chance to run across a victim carrying a gun. Meanwhile, all the drug related murders we see will continue as if they can smuggle billions of dollars in drugs into a country can also smuggle millions of dollars of guns. Just look at Mexico as they have strict gun laws and see how safe they are.

Re:100 more will die today

[Obfuscant]

someone who doesn't do business across state lines and only makes "occasional" sales is not required to do a background check.

Except in some states they are, and in any case is not a dealer, so the statement that you can avoid "any and all checks, except the one you give the dealer" is patently false. If you buy from a dealer, you cannot avoid the background check, in addition to the one the dealer might accept in payment. If you buy from anyone in Oregon, you cannot avoid the background check at all.

Re:100 more will die today

[swillden]

There are a million and one reasons why someone might be in your house

Bullshit.

If someone is in your house at, say 2 AM, and it's not someone who lives there or who otherwise is supposed to have access to your house (verifying that the "intruder" isn't someone who is supposed to be there is crucial, obviously), there are very few reasons why they might be there, and almost none of them are good.

I'm not suggesting being robbed isn't most likely explanation, but it's just stuff. Your stuff is not worth extrajudicial killing someone over.

Of course stuff is not worth killing over. Duh. That's a rather weak strawman. The reason that so many states specifically provide residents with broad legal discretion in the use of deadly force in their homes is because intruders are often very dangerous to the occupants.

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and somehow manages to make it clear that he is only there to take the TV, I'll let him have the TV. I have insurance, and I don't want to kill anyone. I will, of course, do my best to provide law enforcement with whatever information I can find to help them find the burglar, but I'm not going to shoot him for it. But if someone has broken into my house, how can I possibly know what his intentions are? My wife and kids are in the house, and someone who has already shown his willingness to commit multiple felonies and enter a house that may be occupied is going to have a hard time convincing me that he doesn't mean my family any harm.

Actually, that's not quite true... it's very easy for an intruder to convince me he's not trying to harm me or my family: he can leave! Failing that, he can get on the ground, spread-eagled, where I can keep an eye on him until the cops come (though I probably wouldn't do that, actually; I'd rather just take a picture then tell him to drop his wallet and run). But as long as he continues coming, I'm going to assume that he's a deadly threat.

Re:100 more will die today

[epyT-R]

Why do people get modded up as insightful for spouting the same old NRA propaganda?

The same reason people get modded up for spouting the same old fallacy ridden anti-gun left-wing propaganda? Fanboi moderators.

And what's with this view that being able to shoot someone who wrongs you is better than the tiny risk of being robbed? Seriously? People with that view are exactly who I don't want having weapons anywhere near me.

Protip. Everything around you is a potential weapon. Maybe you should remove the knives from your kitchen, shut off your electricity, remove all glass, tools, power equipment, cars, and chop off your hands and feet.

There's a reason 'feeling safe' is not a right or entitlement, nor should it be either. It's impractical and nonsensical.

Re:100 more will die today

[drinkypoo]

I am not an advocate of more gun control, but if we are going to "do something", than it should be aimed at cheap handguns that are used in killings everyday rather than a futile attempt to prevent the next Sandy Hook.

A thousand times no. This has been tried before. It discriminates against the poor even more than the existing regulations, and at the same time provides legal protectionism for makers of overpriced firearms. Instead of making the citizenry less powerful, maybe we should educate them so that they can make responsible decisions with their power.

Re:100 more will die today

[drinkypoo]

The notion that the Second Amendment is more sacred than the First would laughable if it wasn't so deadly wrong.

Well, I don't think anyone believes the order was arbitrary, so I agree that claiming that the second amendment is more important than the first is moronic at best and typically disingenuous. At the same time, it would be disingenuous or foolish to disregard the position of the second amendment. The first is what it's all about. The second is how you keep the first, and the first is how you keep the second.

Re:100 more will die today

[ballpoint]

That would be my country, which is as socialist, potty trained, self righteous and politically correct as possible.

Gun laws are very strict. I had to have a rare family heirloom gun destroyed because at a certain point there was no legal way to keep it due to haphazard legislation by bedwetting socialists.

Yet a misfit managed to slay several infants with a knife in a small town. Another emprisoned, raped and murdered several children. A teacher killed several other youngsters.

For all its laws and regulations and little gun owership, there are way more incidents per inhabitant than in the US. For now. Lest assured that as the US goes down the socialist idiocracy path, things will not improve. Dumb as fuck gets you everytime.

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

What are the stats pre-ban? The DIFFERENCE is what the previosu poster was talkign about, not the absolute numbers.

Re:100 more will die today

[drinkypoo]

The legislation that I would support is the requirement that all guns purchased require either a safe being purchased at the same time and/or a certificate of safe ownership big enough to contain such a weapon.

If the safe is not made available at cost, that constitutes an infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms. A meaningful safe costs more than you must pay to get a firearm of excellent quality to put in it. This is also true of the incredible fees one has to pay for carry licenses in some states (e.g. California.)

it may help curb some of the opportunistic "night stand" situations.

You mean, where it gets stolen? Because that's pretty much where you want it for home defense. It should be locked up when you're not near it, though.

I would also support a requirement that purchasers have taken a mandatory gun safety class.

That makes plenty of sense.

I find it a bit annoying that it's easier to own a weapon than it is to drive a car.

I don't know what one pays today to get one's driving license, but it didn't cost me any more to get my driver's license than my firearm buying license, and the test is pathetic. I don't think there's a meaningful difference. The test for getting a hunting license is pretty lame, too.

Re:100 more will die today

[n7ytd]

The catch-22 is that your relative value on human life makes you an incredibly inappropriate person for making those life-and-death decisions.

There are a million and one reasons why someone might be in your house (or why you might think someone's in your house).

I'm not suggesting being robbed isn't most likely explanation, but it's just stuff. Your stuff is not worth extrajudicial killing someone over.

I agree, no object in my home is worth shooting anyone over. I would not shoot anyone who I thought was just in my home to steal.

If I thought that that person might have harm in mind for one of my family members? Absolutely. Vengeance for a dead family member would not bring them back, and daddy being in prison probably wouldn't help the healing or the financial well-being of the surviving family members. But, if I had the clear option of stopping someone who might harm one of my family, I would rather explain myself to a jury and take my chances rather than live with the results of my inaction. I've seriously pondered that question, and frankly it's moot since my guns are locked in a location that really would do me no good during a home invasion. I've chosen to not have guns readily available in my home, since the odds of someone being shot accidentally are much greater than the odds of my having to face down an armed invader in my home ready to kill my family to steal $300 worth of junk.

As long as you can convince the would-be burglar that my stuff is not worth anyone (him or me) dying for, then I'm all for your plan. Until then, I would prefer the home field advantage of being the shooter rather than the shootee, and as long as the possibility exists in that burglar's mind that just maybe I'm a gun-toting nut with a .45 in my mattress tips the odds in my favor.

Re:100 more will die today

[xevioso]

Citation needed

Re:100 more will die today

[drinkypoo]

I realize handguns require a higher degree of concentration to achieve accuracy, so there are downsides.

It really doesn't matter if you're in a typical home defense situation. If your home is so large that accuracy is a major issue over the ranges involved, you can probably afford guards.

Re:100 more will die today

[msauve]

In the UK, for 2008/9, the rate of homicide by "sharp object" (knives, dirks, daggers, etc. I assume) was 39% (from some Home Office report). In the US (2005), it was 12.8%. (from some US Bureau of Justice report)

The (knife) murder rate in the UK is over 3 times larger than in the US.

Killers will use whatever weapon is at hand.

Re:100 more will die today

[modecx]

Funny that the US military simply calls an M-16... A 'rifle'. Anything shorter than that, such as an M4 is called a 'carbine' or 'rifle', usually interchangeably. Anything smaller than that is called a sub-machine gun. Most militarizes follow the same pattern.

It's said that Adolf Hitler himself invented the term Assault Rifle (sturmgewehr, or storm rifle), for the naming of the Mkb 42 "machine carbine", which was the prototype's first designation. This was done for the simple reason of propaganda, both to increase the confidence in the arm in their own forces, and ostensibly to instill fear into their enemies. The moniker continues its history of not being a descriptive or categorizational term, and is much more often used as a tool for ideological and political proselytism, to influence certain ideas and thoughts. Newspeak.

Incidentally, German military brass of the period thought the automatic feature of the StG 44 was not especially useful, as it would lead to a waste of ammunition due to anxious spray-firing instead of deliberately aimed shots, and so they directed units that full-auto fire should be used only in emergencies. While I'm on the subject, something should be pointed about Germany's current service rifle, the G36. The G stands for Gewehr. Rifle. The Germans are back to using purely descriptive names, why aren't we?

Re:100 more will die today

[msauve]

I said "rate," but to be clear, it's really the percentage of homicides which use that weapon.

Re:100 more will die today

[Fluffeh]

The (gun) murder rate in the US is 7.5 times larger than in the UK, and more than 3 times larger than in Australia.

I think you are off by an order of magnitude.

3/0.04 = 75, not 7.5 and 3/0.09 = 33.3

Re:100 more will die today

[camperdave]

This. Around here, the government pays for one physical checkup per year, and two dental checkups per year. However, there is no hint of a regular mental health checkup program, voluntary or not, government or privately paid or not.

Re:100 more will die today

[phantomfive]

It might not matter. A lot of these shooters ARE under psychological care. The guy in Penn State, the guy in Norway, Dylan Klebold was on fluvoxamine. Some people say psychiatric care causes violence. It's a stretch, but there's no real good reason to believe that more access to mental healthcare will help anything.

Re:100 more will die today

[phantomfive]

In the US, most (if not all) healthcare providers will pay for psychological care. Check your policy.

Re:100 more will die today

[Vaphell]

i guess the US as a whole doesn't know that either, as evidenced by hundreds of children killed in the war on terror. Are they today's equivalent of the 3/5 of a person, not worth as much as little white 'Muricans?

Re:100 more will die today

[swillden]

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is against the law but nobody is seriously complaining that it is an unnecessary surrender of freedom.

Right, and the analogous second amendment restriction is the ban on private possession of weapons of mass destruction, fighter aircraft, bombs, artillery, etc. Possession of personal arms is analogous to the right to speak your mind to your elected officials. In fact it's closely related to, and perhaps inextricably tied to, that right.

The notion that the Second Amendment is more sacred than the First would laughable if it wasn't so deadly wrong.

More sacred? No. Equally sacred... I don't think that's wrong or laughable. We can debate about whether or not the world has changed enough to make this untrue now, but James Madison and his contemporaries considered it blindingly obvious that the second amendment freedoms were the basis for all others.

I recommend that you read "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction", by Akhil Reed Amar (who is one of the most significant legal thinkers of our era, BTW, and has been cited more than 20 times by US Supreme Court opinions, not some gun nut).

If you'd like a shorter article, and one that you won't have to buy, try this one: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103wha.htm

I suspect you may actually like the conclusions in that article, even though it places more importance on the second amendment that you might prefer.

Re:100 more will die today

[BetterSense]

It's not newsworthy when an unknown number of deaths are prevented by gun use.

Re:100 more will die today

[epyT-R]

What do you propose? that I lie on the floor like a coward and hope he doesn't shoot me in the back out of contempt after he's done robbing me? Who are you to state the value of my 'stuff'? My family? my rights? my dignity? Look at it another way, don't invade peoples' homes if you value your life. That makes a lot more pragmatic sense than some kind of neo-hippie stockholm syndrome attitude towards violence.

People that reason like you make me wonder what passes for common sense taught in public school, and what passes for critical thinking skills at university these days. Ideology seems to matter a lot more than reality, and that scares me more than any NRA gun nut.

Re:100 more will die today

[amRadioHed]

We're all so impressed by your 1337 marksmanship skills, but most psychopaths don't spend years training before going on their killing spree. Also, the number of rounds that hit their targets is determined by the percent that are on target multiplied by the number of shots fired. If you slow down the shooter, you reduce the damage.

Re:100 more will die today

[HornWumpus]

Xmas money? Yikes. How old are you?

Re:100 more will die today

[swillden]

Some corrections (I'm a certified firearms instructor*):

I haven't fired the shotgun in over a decade, and the ammo I have is probably too stale to work reliably.

Ammo doesn't get stale. If stored in moist conditions it can corrode, but outside of that it doesn't go bad. Ammunition from WWII is still perfectly safe, functional and reliable.

If I have to defend my family (or join in an insurrection) the AR-15 is definitely my weapon of choice

That's certainly a reasonable position, but the shotgun (I assume it's 12-gauge -- that's the most common for 870s, though they come in various gauges) is a more effective and safer home defense weapon in most scenarios, when loaded with appropriate ammunition. A 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot is basically equivalent to firing nine 9mm rounds at once. It does a devastating amount of damage and is very likely to stop an intruder with a single shot.

It's far more effective than a .223, which was a caliber chosen by the US military in large part because it tends to produce incapacitating wounds, not death. Not that death is your goal, but the "incapacitating wounds" sought by armies are wounds that make a soldier ineffective in minutes whereas for self-defense you want wounds that incapacitate in seconds. Armies want the injured soldier to be unable to charge across a 100-yard battlefield or accurately shoot a rifle at moderate ranges. You want the intruder to be unable to charge 10 feet or stab with a knife. The shotgun is far better for that.

Another downside to the rifle is overpenetration. While anyone who tries to tell you that it's "safe" to fire a shotgun because it won't penetrate walls is just wrong -- anything that will penetrate a body will penetrate walls -- shotgun pellets do have significantly less penetration than rifle rounds. The rifle bullet will traverse two or three times as many walls before stopping as the shotgun pellet.

Note that I haven't said that an advantage of shotguns is that they don't need to be aimed accurately. At home defense ranges, spread is pretty minimal, so you still have to aim.

I had extensive experience with M-16s during a former employment.

Extensive experience with AR-15-style weapon is a definite mark in favor of the rifle. However, I doubt it would take much practice to become equally proficient with the shotgun. Most of the skills are transferrable.

I do not own a handgun, and I never will. There are not safe, especially around kids (I have two), and would be less effective than a rifle in almost any defensive scenario.

On safety: Handguns are, in general, neither more nor less safe than long guns. In one specific way, they're safer, though. Modern handguns are designed to be carried all day, every day, loaded and ready to fire. Handgun manufacturers do extensive testing to verify that their guns will not discharge unless something operates the trigger, regardless of how they get banged around or beat on. Long guns don't get that same degree of safety testing. For home use this is probably a distinction without a difference, but if you were to carry your firearm in a car, for example, you should do so without a round in the chamber of the rifle or shotgun, lest an automobile accident cause a negligent discharge. There's no similar concern with a properly-functioning modern handgun.

On effectiveness: Handguns actually do have some very significant advantages over long guns (of any type) for home defense. It's far easier to move safely around a dark house with a shorter gun. It's also easier to move around corners without offering a waiting intruder an opportunity to get your gun. And it's also easier to fight an intruder who manages to get close to you with a handgun. One of the training drills I recommend to my students is to learn to shoot their handgun "from retention posit

Re:100 more will die today

[BetterSense]

How many people did not die in the Clackamas Mall shooting a couple days ago? Apparently a bystander who was legally carrying a handgun for defense confronted the shooter, but did not fire due to presence of bystanders. Handgun vs. rifle is a very frightening disparity, btw.

http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html

How many people didn't die that would have? Hard to say, but I'm sure all we will hear in the news is about the shooter how the incident proves we need to ban guns.

Re:100 more will die today

[Sarten-X]

Alright, Since sarcasm, satire, and hyperbole and irony all seem to be lost on you, I'll rephrase using the more common vernacular:

Whoosh.

I used the "dear leader" term to adopt satirically the voice of someone from the "wingnut echo chamber", which I then used to sarcastically disbelieve the OP's plea for sanity. I then hyperbolized the effect of our existing national security policies to illustrate ironically how useless they actually are, and how harmful such over-reactions can be, regardless of any political backing. Finally, the "three shells" comment was in humorous reference to Demolition Man, which depicts a perfectly safe society that is so risk-free it can't even function effectively in a time of minor crisis.

In truth, I think a moderate response is really what we should hope and work for, eventually aiming to relieve the conditions that make people want to commit such atrocities. However, all too often it seems our politicians (from all parties) see tragedy as a career-building opportunity, where they can exploit the public outrage to pass ever-stricter legislation that makes them look good while just wasting time, money, and lives.

There, I've explained the joke. It's somewhat ruined now, but at least the ACs can understand!

Re:100 more will die today

[amRadioHed]

Guess what, the reason Mexico has so many guns is because they can easily by them legally in the US.

Re:100 more will die today

[GigsVT]

Crime has been falling steadily as gun sales have increased steadily. So apparently encouraging more gun ownership has a positive impact on crime. Doing nothing seems like a perfectly valid course of action in the face of the steady fall in crime rates.

Re:100 more will die today

[Rich0]

I don't believe that the distinction between submachine gun and (assault) rifle has anything to do with size. I believe the distinction is entirely in the ammo - a submachine gun fires ammo typically associated with pistols. Rifles and machine guns fire much larger rounds. Of course, larger rounds tend to involve larger barrels, so there is a relationship with weapon size.

Re:100 more will die today

[HornWumpus]

You can, it's just illegal.

Re:100 more will die today

[GigsVT]

A gun store at a gun show has to do a background check as well. Get your facts right.

A private individual can sell a gun to another private individual without a background check, which is true whether it happens at a gun show or not. There is no loophole, only the normal right to dispose of privately owned property as you see fit.

Re:100 more will die today

[GigsVT]

If you think liberty comes without any costs, then I don't believe you know what liberty really is.

Re:100 more will die today

[HornWumpus]

3d printer not needed. If you've got the machine shop you're golden.

Re:100 more will die today

[Rich0]

I don't own a gun and don't really plan on owning one, but one thing that I would think would make either a rifle or shotgun less useful for home defense would be the need to secure them when not in use. Handguns are easy to store close to the bed, and there are models with fingerprint recognition. I doubt such features are available in shotguns. I doubt I'd want to just leave a loaded shotgun leaning against the night stand.

If you're going to lock the gun in a big safe and keep the ammo separate then about the only thing you're going to defend against is somebody who just starts banging on the door loudly for a minute before making any serious attempt to enter the house. Somebody determined to enter your house is not going to be kept outside for more than about 30 seconds unless you have serious door hardware and barred windows, and of course the real scenario that worries most people is that the first indication that something wrong is the sound of somebody walking around the house when they wake up.

Otherwise, I tend to agree that as an indoor defensive weapon I'd think a shotgun would be almost impossible to beat. Even if you just load it with birdshot you could point it in the general direction of an intruder and they're not going to be causing you too much trouble anytime soon, unless they're wearing full body armor and a helmet.

Re:100 more will die today

[HornWumpus]

If you ever have to shoot someone you want to be sure you kill him. Otherwise he will sue you,

Re:100 more will die today

[GigsVT]

The firearms industry is not a big or powerful industry. It's mostly a bunch of small companies with a few medium sized ones. Ruger, for example, has about 400 million a year in sales. Their market capitalization puts them in the very bottom of the "small cap" stock class, almost a microcap.

And they are one of the bigger companies. It's just not a big or powerful industry. The lobbying power is not corporate in origin, it's from millions of gun owners donating lots of personal money to protect their rights.

Re:100 more will die today

[GigsVT]

Guns manufactured before 1898 are not considered "firearms" under the GCA or the NFA, so you aren't legally a gun owner.

Even felons can buy/own stuff that's made before 1898, I believe, because they aren't even considered "firearms". (ask a lawyer before trying this)

Re:100 more will die today

[GigsVT]

Buckshot goes through wallboard just fine, and birdshot does not stop people. Not even up close. Google stories about people who got shot in the chest/arm/leg with birdshot at point blank range and never were incapacitated.

Birdshot might kill someone if you get an unlucky pellet in the exact right place, but it only penetrates a couple inches.

So it's kind of a myth that shotgun is safer in terms of overpenetration. Any shotgun round that penetrates well enough to stop an attacker will zip straight through wallboard.

High powered rifles are somewhat safer if you are worried about shooting through walls... often a high speed rifle round will disintegrate shortly after hitting one wall.

Re:100 more will die today

[kiwimate]

Roughy 500 kids go permanently missing each year in the USA and are presumed dead. Millions of public monitoring cameras would surely reduce that number. Are you willing to sacrified the freedom to go about your daily business unwatched in order to save an order of magnitude more children?

Really? Hell yes. I really would. Cameras watching me in public, and you claim it'll save 500 kids every year? At the risk of some unknown government low-level staffer seeing me pick my nose in public? Or scratch my butt in public?

Sign me up. Yes, that's worth it. What freedom am I losing? Again, public monitoring cameras??? I don't think there's a moment during the day when I'm in public that I'm not in sight of someone. I think you've got pretty silly standards of what constitutes freedom.

Re:100 more will die today

[shutdown -p now]

Gun crime != violent crime.

That said, GP is still wrong. Violent crime did not go up in those countries. It did not go down either, though. Or rather it did, but at the same rate that it was going down before gun control legislation (violent crime is generally going down across the board in all Western countries).

Re:100 more will die today

[shutdown -p now]

Comparing different countries like that is pointless, since gun laws are not their only difference. Far more important are economic factors such as the number of people living in poverty, social mobility, various welfare programs etc - on all of which US scores at the bottom with a huge gap to everyone else.

What you should be comparing is the same country before and after gun control legislation is enacted or rescinded.

Re:100 more will die today

[Darinbob]

There's no constitutional right to dispose of privately owned property as you see fit. You can not sell your unused medical prescriptions at a swap meet.

Re:100 more will die today

[shutdown -p now]

would be less effective than a rifle in almost any defensive scenario.

They are much more effective than a rifle in one important defensive scenario that is relatively common: the one when you don't have any rifle. Sure, for a break-in of your house or something like that, a shotgun is quite sufficient - in fact, more effective. But you cannot exactly carry it around when you go out. A subcompact pistol or a mousegun can be easily concealed in a pocket, and readily available should you ever be faced with an assailant with a knife or similar weapon.

Re:100 more will die today

[shutdown -p now]

Even the M-16s don't have full auto these days. The M-16A2 has three-round burst instead

For legal purposes, this is still classified as automastic fire.

IIRC because the DOD determined that "spray and pray" isn't an effective method for engaging the enemy.

It's not that they "determined" it, it was mainly top brass peddling the old "one shot, one kill" mantra. In reality, it is trivial to teach soldiers to fire short bursts, and the way this particular thing is implemented in M16 is, frankly, horrible (it results in variable trigger pull when firing in semi-auto, and it also doesn't reset if you release the trigger before the end of the 3-round burst, so next time you squeeze it, it'll cycle through the remainder of the group).

Re:100 more will die today

[shutdown -p now]

Ban anything with more than 3 rounds in the clip.

That would make a lot of popular hunting rifles illegal right away, since the common magazine capacity is 5 rounds, and occasionally 10 - and a lot of them are non-removable.

Ban anything shorter than the length of a standard rifle.

What, exactly, is the length of a "standard rifle"?

More importantly, how would it help? Do you think that making the rifle longer makes it somehow harder to aim at humans?

And then, start giving permits for more deadly guns to people who can demonstrate they actually need them.

Everyone can demonstrate that they need one; they only need to claim the right to efficiently defend themselves against assault.

Re:100 more will die today

[dixonpete]

Call me Canadian but I would prefer that none of my neighbours had assault rifles. Just seems to me the odds of people dying goes up in direct proportion with the number of those weapons existing in my vicinity. 20 years ago I was pretty regular guy. Some issues with depression but nothing major and certainly I had no criminal record. Had I lived in the States and been so inclined I could have legally gotten possession of an armory worth of weapons. Then one day the psychiatrist I had been seeing prescribed Imipramine, one the old-school anti-depressants. I was unlucky enough to be genetically disposed to jump into full scale mania for six months because of this drug until the connection was made. I know, bad psychiatrist!! During the mania I acted entirely irresponsibly and had very little self control. I can only imagine what could have happened had I had access to weapons while I was in that state. And unfortunately that is the reality for the human condition. Sometimes regular people go nuts. And sometimes nutty people go nuttier. The more guns there are around the more opportunities there are for bad things to happen. And having assault rifles circulating in the civilian population just seems unwise to the extreme.

Re:100 more will die today

[stdarg]

No, that's only illegal if there isn't actually a fire, and you did it to cause a panic and injure people. Even if there isn't a fire, you might think there is (smoke, but no fire) and it still wouldn't be illegal. So it's not the word "fire" that is illegal, it's the intent and circumstances of its use. That's how guns are -- and should be. Why should owning a gun be illegal if you don't misuse it?

Re:100 more will die today

[Areyoukiddingme]

Also known as "full rock and roll" in the Viet Nam era.

Funny how slang drifts.

Re:100 more will die today

[GigsVT]

I'm just saying, since there's no law against it, it's just a normal sale of private property. To pass a law against it would not be closing a "loophole", it would be creating a new restriction.

Re:100 more will die today

[SplashMyBandit]

The M-16A2 has three-round burst instead, IIRC because the DOD determined that "spray and pray" isn't an effective method for engaging the enemy.

"Spray n pray" is un-aimed shots. Conscripts in Vietnam did this. I believe modern users of the M-16/M-4 are trained never to do this (and the Israelis are trained to lie, kneel or brace before shooting - according to an Israeli mate of mine; they try not to fire standing as it is less stable for aiming). You are right that this was a factor in removing full-auto from this weapon.

The second factor in creating a weapon with a three round burst is because the recoil of the first shots upset the aim sufficiently that further shots are usually wasted. Some weapons try to get the burst out quickly to reduce minimize the effect of recoil on aiming.

The third factor in removing full auto is not related to aiming. It is to reduce the wastage of ammunition and soldiers to be engaged for longer without running out of ammo (since soldiers can only carry a limited amount - it is heavy!).

Re:100 more will die today

[cliveholloway]

That's 75x and 30x respectively - not 7.5 and 3. Your decimal point is off there.

Re:100 more will die today

[hondo77]

Why should owning a gun be illegal if you don't misuse it?

Does the same apply to an atomic bomb?

Re:100 more will die today

[hondo77]

I suspect you may actually like the conclusions in that article, even though it places more importance on the second amendment that you might prefer.

Thanks for the link. I don't think he places more importance on the Second Amendment than I would. I don't deny the Second Amendment gives people the right to own arms (though when most gun lovers hear "gun control", they reflexively translate that to "taking all my guns away"). I do have a problem with the notion that the Second Amendment gives everyone the right to any armament they desire and carry it wherever they go without restriction, which he addresses in the articles last two sentences:

Realistic gun control today may not be exactly what the Framers had in mind when they said that the armed citizenry should be "well regulated." But--at least in a world that is so distant from the Founders--it's close enough.

Re:100 more will die today

[Jason Levine]

What is the purpose behind a semi-automatic weapon with a clip of 100 bullets? What is the legal use for this?

I wouldn't support a ban on all guns. That would never work and there are instances where guns should be required (provided background checks, etc). However, what legal reason does someone need to possess a weapon like this? (No, simply saying "I'd like to have it" doesn't cut it. I'd like to have a nuclear reactor, but if I went shopping for uranium, I'd run into some difficulties.)

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

I wonder how many had those mental conditions BEFORE going to prison...

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

I think you managed to collect all of the incorrect opinions on effective gun control into one post. Bravo.

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

"which is a big loop hole in many gun control laws."

Wrong. There's nothing legal to do at a swap meet or gun show that isn't legal to do outside of one. The idea of a "Gun show loophole" is a flat out lie that's been told so often it's accepted as truth.

To be clear the requirement of an FFL to transfer weapons even between individuals is something I would consider perfectly reasonable, but the talk of loopholes is totally wrong.

Re:100 more will die today

[PlusFiveTroll]

If you want to go by statistics

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Homicide_offending_by_race.jpg

The solution is to ban black people. Or men

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png

After all the Blacks and Men are banned in the U.S. It will be a right cheery place, what, no. Maybe just quoting statistics without how and why those numbers exist is mostly useless.

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

You have to pass a background check first.

Re:100 more will die today

[Izuzan]

At last findable count on google. Americans own more than 200 million guns. good luck getting gun owners to surrender that many guns. there are people that have hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in firearms either for collecting, or competition. should they have all that equity taken from them with nothing in return ? and for what getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. with Mexico with no more than a fence between, and a short jaunt of water to another big bad place how on earth can people think they are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Re:100 more will die today

[PlusFiveTroll]

WTF are you talking about?

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

Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

I wonder how many more people could have died at the North Hollywood Shootout if they HADN'T modified their AKs to full auto.

Re:100 more will die today

[PlusFiveTroll]

Adding to this, it seems like killing people in mass was a pretty rare thing before the gun ban too. It sounds like you are trying to show cause/effect of black swan event

Re:100 more will die today

[PlusFiveTroll]

The type of criminals you list may not target innocents, but they really don't give a shit who gets caught in the crossfire and stray bullets.

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

A single .22 won't incapacitate someone unless it's a kill shot. People get shot by MUCH more powerful weapons and remain perfectly functional to cause harm all the time.

Re:100 more will die today

[PlusFiveTroll]

Add Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
June 8, 2001 8 children killed. 13 children 2 teachers injured.

Re:100 more will die today

[shadowofwind]

US rate is 75 times higher according to your numbers, not 7.5.

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

This is the reason my mom gives for not wanting to fly.

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

Not really, then you're left with the physically powerful who have the ability to do as they will since they have the most powerful weapons.

Re:100 more will die today

[PlusFiveTroll]

There have been a good number of school mass killings with knives in China and Japan. Look it up.

Also look at this

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

The U.S. has a problem with poverty and lack of education by race that causes our high murder numbers. The 'White' murder rate is somewhere between .5 and .3. We are still suffering from the legacy of slavery and racism in the U.S. and will have a higher murder rate because of it even if guns disappeared tomorrow.

Re:100 more will die today

[PlusFiveTroll]

Maybe, but not buying my magic rock will affect gun crime never too!

>caused a gun ban to be enacted on everything but single-shot long guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

No gun is any more or less deadly then any other. A person who can load a single shot fast can kill you just as dead.

>Plus, if you do a total ban on certain weapons, you have the moral authority
to do whatever the fuck you want.

Also, no tolerance types of bans tend to increase the lethality of crime. 'Oh shit, I'll get the death penalty if I commit 1 murder, I might as well shoot as many as I can and see if I get away'.

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

"No guns == no gun violence"
Citation needed. Even countries that banned guns years ago have gun violence, not much, but it's still there. Meanwhile their general murder rates don't change much and violent crime goes up.

"allow only what it says in the constitution"
Everything. The Consitution set no limits.

Re:100 more will die today

[fredgiblet]

I have a friend who can go through hundreds in a single sitting. I've been part of competitions where it might take a couple dozen rounds to finish a single stage.

Re:100 more will die today

[quenda]

Only law abiding people follow the laws...criminals, by definition, aren't going to abide by them.

If I hear this crazy false dichotomy one more time, I'm going postal.

Re:100 more will die today

[PlusFiveTroll]

Improve racial equality, education, and income in the U.S.

The vast majority of murders in the U.S. are cause by and against minorities. The unfortunate answer for the person at hand, is there is no easy answer without taking so much liberty from the citizens that were at a much higher risk of being assaulted and killed by are own government.

Re:100 more will die today

[stuporglue]

"Unless you outright ban guns....or possibly legislate it so that only single shot weapons are legal, you're not going to change or do anything."

Single shot weapons aren't very useful for hunting. I have a single-shot breach action 12ga. shotgun. I missed several ducks and geese this year because I only had one shot -- by the time you reload they're gone.

I think it'd be a real hassle at gun ranges too.

Re:100 more will die today

[PlusFiveTroll]

One of the largest influences in reducing crime in the U.S. is racial equality and reducing poverty for minorities.

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

Even if we reduced all non-minority crime to 0 we'd still have more crime then most other places in the world.

Instead we'll spend more money on fighting crime, banning guns and drugs, and incarcerating people then we will on improving peoples lives. And we will wonder why we have high murder rates.

Re:100 more will die today

[betterprimate]

For certain places, such as Chicago, NYC or Washington DC, it's pretty hard for anyone to get any weapon. Of course, those are also the places with the highest gun violence rates. Odd, that.

Citation please. NYC is one of the lowest in the nation.

Re:100 more will die today

[pipedwho]

The number we obviously need to work on is the 11.5k gun homicides, especially when you compare us to other countries.

Get rid of the 'war on drugs' and I'm willing to hazard a guess that number would drop significantly.

Re:100 more will die today

[cold fjord]

Do you weep for the masses of children that died because Saddam stole the Oil for Food program money intended for food, medicine, and clean water to build palaces and buy weapons? Do you shed a tear for the children killed in school by the Taliban, or blown up on the roads by Al Qaeda? Since they were not killed by Americans, do you count them as persons at all? It is the same old story: one person killed by an American is an "international outrage", a village massacred by America's enemies is to be ignored.

Re:100 more will die today

[modecx]

There are a million and one reasons why someone might be in your house

Oh? That's a pretty interesting assertion, I'll call you out on it. Please enumerate three such reasons someone would invade my home that are benign to my family and myself, property aside. If there are a million and one, three shouldn't prove too difficult.

Re:100 more will die today

[ahabswhale]

What, your not going to look at Canada? They don't have anywhere near the gun problems we do and they have LOTS of guns.

Re:100 more will die today

[swillden]

Consider that had some of the teachers at Sandy Hook been armed, the outcome would have been very different. Restricting the ability of law-abiding, rational people to be armed won't do a thing to prevent criminals and nutcases from having guns... but it does dramatically alter the balance of power in precisely the wrong direction.

Here's another link: https://plus.google.com/u/0/111463469546217406955/posts/CsdTguwmXPG

Re:100 more will die today

[ahabswhale]

I completely agree with you. I think there should be a $100 tax applied to every gun sale that goes to government funded health care in cases where it would present a financial hardship for the person in question (or family for minors) to pay for it themselves. People want to pass a bunch of gun laws to make themselves feel better without any concern for the people who are in severe mental distress. So sad but I can almost guarantee nothing will happen to help the mental health situation in this country.

Re:100 more will die today

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Really? Hell yes. I really would. Cameras watching me in public, and you claim it'll save 500 kids every year? At the risk of some unknown government low-level staffer seeing me pick my nose in public? Or scratch my butt in public?

False dichotomy. You've picked the least problematic case of public monitoring systems and are comparing it to the worst case for gun ownership. If you can't recognize the hypocrisy in that, then you aren't looking for truth, you are just looking to win an argument.

Sign me up. Yes, that's worth it. What freedom am I losing? Again, public monitoring cameras???

You are losing the freedom for the entire population to not be continuously stalked. The difference between 100 different joe randoms seeing you at various points in the day and a system that permanently records your every movement all day, every day is not simply one of degree, it is an enormous difference in kind.

Re:100 more will die today

[Kr3m3Puff]

Crime has been falling steadily as gun sales have increased steadily. So apparently encouraging more gun ownership has a positive impact on crime. Doing nothing seems like a perfectly valid course of action in the face of the steady fall in crime rates.

Well illegal immigrants in the US have been rising steadily as crime has been falling. Maybe we need more illegal immigrants then? Or maybe it was because of Roe v. Wade and abortion is driving down crime rates?

Correlation is not causation.

Re:100 more will die today

[epyT-R]

then go move to china, north korea, russia, or an EU member.. There are plenty of countries run by those with your mindset. I don't want it deciding what's right for america.

Re:100 more will die today

[TwentyCharsIsNotEnou]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America. Roughly about 1/3 accidents, 1/3 suicides, and 1/3 deliberate homicides.

Well homicide is already illegal, so I'll leave that aside...

But ban accidents and suicide, and you'll immediately drop that number by 66%.

Re:100 more will die today

[SecurityTheatre]

You have to reverse the "tough on crime" mentality.

Most Americans seem to view prison as ultimate retribution for evils.

Europeans (at least in the past) viewed it as necessary punishment, combined with rehabilitation in order to better society as a whole, without regard to "vengance" or "revenge" or other such factors.

Re:100 more will die today

[SecurityTheatre]

He didn't say kidnapped, he said missing. That is probably much more often, little Timmy falling into the river, or teenager Danny committing suicide off a bridge without leaving a note.

Re:100 more will die today

[SecurityTheatre]

It isn't, lots of study went into that. In full-auto bursts from most soldiers, only the first 2-3 rounds were anywhere CLOSE to the intended target anyway...

Re:100 more will die today

[SecurityTheatre]

This is all a great point. Thanks for sharing. I came into this slightly supporting gun controls, but am open minded and I'm not entirely sure now... Interesting issue, and one that you have stated very well here. I think humans overreacting to the extraordinary is a huge problem in our society.. too bad, really.

Re:100 more will die today

[L4t3r4lu5]

Absolutely true. However, Big Medis so intent on creating hysteria and moral panic regarding violent robberies / burglaries that the average middle-class home owner thinks that the 14 year old who has, spur of the moment, decided they want your Vauxhall Corsa to drive around for an hour is actually a 30 year old serial rapist who decapitates their victims and puts the head on a pike in his basement. So, they go buy a gun / keep a knife under the bed, and people get killed over a TV or a PS3.

Blame the news corps.

Re:100 more will die today

[xhrit]

if it is a long enough spear you could kill DOZENS of people at once, and you NEVER have to reload a spear...

Re:100 more will die today

[Inda]

Shock and alarm needed.

<p>If it was said "Over a hundred people die from firearms <b>a year</b> in the UK" I would be truely shocked.

The USA might have five times the amount of people, but the blas&#195;&#169; statement of "only 100" angers me to the core.

Re:100 more will die today

[Xest]

"What do you propose? that I lie on the floor like a coward and hope he doesn't shoot me in the back out of contempt after he's done robbing me?"

You're assuming he'd have a gun, if the gun ban in the UK has taught us anything it's that the "If you ban guns, only bad guys have guns" mantra is grossly overplayed. In the UK guns are just about never ever used for breakins, whilst bad guys have them, they're so hard to get hold of and so expensive as a result that they only ever get used against other gang members and so forth in gang on gang violence. Innocent law abiding citizens are so very very rarely shot here, which is why it makes headline news on the rare occasions it does happen. Somewhat interestingly, the majority of guns that do make it across to the UK are actually legally bought guns from the US smuggled over, so a limitation on US firearms purchases would actually help us. It's not uncommon that the same gun in the UK is passed around for multiple murders, so of the 39 or so gun murders last year or whatever it was for example, 10 of them may have been with a single weapon which highlights the limited amount of firearms on the streets, which highlights the minimised impact they now have on our society.

"Who are you to state the value of my 'stuff'? My family? my rights? my dignity? Look at it another way, don't invade peoples' homes if you value your life. That makes a lot more pragmatic sense than some kind of neo-hippie stockholm syndrome attitude towards violence."

But that's what we do in the UK too, we make criminals scared to break in by telling them don't do if if they value their lives. We reinforce this principle by broadly publicising cases like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8812716/Homeowner-cleared-after-burglar-stabbed-to-death.html

America seems obsessed with the need for guns to defend themselves, what happened to the good old fashioned cricket bat if you're paranoid? If you're really, really desperate for a gun then manual load shotguns and hunting rifles at least are still perfectly legal. You just can't have a concealable firearm or a semi or fully automatic one. Here we have a concept of reasonable force, if someone's in your home with a knife it's reasonable to grab a big fat kitchen knife and attack them with it before they attack you. But as this article points out there are limits:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20398432

"There was a case when a man in a warehouse captured an intruder who'd come onto his premises. He tied him up, threw him in a pit and set fire to him."

Obviously that was taking things a little too far.

It's about getting the balance right between deterring intruders and preventing excuse for murder. I think we have that balance about right in our country now and certainly guns aren't part of it. Of course Americans make the argument that we've no way to defend ourselves against our government, but I think this is a silly argument, is there really any evidence we're less free to influence political discourse in nations like ours where guns are banned than in the US? What if a theoretical dictator comes along, sure we wont be armed to remove him but do we need to be? If the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya showed us anything it's that gun ownership needn't be a barrier to revolution - the army either sides with the population because it's their friends and family being oppressed to, or if they don't, then the populace just storms the army bases and then gets their guns - this is precisely what happened in Libya, an otherwise peaceful protest passing an army check point turned on it and stormed it before they even knew what had happened. I don't buy the guns are essential to protect liberty argument, as there's absolutely zero evidence to date for that being the case whilst there is evidence that nations with strict gun

Re:100 more will die today

[Xest]

Someone whose mental capability is diminished would provide a number of reasons - too drunk, has alzheimers, mentally ill and hence walk into the wrong home.

Police/fire services being given the wrong house in an emergency call as a result of accident or a prank.

People being given the wrong address or similar for a party accidently or not.

Overly informal neighbour believing you would be okay with them just popping in.

Landlord if you have one entering the house to check/confirm something.

Gardener/Cleaner if you have one either because they're meant to be there or they came on the wrong day accidently or intentionally or you forgot what day they were supposed to be there.

Someone entering to warn you about an imminent danger, such as a neighbourhood fire, a bomb in the neighbourhood, a gas leak, a massive tidal surge or whatever.

There really are a lot of reasons, if your assertion is that it's unlikely these things would ever happen to you then you'd certainly be right about that, but that wasn't the GPs point. The GPs point is that there might be any number of innocent reasons why someone may intentionally or unintentionally enter your house and sure it even sometimes depends on if you always lock your door, never lock your door, sometimes forget to lock your door and so forth but that doesn't detract from the GP's point that sometimes, it can happen, and you shouldn't just instantly have the right to kill them.

Re:100 more will die today

[cayenne8]

Xmas money? Yikes. How old are you?

You don't get Christmas bonuses where you work?

Re:100 more will die today

[coldfarnorth]

Good catch. I dropped a decimal place.

Re:100 more will die today

[coldfarnorth]

Yup. My Bad.

Re:100 more will die today

[cayenne8]

The catch-22 is that your relative value on human life makes you an incredibly inappropriate person for making those life-and-death decisions.

I have a perfectly valid and normal value of human life.

MY life is infinitely more important than anyone elses, especially a criminal coming in my home to do ME or my family harm.

I have no problem making that life or death decisions. Between me and someone else, the winner in that decision is always ME.

Re:100 more will die today

[alexo]

And what's with this view that being able to shoot someone who wrongs you is better than the tiny risk of being robbed? Seriously? People with that view are exactly who I don't want having weapons anywhere near me.

Firstly:
It's not about being able to shoot the robber.
It's about the robber being aware that there's a good chance they might get shot.

Secondly:
Take your first statement.
Replace "wrongs" with "assaults".
Replace "robbed" with "raped".
Replace "you" with "my daughter" (or, alternatively, with "my mother").
Say it out loud.
Reflect.

Re:100 more will die today

[Remus Shepherd]

The news reports keep shifting, but the latest that I heard (on network news Monday 12/17) is that Lanza had a combat shotgun that he left in his car. All his killings were performed with the semi-auto rifle. At the end, he used a handgun to take his own life.

Re:100 more will die today

[Stormshadow]

Considering what a shit-disturber Sam was and his views on the right to own arms, I would say I'm referring to exactly the same kind of Liberty Mr. Adams referred to, even if I'm referring to only a subset of the larger scope the quote is using.

Re:100 more will die today

[Certhas]

Illusionary because if you actually study the effect of gun ownership on personal safety (remember, your personal anecdotes do not data make) it does not make you safer:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/17/guns-dont-make-you-safer

Also from spending the last few days on various US centric forums, it has become entirely clear to me that Americans are not actually interested in having a fact based discussion on this. The same places on the internet that will happily eviscerate the American right for its anti-scientific, fact ignoring stance on Global warming downvote/downmod comments that do little more than point out the facts on gun ownership.

Re:100 more will die today

[Methuseus]

(And no, I'm not talking about the Halocaust.)

Was that where they killed a bunch of Halo players? Or Halo players held people hostage because the US got the new game first?

Re:100 more will die today

[Methuseus]

I have never tried to buy a gun before. Because I haven't had a problem with background checks to get jobs, I believe I would be able to get one. I might need to wait a day, since my info isn't in the system as a gun owner, but I would probably be able to get one by tomorrow, or Friday, at the latest if I went to the store right now. It looks like it would cost about $500 or so to buy a rifle that's not bolt-action (single-shot). A handgun with a magazine is slightly cheaper. Ammo isn't very expensive, if I want it, either. That said, the vast majority of gun buyers are law-abiding citizens.

I don't know what country you live in, but I'm sure I can get plenty of dangerous items from a regular shop there. Yes, guns can be dangerous. Fortunately, the average person is decent.

Re:100 more will die today

[Archangel Michael]

3D printers will make it easier, which is the point. Print a gun from a template found on Pirate Bay. Done.

Re:100 more will die today

[cyberchondriac]

YI ask because I do not know - how easy / difficult is it for an adult in the US to buy a gun / rifle / whatever that can be used to shoot people dead?

It is easy. Here is the algorithm: 1. Get money. 2. Go to store. 3. Buy gun. 4. Depending on the state, you may need to wait up to 30 days to pick up your gun and take it home.

The seller is required to do an instant background check to make sure you have no criminal record. This only takes a few minutes.

You seemed to have forgotten a very important step - at least, in my State. You don't just walk in cold to Dick's Sporting Goods and buy a gun with an "instant" background check. Not even for a .22 rifle, and definitely not for a handgun.
You must first apply for a gun permit with your local police dept, and have two references, then you are put through a background check via CJIS; that takes typically 2 to 3 months. If you are approved, then and only then, you can walk in and buy a basic rifle or shotgun, or a handgun with a 30 day wait. If you exceed the 30 days, you must apply for that handgun cert over again. It may work differently down in the mid-west, but it's disingenuous to say that all an American has to do is walk in a store and plunk down money.

Re:100 more will die today

[modecx]

Someone whose mental capability is diminished would provide a number of reasons - too drunk, has alzheimers, mentally ill and hence walk into the wrong home.

This class of people tend not to break doors in, or have the physical capacity to do so. In the event of a drunk, someone who is high on drugs, or mental weirdo, if they cannot or will not respond correctly to "Stop. I have a gun and I will shoot you if you come closer!", and they've broken your door in, they are unquestionably a danger to your life, and the lives of your family members. As such, use of force up to and including deadly force is justified and legal in most jurisdictions, under many circumstances; for example, you may or not be required by local law to retreat from the threat, deadly force finally being legal when you're cornered. Deadly force doesn't necessarily mean firearm either. Baseball bats, axe handles, iron pipes, swords, knives, martial arts etc. may all be considered deadly force.

Police/fire services being given the wrong house in an emergency call as a result of accident or a prank.

If the EMT/Fire guys show up, that can all be sorted out before one shoots. I'd like to point out that anyone who is even trained basically understands the 4 rules of shooting. 1) All guns are loaded 2) don't point the gun at anything you don't want to die 3) Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to shoot 4) Before you ready to shoot, identify your target and everything behind it. Hopefully if something were to happen like this, everyone can take a deep breath, shake hands and go home safely.****

However, chances are if there are law enforcement in your house uninvited, they're of the no-knock warrant ninja-commando type who have their address wrong. It's happened before, and sure enough, police are far and away more dangerous to your family than any other class of invader. God forbid you have a gun in your hand, as they like to shoot anything that moves first and ask questions later. You'd better hope your dog is asleep and deaf, because they're liable to shoot it as well. It's only a matter of time until these types of raids happen upon a PTSD riddled vet with a hair trigger, leaving a bunch of cops and one vet dead.

People being given the wrong address or similar for a party accidently or not.
Overly informal neighbour believing you would be okay with them just popping in.****

They'll sure learn quickly to have the right address, and not just pop in****. On the other hand, if a woman is raped, it's more often by someone she knows than not, so your daughters and wife aught to be weary of such an informal neighbor, especially if its male.

Landlord if you have one entering the house to check/confirm something.
Landlords knock and or call and just don't bust down the door.****

Someone entering to warn you about an imminent danger.
Will probably themselves more occupied with running away to be too bothered to knock your door down and search you out.****

Gardener/Cleaner if you have one either because they're meant to be there or they came on the wrong day accidently or intentionally or you forgot what day they were supposed to be there.
****

Footnote: ****Again, just because you have a gun in hand or on your person does not mean your only available course of action is to immediately shoot every Girl Scout or innocent passerby who knocks on your door square in the face.

Re:100 more will die today

[bill_mcgonigle]

yeah, if you're an accomplished shooter and pistol grip is second nature. For people who don't practice enough or have a heavy trigger, it might be easy to not hit a 6" target at 20'.

Re:100 more will die today

[drinkypoo]

yeah, if you're an accomplished shooter and pistol grip is second nature. For people who don't practice enough or have a heavy trigger, it might be easy to not hit a 6" target at 20'.

Well, I have two things to say about that. One, playing video games is surprisingly good point-shooting practice, if you have a good light gun. Two, I am not opposed to forcing would-be gun owners to qualify with a weapon similar to the one they're going to purchase. I only expect them to hit the broad side of a barn with anything other than the firearm they're buying.

Re:100 more will die today

[YodasEvilTwin]

So 25 total? 26 in this here gun attack. Just saying.

Re:100 more will die today

[kiwimate]

For what it's worth, I'm not looking to win any argument; I think there are very few people here on Slashdot who will be swayed out of their firmly held beliefs (whether they agree with you or with me).

I am speaking up and saying that if faced with the proposition whereby I accept there are going to be many more cameras monitoring me in public in return for the assurance that it will make a significant difference in saving the lives and/or psyches of over a hundred children in 2013, and another hundred or two hundred in 2014, and another hundred or more in 2015, and so on, then I am fully willing to go with that.

Slashdotters have turned "think of the children" into a sarcastic unmeaning catch-phrase, but when I think of the children - as individuals, as little boys and girls who have been slaughtered before they had a chance to start life - and I think of the trade-off, it is not even a question for me. These are my priorities. They are different from many other individuals' priorities. So be it.

Recording my movements every day? I'm really not that concerned about someone choosing to watch where I go and what I do. I'm simply not that interesting that someone would pick me, out of millions of others, to stalk. You probably aren't either. Very few people are that interesting. And you can make your "what if" arguments ad nauseam and they will not sway my beliefs. I am sure nothing in this post will do anything other than to make you disgusted. If you are disgusted with me and my lack of awareness of what freedom means...oh well. We are two anonymous typists on a silly internet forum. Compared to 10 or 15 or 20 six and seven year old children being buried a week before Christmas, that means not a damn thing to me.

Re:100 more will die today

[YodasEvilTwin]

The sad fact is that violent crime is sort of irrelevant to this, IMO. Mental health care needs to be improved regardless.

Re:100 more will die today

[YodasEvilTwin]

Well, some people might. Aren't theatres now required to be designed with just that scenario in mind (so people can escape without their rate of movement being limited such that they're likely to be trampled, etc.)? I agree with your conclusion, just not with that argument.

Re:100 more will die today

[YodasEvilTwin]

No one is demanding death. What they are demanding is a world in which such death is merely possible, as are a great many other things. And it's still possible in a world where gun control is much stricter. You're hallucinating about something that cannot happen and then arguing for it by accusing others of wanting dead children; pretty much the height of fallacious and unproductive discourse right there.

Re:100 more will die today

[YodasEvilTwin]

Has that happened often or are you just fantasizing?

Re:100 more will die today

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Very few people are that interesting

That's the thing. It isn't the uninteresting people who have a problem. It is the people who become interesting through no fault of their own. The guy who witnesses a mob hit. The guy who is running for office against a corrupt politician. Anyone who gets on the bad side of someone with too much power.

Massive public monitoring means both the permanent stratification of society and is itself a huge public safety risk. Save hundreds to doom doom millions.

you can make your "what if" arguments ad nauseam and they will not sway my beliefs.

Tthat is very much the definition of someone who does not seek truth.

Re:100 more will die today

[bill_mcgonigle]

I am not opposed to forcing would-be gun owners to qualify with a weapon similar to the one they're going to purchase

One of our local gun stores used to do that. They had an old warehouse space that they set up as a range and would allow purchasers to try out a few models to see what was going to be the right fit for them (and also to give them a good sense of who was buying this - the buyer's right to buy doesn't obligate the seller to sell). Anyway, the EPA shut them down for potential lead exposure, so now it's just cash&carry, hope&pray.

Re:100 more will die today

[drinkypoo]

One of our local gun stores used to do that. They had an old warehouse space that they set up as a range and would allow purchasers to try out a few models to see what was going to be the right fit for them (and also to give them a good sense of who was buying this - the buyer's right to buy doesn't obligate the seller to sell). Anyway, the EPA shut them down for potential lead exposure, so now it's just cash&carry, hope&pray.

Well, I went to a shop that had a good selection of rentals and an indoor range, and I got to try before buying, so I got to find something I'm very accurate with right away. Ding! ding! ding! Kimber, in my case. I can't hit shit with a glock.

Re:100 more will die today

[bill_mcgonigle]

Ding! ding! ding! Kimber, in my case. I can't hit shit with a glock.

That's fantastic. It was surprising to me at first how different each brand can be. I guess we've all got different paws and different brains wired to 'em.

Re:100 more will die today

[Jawnn]

So... not anything like 100 per day.
Still, thanks for taking the time to bring some facts into the discussion. It is more than most posters can be bothered with.
Now, if you want to really dig into the statistics and what they mean, start looking at those firearms related deaths in comparison to other "non-natural" causes. Also, pay attention to the demographic skew for the firearms deaths. You will find them clustered heavily in a few areas. That there has been no hue and cry about that "epidemic of violence" should make us angry. That the deaths of few white grade-schoolers, while uniquely tragic, should get all the attention while the daily deaths of young, inner-city, non-white kids does not, should absolutely enrage us. I submit that something very important is missing from the discussion.

Re:100 more will die today

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's nothing. I couldn't find more recent data, but in 2000, over 6,400 children (age 0-18) died in motor vehicle crashes. That's a Sandy Hook EVERY TWO DAYS. Where's the outrage over that? (and the car-control lobby trying to ban cars?)

To be fair, there are tons of organizations working on that from multiple directions and we've seen a marked reduction in automobile deaths over the last decade. Whether it is due to their work (like lobbying for higher safety standards in vehicles) or something else (like a connection wtih the mostly unexplained general reduction in violent crime over the same time period) is hard to say.

Re:100 more will die today

[Algae_94]

I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that one of those 100 round drum magazines would jam. Seriously though, anyone with any experience with those drums, how big a pain in the ass is it to have that much weight hanging on the gun?

Re:100 more will die today

[cavebison]

We should focus on preventing more on the everyday killings, many of which should be preventable

Problem with your theory is that saying "oh this is just an aberration, worry about more common murders" is going to result in this event becoming more common. How often should mass killings happen, exactly, before we think seriously about it? How big should they be - 30 people, 40, 50?

A single lunatic like this, with firearms, can kill tens of people at a time. Unfortunately it's human nature that some people will commit murder. You will never stop that. You will never stop random individual murder. But we sure as hell can help prevent mass killings with semi-automatic weapons, don't you think?

Re:100 more will die today

[cavebison]

I DO want to be able to shoot someone that is trying to rob me.

Holy Jesus. Listen to yourself for a moment. You would *take a life* just because someone is trying to steal your TV.

Yes, that may be a common sentiment in the U.S., but to my ears, it's one step away from sociopathic lunatic.

Re:100 more will die today

[Xest]

"This class of people tend not to break doors in, or have the physical capacity to do so."

I agree, but as I say, not everyone routinely locks, or remembers to lock their door.

"In the event of a drunk, someone who is high on drugs, or mental weirdo, if they cannot or will not respond correctly to "Stop. I have a gun and I will shoot you if you come closer!", and they've broken your door in, they are unquestionably a danger to your life, and the lives of your family members."

Sure, but I see little reason for a gun. I'm unaware of a single case here in the UK where this sort of thing has been a problem, and that removing such a person shouldn't need a gun. The only case that comes close is a recent case where a drunk man did exactly this and the house owner simply stabbed him, he was found guilty of murder because he used execessive force, sure there was a drunk guy on his property, but the fact is he may have been drunk but was still harmless, he could've been removed without killing him. You'd have every right though to say, knock him unconcious.

"However, chances are if there are law enforcement in your house uninvited, they're of the no-knock warrant ninja-commando type who have their address wrong. It's happened before, and sure enough, police are far and away more dangerous to your family than any other class of invader. God forbid you have a gun in your hand, as they like to shoot anything that moves first and ask questions later. You'd better hope your dog is asleep and deaf, because they're liable to shoot it as well. It's only a matter of time until these types of raids happen upon a PTSD riddled vet with a hair trigger, leaving a bunch of cops and one vet dead."

I sympathise with this and agree this isn't so much an American gun problem as much as it is an American cultural problem. In the UK our police work under a different principle to that of many other police forces around the world, we have a system known as "Policing by consent" and what this means is that the police should not normally be particularly more well armed than the general public, are allowed to be (other than specialised units). This is why our police do not routinely carry guns because we try to avoid this ideology of the police being a controlling force over the population, hence why the only time police with guns turn up, is if someone themselves has a gun. Since 9/11 we have now got a number of exceptions - armed police routinely patrol airports, but on the streets this is not the case. After a couple of police officers were killed recently there was talking of arming our police again by some people but interestingly it was the police themselves who said they do not wish to be armed - they made it clear that when you start arming police you create an "us vs. them" divide, whereas our police prefer to try and be part of the community, rather than something that's there to oversee and control the community.

I suspect drastic changes to police training in the US probably are needed to ensure cops understand that they're not there as people who exist above ordinary citizens which is the mindset of those particular cops you describe, but who exist alongside ordinary citizens.

For what it's worth the history of the term "policing by consent" stems from the idea that when our first police forces came about, the only way the peasant classes wouldn't simply rebel against them and make them meaningless by overwhelming them in riots was if the police worked with them rather than tried to act as an occupying force in their towns etc. There's somewhat of a bitter irony here - effectively the police forces in the UK were built up under the rules they work under to prevent what trigged America's battle for independence- the idea that it was the crown imposing their will on the people, rather than trying to provide a useful service to the people (prevention of crime). The idea stems from around the 1820s so it's likely that the whole mindset governing British policing does actually stem from the lessons lea

Re:100 more will die today

[Pav]

What's the chance of the concealed carry guy stopping a shooting vs the chance he flips out and caps some people after the voices tell him to, or after he has an argument with his girlfriend? The numbers don't favour you friend - you're FOUR TIMES more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK or Australia.

Re:100 more will die today

[HornWumpus]

Easier to blow your hand/face off.

Please learn anything about metal manufacturing and just how stressed parts like bolts are in operation. Put down the bong and look at what is actually being made.

Re:100 more will die today

[Archangel Michael]

Have you ever made a gun? I recommend that you pick up a good book on gunsmithing and read it. Then get back to me about blowing hands and face off.

BTW, the first 3D Printed Lower Receiver lasted 6 rounds, before failure (jammed). The question is, do you think that they will improve the technology to make it last much much longer? I do. The rest of the gun isn't really "the gun", and can be milled and smithed with modern equipment.

And here, for your reading pleasure ...

http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/people-line-up-to-legally-make-untraceable-guns

Re:100 more will die today

[LunaticTippy]

There's something broken about human perception of risk. Every month there is a 9/11 of traffic fatalities but nobody is taking their shoes off about that. For some reason certain kinds of deaths are given disproportionate importance and others are blandly accepted.

Medical errors cause a 9/11 of fatalities every 5 days. It's so strange that few people are even aware of this yet we are collectively freaked out about child abductors and terrorists which are rounding errors on fatality rates.

Re:100 more will die today

[coldfarnorth]

Hey, I did a bit more research, and you are talking out of your ass.

Check this out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/

In 1996, Australia banned semi-automatic and pump-action long rifles and shotguns. In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass killings. In the 10 years since, zero. The firearm homicide rate dropped, as did the non-firearm homicide rate. (Check out figure 1.) There's other fun finding also, but I'll leave them for you to find.

Re:100 more will die today

[HornWumpus]

Did you even read your own post before trying to shift your position. I quote:

3D printers will make it easier, which is the point. Print a gun from a template found on Pirate Bay. Done.

Now you're the one claiming shop expertise based on an ATF technical definition of gun?

I'll go on record. Additive processes will _never_ produce a part as strong as reductive when working in steel. Which isn't to say it will never get as strong as today's best efforts, just that if and when it does their reductive processes will be still better (knowing that implies cutting tools for their new alloys). Also giving you post additive process heat treatment, which isn't a home shop friendly process past torch and quench. Many processes to strengthen sintered pieces, wreck their precision, so you're back to machining. Might as well start with a casting (3d print the lost wax).

Once you go to:

The rest of the gun isn't really "the gun", and can be milled and smithed with modern equipment.

You might as well give up the argument. Just make the lower out of metal too. Billets are much cheaper then 3d printer feedstock. Contrast to where you started.

Re:100 more will die today

[cbiltcliffe]

The totality of mass murders committed with guns, or even the totality of gun crime, doesn't equal the totality of all violent crime.

I'm not refuting or supporting your argument, or the post you responded to, but you're both using completely different measurements to back up your point.

Re:100 more will die today

[pastafazou]

knife attack in China
20 dead in knife attack. You want to compare body counts, is that it? Proving that gun bans won't eliminate crazies killing people isn't enough for you?
lots of bodies here. 168 dead, including 19 children under the age of 6. lots here too. 52 dead, don't know how many were children. Maybe you'd like to know how Australia's gun ban is working out?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only people affected by a gun ban are the victims.

Re:100 more will die today

[coldfarnorth]

I mentioned mass murders partially because it's the topic du jour, but if you look at figure 1 in the actual link I posted, you can actually see what happened with both the firearm and non-firearm homicide rate after the passing of the 1996 law. Both decreased.

In fact, the only areas where there was an immediate increase was the "non-firearm suicides" (though this later declined to below the 1995 levels) and the "unintentional firearm deaths" which as since developed a slight positive trend.

Re:100 more will die today

[GigsVT]

Correlation is correlation however. If someone claims that more guns increases crime, they are clearly wrong, since crime has dropped as the number of guns has skyrocketed.

Re:100 more will die today

[mikael]

Even if you do ban guns, then criminals will use knives.
Ban knives, and they use drinking glasses and bottles instead.
Replace drinking glasses and bottles with plastic, and they use stiletto shoes instead.

Re:100 more will die today

[mikael]

Hate to break it to you bubba, but you can get run over by cars, buses, lorries, trucks. You can die falling down a staircase, or even being push backwards and hitting the back of your skull against a paving stone (thunderclap headache). There's always the danger of someone dropping or throwing bricks, stones, traffic cones from a bridge onto a freeway. Some crazy can push you off a subway platform onto the tracks. Don't forget the hazard of food poisoning from unhygienic chefs who don't manage food expiration dates properly.

Re:100 more will die today

[stdarg]

I think the idea of people owning large scale atomic weapons is kind of silly. It's a slippery slope fallacy -- guns don't lead to nuclear weapons, just like legally owning dynamite or some other explosive doesn't lead to nuclear weapons, and books that teach you how to build nuclear weapons (or regular explosives) don't lead to widespread nuclear violence.

Your choice of an atomic bomb is a good choice because it plays to the irrational fear people have of anything nuclear. Realistically, the type of atomic weapon you could buy for $500 (like a nice handgun) wouldn't be the type of atomic weapon that could level a city.. maybe it would be useful for blowing up tree stumps or something, like dynamite. Why would I be against a tree-stump-destroying atomic bomb? Just because it's atomic? Because you could pile together a million of them and make a bigger atomic bomb? I mean you can already do that with fertilizer. What's the point?

Re:100 more will die today

[fluffy99]

You should probably read the legal definitions, because 1898 isn't a magic cutoff and you're confusing the terms firearm, antique firearm, gun, and weapon.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/antique-firearm/
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/collectors.html

He is a gun owner, whether that gun qualifies as an antique firearm is a different question. They may also count as unserviceable. You would also need to consider the laws of his specific state as the references above are federal and ATF.

Re:100 more will die today

[fluffy99]

It's far more effective than a .223, which was a caliber chosen by the US military in large part because it tends to produce incapacitating wounds, not death. Not that death is your goal, but the "incapacitating wounds" sought by armies are wounds that make a soldier ineffective in minutes whereas for self-defense you want wounds that incapacitate in seconds. Armies want the injured soldier to be unable to charge across a 100-yard battlefield or accurately shoot a rifle at moderate ranges. You want the intruder to be unable to charge 10 feet or stab with a knife. The shotgun is far better for that.

There was also the adage that a wounded enemy takes more men off the field and consumes more resources than a dead one.

I'll go ahead and say it

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be a reminder to all of us to be that friend he probably didn't have. I'd have killed myself in college if it weren't for a few online friends. Skearrit and Zenobia, that's you. It's WoW now instead of MUDs, but people are the same.

Re:I'll go ahead and say it

[HornWumpus]

Curse you Skearrit and Zenobia. AC is the most trollish poster on /.

Re:I'll go ahead and say it

[addie]

I did a double take on your post, thinking - wait, do I know those names too? Sure enough I did a search and they were indeed players of Stick in the Mud.

I haven't played in about 15 years, but I spent countless hours with those wonderful people. Call me "Rain" the guy who, as a teenager, wrote the "Haunted House" zone that's still in game.

Great to hear that Stick in the MUD had such a positive influence on your life. It did a lot for me too.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it ran Linux

In all seriousness, it's fairly likely that it did. The guy was a diagnosed aspie and was reputed at high school to be a computer genius. Which doesn't mean he was a computer genius, but it does make it likely that he was not only running Windows. Who knows, he may even have had a slashdot account.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

He must have run Linux because he was a genius? Bahahaha!

I run Linux because I'm a masochist.

Descrephancies between TV and websites

[gravis777]

Yeah, FoxNews has talked about it a bit today as well, but I could find nothing on their website about it. But my experience has been what is on the Fox News website rarely reflects what they cover on the news network. If it wasn't for the fact that I had to have Fox News on all day at work, I would never watch it. Actually, I wouldn't watch any of the American press - there doesn't seem to be an American News Network that reports unbiassed news. CNN Headline news probably comes the closest

Re:Descrephancies between TV and websites

[sjames]

That's OK, things on Fox News generally have less to do with reality than a Stephen King novel.

Re:Descrephancies between TV and websites

[HornWumpus]

No such thing as 'unbiased'. Only 'matches my bias'.

Re:No online footprint? Bullshit.

[cayenne8]

They have probable cause, ISPs are required to hold logs, just get his logs from his ISP.

Where do you get this idea?

I know of no jurisdiction requiring ISPs in the US to hold and store customer logs???

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, if there were any signs to be gleaned from his computer, it doesn't matter since they'll be ignored anyway.

When people who knew him are interviewed, they'll all say "he was horribly unhappy, but he didn't seem like a killer". But when questioned further, they'll all remember tons of warning signs that they ignored, because nobody gives a shit until somebody starts killing.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Jeng]

A gun in hand is quicker than a couple passes with DBAN.

Why post his name?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why give credit? That's why those people do those things - to be remembered as not nobody.

Be aware of your responsibility as a news outlet. Let them be a nobody forever.

Re:Why post his name?

[manoweb]

Oh come on.

Re:Why post his name?

[tofarr]

Absolutely - don't feed the trolls

Re:Now he's a hero

[YodasEvilTwin]

You're the only one saying that as far as I can see. Perhaps you're just afraid of saying it straight up without the false quotes....

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy was a diagnosed aspie and was reputed at high school to be a computer genius.

To the general public, "Plays lots of video games" == "Computer Genius".

100% Encrypted his drives with a Hammer

[mabhatter654]

Yup... Encrypting your drives with a hammer generally keeps away all bit the most dedicated spooks.

Sad thing is that the kid probably didn't have many friends. And they were probably Bronies... Can't let THAT get out! Maybe he was after elementry kids because their parents were getting the show in trouble.

He probably made random rants, but I don't think they'll find much. Other than a bunch of AC guy posts 90% of people would write off as childish. As this goes deeper, I think he's just an extremely lonely kid, extremely disconnected from society. The top end of the ASD spectrum kids KNOW they don't fit in... And they get REALLY mad about it... But they still cannot do it without extensive help, if ever. Something triggered the kid and he took the most extreme route he could... That screams ASD with no training to deal with it. He just picked something extremely violent and went for it. Maybe he fixated on it, but typically not really.

The only person with warning signs would have been his mom.. He didn't interact with anybody else?? . And she obviously overlooked the violence escalating till it was too late. I'll bet if they look we over she has old bruises from outbursts... But she never told.

Re:100% Encrypted his drives with a Hammer

[GodfatherofSoul]

I think a hammer is technically a hash, not encryption.

Re:100% Encrypted his drives with a Hammer

[Hatta]

He probably made random rants, but I don't think they'll find much.

I'm not even sure what of value they could expect to find. We know who he was, and we know that he's dead. We don't need evidence to present at court. Case closed.

Re:100% Encrypted his drives with a Hammer

[slew]

I think a hammer is technically a hash, not encryption.

Well, if you want to get technical about it, hammer is more akin to a disc fragmentation algorithm (as opposed to the more commonly used disc defragmentation algorithm).

Re:100% Encrypted his drives with a Hammer

[Nigel Stepp]

Terrible collisions though.

Re:Or... maybe he was just fucking crazy

[YodasEvilTwin]

What hoopla? How does this conflict with the idea that he was crazy?

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Hatta]

Why do anything? Destroy the secure passphrase in your brain and your encrypted storage is as good as gone.

Re:They can still recover data

[NevarMore]

The fingerprints on his keyboard and they way the letters are worn will show which keys he used most

CSI: NCIS New Miami York has determined that he used R S T L N E keys more than others, this has determined that he was likely an English speaker and had a real hard on for Vanna White. This attack may have been a plea for help after his failed attempt to get on Wheel of Fortune.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[icebike]

Indeed, if there were any signs to be gleaned from his computer, it doesn't matter since they'll be ignored anyway

One would hope so.

The alternative is even more government intrusion into your computers and communications.

The fact that he did destroy them suggests he knew there was stuff on them which might be of use to the police. Since he obviously intended to take his own life, none of this could be used against him personally. One has to wonder if he had fellow travelers in his journey to insanity that he thought he could protect via destruction.

I would imagine his ISP is surrendering logs at this very moment.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[sjames]

Physical destruction is the gold standard for this sort of thing.

Of course, the real question is why did he do any of this? The way he wiped his computer is fairly low on the list of things better left undone that day.

Sez you

[Safety Cap]

I was running late for work today and realized I forgot to do laundry over the weekend.

The only thing left to do was put my full body kevlar on over my "Venom" costume.

Fortunately, I work for a bunch of blind people.

Re:Sez you

[n7ytd]

I was running late for work today and realized I forgot to do laundry over the weekend.

The only thing left to do was put my full body kevlar on over my "Venom" costume.

Fortunately, I work for a bunch of blind people.

So, why bother dressing?

Re:Sez you

[CanHasDIY]

I was running late for work today and realized I forgot to do laundry over the weekend.

The only thing left to do was put my full body kevlar on over my "Venom" costume.

Fortunately, I work for a bunch of blind people.

So, why bother dressing?

Well, they are blind - wouldn't want someone to accidentally grope more than they bargained for ...

Re:We need a national registry and federal licensi

[icebike]

And Kitchen Knives.

Diminishing returns

[ZombieBraintrust]

We focus plenty of resources on those everyday homicides. Those homicides are the reason we have security gaurds with guns at the entrances to Banks and not elementry schools. Spending more resources on that problem won't neccesarily change anything. At some point your just harrasing innocent people who fit profiles. It should also be noted that violent crime of that sort has been on a decline. Plus the 1/3 deliberate homicides include plenty of people involved in crimes. If your not sucidal, don't own a gun, and not involved in crime your not at much risk. At some level society doesn't care abuot those deaths.

Re:Diminishing returns

[dr_dank]

Those homicides are the reason we have security gaurds with guns at the entrances to Banks and not elementry schools.

Aside from an armed courier making cash drops, I've never seen armed guards at any of the US banks I've been in. Bank personnel are trained not to resist robbers, just cooperate and get them out of there quickly.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[sjames]

And because they're not really warning signs since more often than not, nothing happens when they're present and typically nobody gives them a thought except in retrospect.

You must be new here.

[conspirator23]

Great. I was wondering what it would take for the Slashdot crowd to pervert this dipshit into a hero.

"Dude, check it out! He destroyed all his data before he did this! That way, them dirty screws in law enforcement won't ever know a thing about him, won't understand what happened, and won't have any way to prevent it from happening again! Yeah! That's so awesome! Power to the privacy! Privacy rights for all! Woo!"

Attempting to smash up his PC and HDD and leaving the wreckage in his place is about the most n00bish form of data destruction you can imagine, and has probably only been partially successful at best. I'll leave it to the numerous other comments already posted to detail this sick kid's failure to cover his tracks adequately. If you're going to irresponsibly portray privacy and security advocates as paranoid deviants who cheer mass murder, you're going to need to try harder.

Re:You must be new here.

[psithurism]

the most n00bish form of data destruction you can imagine, and has probably only been partially successful at best.

This is why I'm here; this is seriously geek news for us privacy/forensic perverts: this will be a rare opportunity given that our nations top resources will be put on recovering this data and the media is going to demand to know every shred that was recovered, we'll actually see this method tested thoroughly.

I also find it interesting that this guy is supposedly a computer guru, and yet few assume he DBANed (or whatever kids do these days) his drives before physically destroying them, just for good measure. Of course he was also clearly crazy, so there is probably no reason or plan behind his data destruction.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[manoweb]

Well what DBAN can do that dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda can't?

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Jawnn]

Because the hammer is faster, given the limited resources the cops are likely to expend on attempts to reconstruct the drive's contents.

Re:Now he's a hero

[lilfields]

Warrant-less wiretaps are a lot different than a murder investigation that has established evidence and a warrant.

Why Physical Destruction Works

[Jaborandy]

When I want to physically destroy my hard drives, I use bullets. Here's why it works:

The surface of the platters is covered in magnetic data, but in order to read it you have to be able to pass a head over it. If you bend the platters, put a few jagged holes in them, and destroy the bearing center, there is no technology that can run a read head reliably over a data track. If the platters are bent, you can't install them in a new drive or mount new heads. You also can't flatten them to the original tolerances without destroying the magnetic surface coating.

The biggest hand-waving magic people fear is the electon microscope techinques which have been shown to dig up even erased data by looking at the edges of the latest written data to see what was there before. While this is technically possible in ideal conditions, it requires that you can move the platter under the tip of the microscope with incredible precision. Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.

Pistol rounds generally dent the platters pretty seriously. Rifle rounds generally punch through leaving jagged holes. A combination of both is a fun day at the range, makes great desk art, and securely pretects your drives from ever being decoded again.

--Jaborandy

Re:Why Physical Destruction Works

[HornWumpus]

It also makes you feel better about having had to support that crap.

Re:Why Physical Destruction Works

[vlm]

I don't think you actually do this, at least have not in some years. I in fact do tear drives apart and melt the exterior aluminum casting for ... casting (duh, nothings a better casting raw material than cast product.. trying to cast extruded alloys is usually an exercise in futility).

Anyway I have the scar on my hand to prove that you don't do that kinda of stuff with modern glass platters, they are not safety glass they pretty much explode into shrapnel. Yes they do bend, in fact they bend pretty well before they shatter. Weird but true. I would hazard a guess that "most" drives bigger than 10 gigs are glass platter and very few below a gig are glass platter. Yes in the 90s they were all metal of various kinds, and made nice windchimes and targets.

One interesting observation is for decades all you need to completely disassemble a hard drive is about 4 torx size screws, like T5, T20 and a couple others. Also the color of platters follows no obvious pattern over the decades due to different chemistry.

But don't go telling kids now a days to smash up their platters, or there's gonna be sharper than razor glass shards everywhere and/or stitches.

Re:Why Physical Destruction Works

[blueg3]

Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.

While the MFM approach has never been used in practice and certainly doesn't work on any modern drive, the quoted sentence isn't true. MFM and STM are both quite capable of sensing the distance between the tip and the material accurately -- especially if you know in advance some information about the material's proeprties -- and automatically keeping the tip from crashing into the material. A tip crash isn't really a big deal, either. It's easy enough to make a new one or to reshape the current (deformed) tip so that it works again.

Re:Why Physical Destruction Works

[DerekLyons]

When I want to physically destroy my hard drives, I use bullets.

Other than enlarging your ego, why use bullets?
 

Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.

Yeah - nobody has ever managed to invent a system for precisely determining the position of a surface and then precisely positioning the tip of the microscope in relationship to it. Oh, wait. That's exactly how this type of microscope work in the first place!

Re:Why Physical Destruction Works

[TechnoGrl]

Worst at-home tech support ever...

Re:Why Physical Destruction Works

[White Flame]

Ferrofluids and microscopes would like to have a word with your idea.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[mcgrew]

I run Linux because I can't afford a Mac and I'm not a masochist.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it ran Linux

The end of the world will come when a introverted former postal employee + warcraft fan writes a ReiserFS IFS driver for windows and proceeds to install mcafee on first successfull boot while listening to linkin park.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I run Linux because I can't afford a Mac and I'm not a masochist.

I run Linux because I own a Mac and I'm not a masochist.

Seriously, how to remove data effectively

[manoweb]

So if I had to "get rid" of data stored on a computer, for whatever reason, I would just dd from /dev/zero directly to the disk devices. Any disadvantage of this technique? Maybe to confuse who is after me I could maybe copy from urandom, but this would probably make an already slow process even slower. On unrelated news, I read (but the article was absolutely not technical and in another language) that they caught somebody hacking his previous office even if he was operating through Tor. What to do then to have effective anonymity online when looking for info or even interacting?

Re:Seriously, how to remove data effectively

[White Flame]

The disadvantage is that writing a value once does not change all of the atoms' polarities, only most of them. A determined attacker can use slow, expensive techniques to recover such information. Overwriting multiple times would be a lot better. However, I don't know if increased density of bits on a platter is making this vector ineffective.

Physical destruction is the fastest and probably the most difficult to recover.

*confused

[wierd_w]

I am often confused, and more than just a little alarmed at the polarization that stories like this cause.

On one side, there are the people that would rather live in an Aldus Huxley novel than suffer the slight against their perceptions of safety that allowing the general public access to firearms presents. (Seriously. If there are 100 shootings per day, out of 250 million persons in the USA, your chances of being so shot on any given day are 4 places to the right of the decimal point in terms of percentages-- (borrowed possibly false statistic from previous poster.) At that rate, you are more likely to die in an airline catastrophe. Contemplate that when you advocate stampeeding over peoples rights because kids were involved.)

Then, on the other, you have the people that feel we are already deep inside an aldus huxley novel, and have a "freedom fighter" complex. (The types who wear the tinfoil, you know whom it is of which I speak.)

Where are the people like me, who live in the middle? The people who deplore the senseless death, but who blame a faulted cultue that stigmatizes people with mental health issues, makes care for such insanely unaffordable, and tries to pretend the problem isn't serious? The ones who understand that guns are simply a tool, and the purpose they serve in the hands of the public is a preventative measure against corruption in high places, and nothing more?

The solution to deaths like these is NOT "gun control".

The solution to deaths like this is to get people the help they so desperately need, without any overtones of disparagment, or of belittling the people who need that help.

Outlawing guns does NOT help the mentally ill get the help the need, before they snap and take others with them. It simply sweeps the issue under the rug, because outlawing the tool used for the killing is simply easier. Nevermind that any sense of security the measure brings is false, and endagers more innocent people. (If not a gun, then perhaps a bomb, or poison, or any number of other methods.)

I am tired of these stories. I am tired of the shield rattling. I am tired of the "Ra Ra Rah!" And gung-ho idiocy of both sides.

In cases like these, there are *ONLY* victims. There are no bad guys, unless you care to look in the mirror. Our blind complacency to the sufferings of others is what CAUSES this shit. Everything about this story is tradgedy. Stop looking for a fucking scapegoat.

Seriously. It confuses the fuck out of my why it always must be so, that we all lose our minds over this, and dive headfirst from the frypan into the fire.

We like to pretend that we have sharp minds.

For FSM's sake, fucking use them.

Re:*confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Please submit yourself to the nearest state-sponsored psychology exam center so we may better learn if "you need the help". Afterwards, don't forget to submit the request to your doctor's office in order to install the always-on monitoring device so we can continually check if your "brain" is showing signs of being insane - so we can help you sooner.

Get real. People are always a problem. You can't fix people and you can't fix idiots -- nature just builds a better idiot next time.

Re:*confused

[GodfatherofSoul]

Yeah, I'm a hard-core liberal and I just don't see what people think is going to happen (or no longer happen) with a new assault weapons ban. My dad is retired Army and said they used to use 22 rounds for practice I think with M-16s. It really doesn't sound like what this guy was using was such an exotic weapon.

Re:*confused

[linatux]

one of those rare comments that deserves more than +5

Re:*confused

[TheNinjaroach]

At that rate, you are more likely to die in an airline catastrophe.

And how many people died this year on an American airliner?

If you're going to pretend that facts are important to you, you might as well use them. You know, for the sake of consistency.

Re:*confused

[afaik_ianal]

At that rate, you are more likely to die in an airline catastrophe.

That suggests the figures you took from the previous poster are extremely flawed. Over 30,000 americans die from gunshots every (not to mention the 75,000 who are injured). Air crash deaths are extremely rare - there have been a number of years recently with no air crash deaths in the US.

Re:*confused

[Ksevio]

While getting people mental help is the best solution desperately needed, we can't just ignore the half dozen mass killings with guns (along with the thousands of other gun deaths). It's best to teach people to stay away from the cliff edge, but putting up a fence doesn't hurt either.

Re:*confused

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 Insightful?? Geez...
Ok, let's give everyone access to nuclear missiles. They are just tools, they are not the actual problem. So let's let anyone have them (with a quick background check and a 15 week delay) and then we will just focus on making sure we tend to the psychopaths who would actually use them and help them with their problems so they don't resort to blowing up the world.
OR we could not give everyone access to nuclear missiles. But I guess that won't work, because it is not the "root" of the problem.
The Chinese guy the other day went into a school determined to kill as many children as he could. Similarly to Adam Lanza, he got to around 20 of them. The difference is he did not have a gun so none of them actually died.
While guns are not the root of evil they are certainly the means to do a lot of evil. They should be hard to get. You can't do anything about the organized criminals, but Joe sixpack should not be able to shoot his pal Billy Bob when he rubs him the wrong way after drinking that extra sixpack...

Re:*confused

[LordLucless]

In cases like these, there are *ONLY* victims. There are no bad guys, unless you care to look in the mirror.

Sorry, but there are bad guys. Yes, the bad guy was also a victim, but that doesn't make him less of a bad guy. Yes there were things that individuals or society could have done to help him. Yes there were other people who probably screwed up and contributed to his breaking. But ultimately, I believe in free will - he chose to pull the trigger each time, and those choices make him a bad guy.

I guess if you believe in a purely deterministic universe, and consider that our actions are entirely determined by circumstance, then he was purely a victim, but in that case, there's no such thing as a bad guy, as everyone's actions are predetermined.

Re:*confused

[avandesande]

Okay then, how many died in automobile crashes?

Re:*confused

[addie]

While I appreciate your argument, you also seem to be polarizing the debate. You say that gun control is not the solution, but rather you should be providing more help to folks with mental problems.

Why isn't it both? Why can't you restrict access to ridiculously powerful firearms and provide stable, long-term funding for mental health? Why can't America as a nation decide what kinds of weapons are useful tools and what kinds are simply used for killing multiple people efficiently, and find a reasonable balance between gun rights and public safety?

I know that many Americans love to tell us all that guns aren't the problem, but from the outside looking in - they're a significant part of the problem. Pretending that the American gun culture is healthy and innocent of blame seems tragically blind, selfish, and shortsighted.

I'm one of your northern neighbours, so you're right: I don't spend my days worrying about getting shot. But due to human compassion, I worry about other people getting shot. I simply can't understand why freedom to own a weapon trumps everything else.

Re:*confused

[wierd_w]

Because the .22 calibre rifles and handguns used by this shooter are NOT "rediculously powerful firearms."

Seriously. They are target practice rounds, that are useless agains even the softest of bullet resisting armors.

Here, here's a picture for you to mull over:
size comparison of several standardized rounds

See that little pipsqueek on the far right? That's what comes out of the "assault rifle" the killer from this story used. It is literally the size of 3 BBs glued together, with a few grams of powder behind it. Cartridge and all, it weighs less then 20 grams.

Compare that with the REAL assault rifle rounds on the far left, and you have a better idea of why this is a farce.

Re:*confused

[wierd_w]

30,000 every what? Year?

30,000/365 == 82.191/day

That is lower than the 100/day stat being batted around.

Or, do you mean that 30,000 deaths occur each day? In which case, the odds of being shot are *still* 4 places to the right of the decimal point. (.00012:1 ratio)

Or are you going to say it si per hour now?

Re:*confused

[Zimluura]

according to wikipedia he used a bushmaster xm-15, which is basically a semi-automatic m-16 with a 16 inch barrel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_XM-15

your dad was probably using an adapter to shoot .22LR bullets through his M-16 to save money
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/ARR-059

differences in the catridge here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22LR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

EMTs i've met have more trouble working the .22LR shootings because it often tumbles and is still in there somewhere, where as the .223 mostly makes wounds like hamburger but at least isn't still in there.

not trying to be a dick or pick a fight. actually a firearms enthusiast.

Re:*confused

[radicimo]

I welcome a reasoned discussion about public displays of self-pity and knee-jerk reactions that have grown to accompany our round-the-clock culture of disaster porn. Let's bring cable television and the media into this discussion, if we're going to cast about for perps in this mess. If it bleeds it leads, bitches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4&feature=player_embedded

Most mass murderers leave notes. This kid destroyed evidence and despite having the tools and the education, left very little digital footprint. The mystery of it all feeds into a global media frenzy where TV, radio, press and social media are all competing to sell us to advertisers using this latest disaster and public outrage.

Blaming guns is such a knee-jerk and simplistic response to a complicated social phenomenon rooted in an overlapping series of pathologies.

Sure is a great petri dish for copycat crimes up to 12/21 (and beyond?) . . .

Re:*confused

[wierd_w]

I see you have completely missed the point AC.

You pay for it, regardless.

You can pay for it with tax dollrs, or you can pay in people's lives.

There isn't a "I don't pay at all" option.

Re:*confused

[wierd_w]

This is a complicated issue, and one I am not the best one to answer.

That said, here is my observation, which may or may not be wrong in the general sense.

The USA has an intrinsic constitutional right for the citizenry to own, and use weapons (arms. Type is not specified.) For the purposes of creating and maintaining "an organized standing millitia." It further states that this right shall not be infringed. (Eg, *all* laws trying to limit what arms the common citizen my own or carry are unconstitutional in the general sense as the article is written.) Because it is necessary to disarm the population to completely subjugate it under centralized authority, which is directly contradictory to the stated purpose of the amendment in question, and with the added context for the amendment provided by the federalist papers, coupled with the innate paranoia of the tinfoil hat "freedom fighter" crowd, it is seen as more than just a right to own weaponry; it is a civic responsibility to own such weaponry, to make the government less willing to enact brutal crushing force to get its way, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia style. (At least in theory.)

The presence of firearms among the populace is not realy that large of a problem. People who are ignorant of the proper care and employment of those armaments, and those that are mentally ill, and for whatever reason, seek to use those implements in ways for which the 2nd amendment was *NOT* intended, (like shooting kindergartners) are the real problem.

Requiring proper training and certification and possibly a psych screening before purchase or reciept of a weapon is sensible. Blanket bans on "scary looking guns", because "Like, they are for shooting people, man, PEOPLE!" Is NOT sensible, in light of what the supreme law of the land says. (The statute exists literally FOR shooting PEOPLE, under very specific conditions.)

Attempts to force the issue by well meaning, but clearly ignorant or misguided people are naturally met with amazing amounts of resistance from those that hold the right to be a civic responsibility, and requisite to retain american liberties in the face of tyrrany by the majority. (Not to say that the people who hold such a view are not also misguided, ignorant, or both, while being equally well intentioned, but in a different way.)

Personally, I believe that if the US federal government wants to restrict arms, and remain being seen as a legitimately elected government *OF LAW*, it needs to follow the prescribed proceedure to amend the constituton, and get 2/3 majority vote from among the state governments for such a resolution.

Anything less flaunts a double standard, and serves only to demonstrate the validity of the reason de'tre of the tinfoil hatters. (That the government is willing to break its ow laws to accomplish something it wants, but feels it could never get the support it needs to legitimately enact, in contravention of the public's trust.)

If the government *DID* call a constitutional convention for a new amendment to strike or amend the 2nd, and it passed, I would have no problems with legislation being penned and accepted that limits ownership and use of weaponry by general citizens.

As it stands though, the government is attempting a power grab that lacks legitimacy of law, and should not be tolerated.

Me? I don't own any guns. Don't have a need to. But if I did have a need of one, I could get one, as is my right. It would sit in a gun vault or display case as an ornament for 99% of its life, except as needed. (As the 2nd amendment intends.)

Re:*confused

[addie]

Thanks, for someone who knows next to nothing about guns that is helpful for context.

That said, I think this lack of knowledge underscores why this conversation is so difficult. People like me just don't get it. We can't understand why anyone needs a gun that isn't for hunting, or why anyone would need a gun that fires that many rounds, regardless of calibre. Self-defense is another thing, but the vast majority of us Canadians have never been faced with a situation for which we'd need a gun to defend ourselves; it's almost unimaginable.

If the gun rights crowd can calmly and rationally explain to the rest of us why it's so important that automatic weapons be available, then maybe this debate will stop being so polarized.

Any words that I've used incorrectly - assault rifle, automatic weapons, high-powered - or in a way that makes it seem like I'm changing my argument, are unintentional. Again, I'm just an outsider looking in, feeling bewildered.

Re:*confused

[wierd_w]

Noted, and accepted.

A better comparison would have been automobile related deaths, in retrospect.

At 11,000 deaths per year for firearms, that comes to an average of approx 30 deaths per day.

Wikipedia gives the statistic of 98 deaths per day for automotive related fatalities. (2009)

So, you are 300% more likely to die from another driver, than from the discharge of a firearm.

Yet, somehow, I don't see nearly the level of impetus to force american commuters to use public transit, even though the net benefit of doing so is potentially 3 TIMES greater than the benefit of perfect gun control.

Essentially, the taxi you flag to get you frm A to B in your big city is 3 times more likely to kill you than an armed beligerant.

Re:*confused

[proslack]

The high muzzle velocity (nearly 1000 m/s) is what contributes most to the lethality.

Re:*confused

[PurplePhase]

bump!

Re:*confused

[SirAdelaide]

I am not visiting the US until you get rid of your guns. You are all batshit crazy. As pointed out elsewhere on the thread, 3 deaths / 100,000 people /year in the US vs 0.09 in Australia. The founding fathers were wrong. Get over it. A lot of you disagree with their religious beliefs which were the reason for fleeing Europe. You are allowed to disagree with their beliefs in other areas too.

Re:*confused

[Rougement]

No, a part of the solution is most definitely gun control. The only weapons that should be for sale are single-shot rifles and double-barrel shotguns. If hunters need more than that, they should practice more. A shotgun is better for home protection too, should somebody be dumb enough to ignore the stats and believe that having any kind of weapon in the house makes them safer. Assault rifles and handguns are the tools that allow mass shootings. We don't need them and the second amendment is an awful justification for gun nuts to acquire an arsenal of weapons the authors of the amendment couldn't have even imagined at the time of writing. There are so many untraceable weapons in circulation but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start the process of stopping even more entering circulation. Sure ... mental health is an issue but without easy access to military style weaponry, these young, white middle class kids are limited in what they can do when they snap.

Re:*confused

[wierd_w]

It is important to note, that there is no such thing as a harmless gun.

A .22, while super wimpy from a military standpoint (where it is only usefull as an anticivilian, or harassment weapon) will kill you just as dead as a .306 high power sniper rifle will. Sadly, QED for the victims of this tradgedy.

The point here, is that the USA *already* has restrictions on purchasing high power firearms. You can't just walk into a gunstore and buy a .306; there is a criminal background check and a 3 day waiting period between purchase and take-home.

Yet *moar!* restrictions on buying high power arms would not have made a difference in this tradgedy, because the weapons used were not high power arms.

Logical lampoon:

Middle eastern man hurls a rock, kills a "condemned" woman. Major furor erupts. A ban on owning firearms is implemented to prevent further deaths. Woman was killed with a rock, not a gun. Outlawing guns won't stop additional stonings. The ban does nothing.

Likwise, here we have strong, almost draconian restrictions on high power munitions (and yes, there are certain circmstances where a high power round is required outside of law enforcement and military applications. Like shooting a bear.), yet somehow *additional* restrictions on high power munitions are somehow, through some magical and inscrutible mechanism, prevent tragic shootings with small arms.

I think the best combination is as follows:

Require a current safety certification for purchase of all firearms.
Keep the 3 day restriction on high power weapons.
Put a 1 day restriction on small arms.
Forbid all sales to minors and felons. (Already in place.)
Require a clean psych report for high power weapons.
Limit ammunitions purchases to lots of 20 per day for shotgun shells, and 10 for small arms. Ammo for high power requires 3 day hold.

For dealing with psychological problems in american culture, dealing with it similarly to how we deal with say, tobacco seems a good place to start; EG, we have prohibitions against depicting people "being cool!" In movies with cigarrettes.

In this case, to help remove the ingrained "mentally ill== batshit crazy, who doesn't know anything and is probably an idiot with nothing to contribute" problem, we introduce rules on public entertainment venues prohibiting such depictions in media, replaced with depictions showing people with mental illness as actual people who need actual help, and who do get better with treatment. Fund studies into causes of depression in the united states, and seek legislative solutions to recurring occupational causes. Enact local legislation prohibiting pharmecutical companies from gouging the US market unfairly compared with foriegn markets to help treatments be more affordable. (Bonus, cost of healthcare will go down in general.) Legislate a minimum doctor:general public ratio, and sanction the AMA for noncompliance if they fail to deliver within 12 years.

If problems still persist, add harrassment and unfair exclusions from work or memberships for people with treated mental conditions to the list of actionable offenses against employers and general citizens (hatecrime laws, et al.)

The idea is that getting mental help should be inexpensive, and non stigmatory. Just like discovering a strange lump means you should see a doctor right away, and nobody faults you for doing so, people should see a mental health specialist right away if they feel depressed, suicidal, or worthless/helpless, and nobody should fault them for it. Just like we wouldn't tolerate another person berating a cancer victim for developing cancer, (calling them weak, implying that they are faking it, that they are worthless/useless for having it, etc) we must not tolerate that shit from people, in regard to victims of mental illness. Instead, just like cancer, people should be supportive and caring for people who develop mental illnesses, and be there for them as they struggle to overcome it.

Re:*confused

[wierd_w]

You are forgetting that the US is supposed to be a government of LAW, and that banning guns is illegal.

By all means, call a constitutional convention, and neuter the second amendment.

But until you do, gun control is illegal. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Allowing the government to do illegal things out of convenience is not a wise decision. Ever.

The issue with mental health can be (partially) addressed almost free as well.

1) legislation prohibiting derogatory or defamitory depictions of mental illness in media and news.

2) legislation prohibiting pharmecutical companies from charging differential prices for the same medication abroad vs domestically, when adjusted for inflation and currency difference. (They can still price competatively; the prices aren't fixed. They just can't charge 1000% markup in the US, like they do now.)

3) legislate a minimum mandatory doctor to citizen ratio for the nation, and fine the fuck out of the AMA for noncompliance.

As an added bonus, you will see the costs of other healthcare come down as well.

Re:*confused

[jedinite]

See that little pipsqueek on the far right? That's what comes out of the "assault rifle" the killer from this story used. It is literally the size of 3 BBs glued together, with a few grams of powder behind it. Cartridge and all, it weighs less then 20 grams.

Yeah, no.

The round used by the primary firearm in this incident was, according to all the reports I've seen, the .223, aka the 7th round in your chart labeled "5.56 x 45 Nato." There's an important digit of distinction between a .22 and a .223. The projectile is only slightly wider, sure, but it has a lot more mass (approx double) and is moving at a much higher velocity (around 900-940 m/s vs 300-500 m/s).

For pedantics, .223 and 5.56 are not the exact same thing, but they're externally the same, i.e. the same size cartridge (casing and bullet). The interior volume of the 5.56 round is smaller, and can create slightly larger chamber pressures when fired in a gun designed solely for .223.

Not that it matters, but I'm a certified firearms instructor (certified to teach pistol, rifle, home firearm safety and personal protection) and strong advocate that the concepts being banded about for "gun control" are absolutely ludicrous at best, but that's not relevant to this specific bit of misinformation.

Re:*confused

[devman]

I haven't seen anything that says the AR15 used was loaded with .22LR. Everything I've seen says its .223 which likely means its the 5.56x45 NATO there in the middle of your picture and not the "pipsqueek" .22LR on the far right. The .22LR and 5.56x45 NATO have the same diameter round, one is a hell of a lot more powerful than the other.

So, citation please on this bushmaster .223 (AR-15) firing .22LR, because I'm fairly sure it fires 5.56x45 NATO.

Re:*confused

[Zimluura]

only if you ignore wound location entirely.

damaging internal organs contributes more to lethality than muzzle velocity. one could be shot in the hand with a .50bmg and have a better chance of survival than a .22 in an organ such as the heart/lungs/brain. unless you follow the "hit point" thoery of medicine.

merely saying that it is often more difficult to diagnose damage from a .22LR than a .223 (which is faster, heavier, and more expensive) because the .22 often doesn't exit, and it does bounce.

Re:*confused

[wierd_w]

No, it is simple logic. Man used a semi-automatic weapon. (This means that the recoil of the shot is used to mechanically unchamber the spent round, and load a new round into the chamber, but it does not fire automatically. You have to pull the trigger to shoot again. This is compared to say, a bolt action rifle with manual unchambering using the action. It does not mean "spray of bullets holding the trigger down.", that is "full auto", which you can't buy, and which this man did not have.)

I have been made aware that the shooter used a .223 rifle, which is a very low end military rifle/hunting rifle, with a larger than normal magazine. While definately more powerful than a .22, it still isn't as powerful as a normal issue assault rifle. (You know, of course, that bolt action rifles often shoot idential or even more powerful rounds right?)

Statistically, gun related homocides are 3 times LESS likely to be what kills you than a vehicular accident. Driving you kid to school is 3x more likely to kill them than an armed shooter, despite the prevelence of guns in the US.

(11,000 deaths anually comes out to a rough statistic of 30 dead each day in the USA. 2009 statistic for vehicular deaths was 98 dead each day. More than 3x as many.)

Where is the outcry to take away driver's licenses, and use public mass transit? If the goal is to save lives, then better mass transit would do much more good than even perfect gun enforcement would.

Much like safe motorists don't pose a very significant threat (ask the insurance industry. They make their money betting you WON'T total yours or somebody else's vehicle.), safe gun owners don't pose a significant threat to public safety, regardless of the calibre of weaponry they own. Asserting that mere availability is what causes the deaths is a nonsequitor. (I have 'access' to what many here would consider a dangerous arsenal that should be destroyed, including high power rifles. Yet, I personally own none of them. I could ask to borrow one at any time, and likely get it from the people I know. I have absolutely no intention nor impulse to kill anyone. Thus, the availability of the weapon is at best tangental to the issue at hand: people who want to kill other people. They are already willing to violate basic human principles and the law by engaging in homocide. Laws intended to restrict the availability of firearms would not pose a significant barrier to acquisition. Note how drug dealers and crime lords somehow manage to get fully automatic weapons, despite that gun stores simply *will not sell you one.* the logical conclusion is that they get the guns illegally already. Thus, more gun control will not have a very strong, if even measurable effect.)

Tell me, mr "guncontrol won't work is ra ra rah idiocy", what is your expected effect by making guns you can't buy already somehow even more impossible to buy?

Re:*confused

[athenaprime]

Well, I'm tired of the idea that "gun control" automatically engenders the idea that "ZOMG gubmint's comin' fer mah guns!"

Is it too much to ask that a person go through the same training, testing, and safe operation requirements for a weapon as they do for a car?

Pay for training.
Demonstrate in both written and demonstrative form your grasp of the safe use and operation of said equipment, in the witness of a duly authorized enforcement officer.
Take a vision test so you can see what you're aiming at (with the car or the gun).
Maybe take a psych test (if all your inkblots look like dead people, you may wait for further instructions).
Pay for a license. Periodically renew it through testing.
Pay for the insurance against your accidental or intentional misuse of or improper operation of said equipment.

The above doesn't seem so unreasonable. We all take our shoes off at the airport because ONE guy FAILED to sneak in a bomb ONCE in a shoe.

Yes, there will be criminals. But hey, criminals rob banks, too, and we still have laws against that to make it harder for them. People kill other people all the time, and we still have laws against murder. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We won't stop them all. The point is to *try.* Guns are inherently dangerous things. By their nature, they infringe on life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, yadda yadda. Responsible gun owners treat them with respect, why can't the commerce surrounding them be treated with the same careful respect?

And FFS, just because we talk about regulating the acquisition and use of guns doesn't mean we can't ALSO talk about better mental health care and more empathetic communities, too. We're smart people, we can figure it out, as long as we're not paid or tricked to not to.

Re:*confused

[Cederic]

I must admit, I was admiring all of the people correcting him on the difference between a ".22LR" and a ".223" - or 5.56x45 or whatever.

Small blob of metal travelling quickly + small child frankly isn't going to end well. Nitpicking about the specific blob and its speed seems mostly pointless.

Eheh and his mother was sane?

[SmallFurryCreature]

What is missing her, what was her major malfunction?

You see, you can claim to want a gun for self defense but how many do you need? What did she need that arsenal for? Why so much ammo?

Ten to one the mother is the answer to this drama.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[JeanCroix]

Four isn't exactly an arsenal. And she was into recreational shooting, they weren't just self defense. But she is indeed the answer in that she obviously did not secure her guns well enough from her disturbed son.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[jythie]

Some people collect guns for the fun of it. It has been reported that she enjoyed showing them to friends and neighbors, so it is quite possible that such weapons were simply a hobby of her's.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[nschubach]

Some people collect... those same people also lock up their weapons in a safe and don't share the code. For instance, I don't know my brother's safe combo, and I don't really want to. I have a gun that I use strictly for target shooting for self entertainment and if I ever want to shoot one of his, I simply ask.

For those "collectors" that don't lock up their collections, I'd say that there may be a problem. Considering a fairly high end gun safe will run less than the cost of a few guns, it would be retarded not to own one.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Obfuscant]

You see, you can claim to want a gun for self defense but how many do you need?

How many rights do YOU need? What is it about the concept of a right that is hard to grasp? Is there some new twist to "rights" that says that you can only exercise one to the limit that someone else thinks you need to?

Yes, you have the right to free speech, but I think you've said quite enough already. Sit down and shut up, you don't need the right to free speech anymore.

What did she need that arsenal for?

Who cares? It's not your right to decide what she needed her rights for. If I want to own 1000 guns, it's my right, and you have no right to second guess whether I get the right based on what you think I need.

Ten to one the mother is the answer to this drama.

Then the way we prevent this from ever happening again: ban mothers. You can't shoot your mother in her sleep if you don't have a mother. And ban schools. You can't shoot up a school full of kids if there is no school for them to be conveniently corralled into.

How about we take this message away from this? "Evil people will always do evil things, no matter what we do to stop them. Trying to stop evil people requires stopping nice people from doing things with laws that evil people will simply ignore, just like they ignore all the existing laws."

The only way to have stopped this nutcase was to put him in prison (or confinement) at the first sign he might be "unstable". Now, you might be imprisoning a lot of people who don't fit YOUR definition of stable, and who wouldn't ever kill anyone, but if you can stop the death of 20 schoolchildren by putting a million oddballs into prison, isn't it worth it?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[deroby]

Disclaimer : this is just my personal opinion.

Maybe you look at this the wrong way, I guess the mother didn't look at guns as self-defence but rather as a hobby. Why does Jay Leno need 100 cars ?

Friend of mine has 5 fire-arms (guns & rifles) and makes his own ammo. If he ever goes mental I'm sure it will make the world-news too... But as far as I can tell he's a sane, laid-back kind of guy with a hobby he practices perfectly within the law. Who am I to deprive him of that ?

And where to draw the line ? Crossbows ? Bows ? Slingshots ? Knives ?
IMHO, most people around here (Belgium, strict laws) play with guns for a hobby, few have it for self-defence. AFAIK.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Charliemopps]

She had 2 handguns, completely reasonable for self defense. A standard .223 carbine... standard rifle you can get at walmart, fun to shoot and then a shotgun, pretty typical for hunting small game.

The problem here was this guy went nutz, and there was no way for him to get help. He wanted the world to know about his rage and the media gives him a relatively easy way to get the world to hear about it as long as he does something worse than the last guy. If there's any industry to blame here it's the news media for sensationalizing this and the medical industry for not providing the help he needs.

If you want to kill a lot of people, making guns illegal isn't going to stop you. They are simply the most accessible means right now. Make them less accessible and he would have picked up a truckload of fertilizer and diesel fuel... and probably taken out the whole school. An Ammonium nitrate is REALLY easy to get.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Kiraxa]

Its been reported that she was a "prepper." So there's an underlying mental illness going on there. Preparing for the end of the world is not something sane and rational people do.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[misexistentialist]

There probably was something wrong with her not to get treatment for the guy, but most people with stuff have an assortment of stuff. You probably have more clothes/computers/cookware/porn/etc. than you strictly need.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[chad.koehler]

This post went from protecting rights to advocating for thought crime. A+ would read again.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Runaway1956]

Three weapons is not an "arsenal". When people use that term, I expect to find dozens of weapons, not ten or less. Owning 3 or more shotguns means that you use shotguns to hunt different kind of game - maybe ducks, upland fowl, and squirrels, maybe a twelve guage for slugs to hunt deer.

That small .223 is great for varmints such as groundhog - generally the same person will own one or more larger deer rifles, like a 30-30 or a 30-06.

If our gun enthusiast also goes to target ranges, he may own yet another weapon that has been customized for extreme accuracy. .270, .243, or .223 are all great target rounds.

Arsenal. I've only seen three specific weapons mentioned, and some references to an "assault rifle". That "assault rifle" merits some concern, but it's not clear yet what they are referring to. Like as not, some fool has characterized a deer rifle as an "assault weapon", but he may well have been carrying an SKS or something.

As for "why so much ammo" - 100 rounds is no big deal anywhere. Ammo comes in boxes of 20, and it's not uncommon to purchase 2 to 10 boxes at a time. Anyone serious about marksmanship might buy 100 boxes at a time. It only takes several minutes to use up a box, if you're carefully aiming. If you're just having fun, it only takes a minute.

People who ask these questions and make these assumptions are obviously not outdoorsmen.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[JeanCroix]

The AR-15 is a very common rifle for recreational and competition shooting. "Nut" comment aside, she was ultimately responsible: 1) Not properly securing them, 2) Not just getting rid of them while having an unstable individual living in her house.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Sure, it's just the little thing that you can't do as much damage armed with only a knife as with a handful of semi-automatics...

Quite so. They found this out the hard way in Cambodia, Uruguay, China, Turkey, Germany, the Soviet Union and Guatemala.

Millions and millions of times.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Chewbacon]

You forget the US wouldn't be around if it wouldn't be for the private stock of weapons our ancestors had laying around. I'm not sure if I've been thorough enough with my own homework, but I've noticed something like this hasn't happened in Texas (castle law) or Florida (stand your ground law).

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[pastafazou]

incorrect....“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns. The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals.”

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[volvox_voxel]

rights aren't ‘rights’ if someone can take ‘em away; they’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country: a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. “ — George Carlin, “You Have No Rights” (via kristinovich)\

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

There were no assault rifles involved, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Unless you think that an AR-15 is an assult rifle in which case you need to check your definitions

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[MichaelSmith]

A guy I know who has a gun, its probably illegal now so I won't say who, but he keeps both the gun and ammo hidden and so far apart that nobody else will be able to put the two together.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Woogiemonger]

Then the way we prevent this from ever happening again: ban mothers.

The mother's judgement WAS the problem. She not only kept an arsenal of guns around a mentally-challenged individual, but she even trained him with them. If I don't want something knocked over, I'm going to keep it safe from my cat. She wouldn't know any better, so I take precautions. Similar precautions should have been taken here.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[MichaelSmith]

To be fair I think Adam Lanza could have gotten into a gun safe.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Like as not, some fool has characterized a deer rifle as an "assault weapon", but he may well have been carrying an SKS or something.

It should be noted that an SKS makes a dandy deer rifle. It's about as powerful as a .30-30 (nowhere near as powerful as the 30-06 *I* use as a deer rifle), and light enough to lug around the woods all day with no problems.

Note also that the ONLY thing that would make it an "assault weapon" under the previous or soon-to-be-proposed legislation is the bayonet lug that the thing usually comes with. After all, it only holds ten rounds, which is the usual cutoff for "assault weapon".

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[jekewa]

The responsibility lies with the nutbag who shot up the school and then committed suicide. It might be nice to try to find some reason or trigger for it, but really it was the actions of one individual performing a heinous act. He took advantage of the situation and executed his twisted plan, or reacted completely insanely, or something in between. While in a situation where he may not have had such easy access to such weapons (for whatever reason) it may not have happened the way it did, but there's no way of knowing for sure that he wouldn't have done something similar another way.

Whatever you think of her gun selection, in firepower or quantity, it seems she gained them legally and behaved with them responsibly. It can surely be argued that no matter how stringent any gun control law, short of completely banning gun ownership, she could have followed all of those more strict laws and still had weapons that her son would then acquire illegally and use incorrectly.

There's no evidence she didn't properly secure her firearms and that he simply defeated said security. Locking something in a gun safe isn't something that would stop a motivated and capable 20-year old. He could surely have known where she kept any locker or trigger-lock keys, and reached them. Short of that any number of tools could have been used to overcome many home gun lockers, especially those meant to keep children safe and not truly secure the weapons.

Some blurb I saw somewhere said that Connecticut only requires locking up firearms when there are minors living in the home, and since he was 20 he was not a minor. Yes, a responsible gun owner should have locked up the weapons regardless, but again, a 20-year old familiar enough with the weapons to do what he did would have surely been able to open said locks.

Additionally, while the actions show in hindsight that he was plenty unstable (tore up first-graders...'nuff said), there's not been convincing evidence presented (that I've seen or read) that indicates he was unstable to the point that one might think he would do what he did. Too many interviews point out "what a quiet person" or "nice fella" or whatever. I'm sure his mother thought she understood whatever was going through his head, as most parents will believe with their kids, even when they're wrong. We'd all like to believe that we'd be able to see the breakdown coming, and even if there was any indication he was about to snap, perhaps she didn't envision he'd snap like this, or on that day.

These are the basic facts. She had legally obtained weapons. He obtained them from her (and killed her with them). He is responsible for the actions that took the lives of those children and their protectors.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[nschubach]

Maybe he could. It would depend on the safe. Small key safes are more of an opportunity blocker for the most part, but a coded safe would take a bit more time. It may have been enough, it may not have. We can conjecture all day long but IMHO, safes should be required "accessories" for responsible gun owners.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Obfuscant]

If I don't want something knocked over, I'm going to keep it safe from my cat. She wouldn't know any better, so I take precautions.

So you're arguing that this fellow had the mental capacity of your cat and didn't know that what he was doing was wrong? And that nobody noticed that he was easily amused by laser pointers and spent most of the day licking himself?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

Requiring that guns be secured when not in use is one of the few things that coudl actually help without infringing on the 2nd Amendment

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

A+ 5 star post

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

You draw the line at a 1-inch mostly dull knife, aren't you thnking of the CHILDREN!?!?!?!?!?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Dinghy]

You see, you can claim to want a gun for self defense but how many do you need? What did she need that arsenal for? Why so much ammo?

The better question would be why did she feel it was safe to store the guns in the same building as someone who she knows is mentally unstable.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Runaway1956]

The SKS may make a decent deer rifle, if proper ammo is available. The only time I handled one, the guy who owned it only had jacketed bullets. That was all that was available at that time, in our area. A fast, light, jacketed bullet passes through a body, causing minimal damage, then carries on into the distance. It's been awhile since I hunted regularly, I can't remember the proper name, but 30-30 always came in a semi-jacketed bullet that mushroomed nicely on impact. If someone is making that round for the SKS, it could be a good deer rifle.

Personally, I didn't like the SKS very much. To light, to short, poor balance - it just doesn't feel like a real rifle in my hands. Give me something more like a Remington 700, please. Or, if we are going for more of a military look, let's style something along the lines of an M1 or an M14. I carried both, and love them both. Forget the M16, it's another toy, to me, and those tumbling rounds are totally unsuitable for deer hunting.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

The "assault rifle" is almost certainly an AR-15, which is, of course, nothign of the sort.

I have a friend who probably goes through a thousand rounds a month, ammo prices fluctuate greatly so when you're going through that much ammo if the price drops you buy, a lot.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[LordLucless]

He wasn't advocating thought crime. His rhetorical question at the end of the final paragraph should have been enough to see that. He was pointing out that sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease, and that what we have isn't even a cure, but a bit of quack medicine.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[poity]

Did you get the context? The last part of his post was a contrived absurdity made to further support the second-to-last part of his post. It was an example for pointing out the futility of doing superficial things to stop determined maniacs.

Gun bans won't stop determined killers just like liquid bans won't stop determined terrorists. Determined people will find a way, and the only people you affect are the law abiding ones.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Em Adespoton]

She had 2 handguns, completely reasonable for self defense. A standard .223 carbine... standard rifle you can get at walmart, fun to shoot and then a shotgun, pretty typical for hunting small game.

Logical; I don't see a problem with that. Of course, I see no reason to own guns at all unless you need them for hunting, but that's a different issue. I see no need to go after the mother for owning ready-made lethal weapons -- everyone has them in one form or another.

The problem here was this guy went nutz, and there was no way for him to get help. He wanted the world to know about his rage and the media gives him a relatively easy way to get the world to hear about it as long as he does something worse than the last guy.

People don't live in a vaccuum. The problem here is that the guy wanted to be noticed, and felt that everyone was ignoring him. He kept escalating his cries for attention until they reached a level that we would consider "insane". To me that speaks of intense depression, loneliness and desperation. Not saying this in any way excuses what he does, but it provides some context.

If there's any industry to blame here it's the news media for sensationalizing this and the medical industry for not providing the help he needs.

The news media is just as much a weapon as the gun. The news media doesn't kill people (usually).
The medical industry DOES provide the help he needed -- the problem is that there was no bridge from his own social circles to the medical attention he needed.

If you want to kill a lot of people, making guns illegal isn't going to stop you. They are simply the most accessible means right now. Make them less accessible and he would have picked up a truckload of fertilizer and diesel fuel... and probably taken out the whole school. An Ammonium nitrate is REALLY easy to get.

This misses the point I think. The issue here is that as a society, we don't care for each other -- it's one of the nasty side effects of humanism (which also has a lot of benefits, such as modern science). The side effect of this is that being depressed and wanting to draw attention to his situation, he went for an *image* to present. Guns in the US have a flashy image. The rest of his gear goes along with this. Blowing up himself and a school with ammonium nitrate wouldn't have the same effect, because our society doesn't glamourize such things.

I mean really... if I wanted to make a statement by killing a bunch of innocent people, I wouldn't even need ammonium nitrate; a large bucket of bleach and ***** into the ventilation system would work just as well.

However, you don't see Rambo fighting for our freedom with chlorine gas; instead, we point out (here comes Godwin) the evil Germans and Hussein using it underhandedly. Therefore, anyone doing this is going to get the WRONG sort of attention.

So what's the answer? Not gun control; the only reason *most* people have guns is that they've been conditioned by their society into thinking guns are good and make them more important/safe (just like diamonds). "Controlling" guns won't change this. The answer is to actually change how society portrays weapons use in general, and guns in particular. Make the consequences to mis-use societal. Request that the entertainment industry lay off the guns (I mean, these days most premeditated incidents of this nature would use RPGs if most people could get their hands on them) and show people using more inventive and socially-related methods of causing mayhem and destruction. Make the popular methods of causing death at a distance be ones that, in real life, provide lots of early 'tells'. The problem with guns is that they are readily available in inert form, and then can suddenly cause a LOT of damage. Unless you live on a farm, building fertilizer bombs is going to flag some databases as soon as you attempt to purchase/steal th

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[omnichad]

Her major malfunction was being paranoid about expecting a full economic collapse, and stockpiling supplies - including the means to defend them.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[kenh]

IMHO, most people around here (Belgium, strict laws) play with guns for a hobby, few have it for self-defence. AFAIK.

Why would someone that has firearms for self-protection "advertise" that fact?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[LordLucless]

Arsenal. I've only seen three specific weapons mentioned, and some references to an "assault rifle". That "assault rifle" merits some concern, but it's not clear yet what they are referring to.

Pretty sure the assault rifle was a reference to the AR-15. Given it was legally acquired, it must have been the civilian model, which means it wasn't an assault rifle - not that that stops the media. Also, it was apparently left in his car - from what I understand, the killings were all done with semi-auto handguns.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Ksevio]

There's no "natural right" to own an armory. The US has the second amendment that gives the right so that citizens can defend their states as part of a militia, but that doesn't make guns some sort of unregulated pokemon. We could easily limit guns to people with proper training and proper evaluation similar to how we let people have other dangerous items like cars.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[poity]

Isn't that like saying private individuals who use full disk encryption have a mental illness? There's not a lot to lose if they're wrong, but much to gain if they're right. I'd say preppers are not much more than boyscouts who happen to like reading the bad news in the papers.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[ArsenneLupin]

IMHO, most people around here (Belgium, strict laws) play with guns for a hobby, few have it for self-defence. AFAIK.

The reason for this may be that it's illegal to acquire a gun for the purpose of self-defence (but obviously, it is legal to use a gun for self-defence which you happened to have lying around after having gotten it for "sports" purposes...)

==> so anybody who thinks he might need a gun for self-defence (because living at a remote location, which has already been burgled a couple of times) will just lie through his teeth to get one...

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you can take the quotation marks off the assault rifle reference, it was an AR-15 with an extended mag of .223 (5.7mm) ammo, brother of the M16 which uses the 5.56mm and has automatic fire capability.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[AmiMoJo]

So it's worth risking this kind of thing so that some guys can enjoy their hobby? They really can't switch to shooting another type of weapon?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[AmiMoJo]

Friend of mine has 5 fire-arms (guns & rifles) and makes his own ammo. If he ever goes mental I'm sure it will make the world-news too... But as far as I can tell he's a sane, laid-back kind of guy with a hobby he practices perfectly within the law. Who am I to deprive him of that ?

It's like drinking and driving. 99.9% of the time it won't result in anyone dying, so why would anyone be deprived of doing it?

Not having these kinds of weapons isn't going to ruin anyone's life, but having them widely available probably will. I'd like to do 120MPH on the motorway, and I'm sure I and many other people I know could handle it, but it still isn't a good idea and I don't think it's a huge imposition not to allow it.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[jedidiah]

> Why exactly do you feel someone has the intrinsic right to a weapon which can kill many people in seconds?

The world is a dangerous place. ANY firearm useful for self defense or even civilian police work is going to satisfy the "can kill many people in seconds" criteria.

Your eagerness to ignore the law also ignores the practical realities of the situation, especially in light of "The drug war". Meanwhile, I can't by Nyquil anymore because some idiots are worried it might get turned into meth.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[AmiMoJo]

As for "why so much ammo" - 100 rounds is no big deal anywhere. Ammo comes in boxes of 20, and it's not uncommon to purchase 2 to 10 boxes at a time. Anyone serious about marksmanship might buy 100 boxes at a time. It only takes several minutes to use up a box, if you're carefully aiming. If you're just having fun, it only takes a minute.

Okay, how about this. When out hunting you don't need hundreds of rounds, and even if for some reason you do you don't need high capacity magazines. Why not limit people to small amounts of ammo and small cartridges, or better yet no assault weapons, and for people who really must play with them allow ranges to keep and loan them? You could even buy your own and keep it at the range, or even keep it in your house but keep the cartridges at the range.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[epyT-R]

If he was a minor, yes.. He was 20+. There is no one to blame but him, no matter what the knee-jerkers around here say. This blame-chaining just creates witch hunts that solve nothing and prolong mass hysteria.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Lashat]

What do you base this opinion on? I'm not being arguementative, just wondering.

No deterrent is 100%, but anything is better than nothing.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[epyT-R]

The only way to have stopped this nutcase was to put him in prison (or confinement) at the first sign he might be "unstable". Now, you might be imprisoning a lot of people who don't fit YOUR definition of stable, and who wouldn't ever kill anyone, but if you can stop the death of 20 schoolchildren by putting a million oddballs into prison, isn't it worth it?

Uh no. this will just build up hysteria driven witch hunts based on all kinds of fallacies. The result would be catastrophic to any last semblances of freedom/liberty we have right now. The fact is, thousands of children die every day. While sad, turning our 'house' inside out over it won't solve anything. It'll just make our lives miserable. In fact, I'll bet the reason for lanza's behavior has more to do with passive aggressive social dynamics (and the resultant new laws/restrictions) and economic stress (working more hours to compensate for a falling dollar/increased taxation), than it does with access to firearms or insufficient mass profiling. In fact, the latter is an example of a stressor for those who are informed about it.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Crypto Gnome]

You forget the US wouldn't be around if it wouldn't be for the private stock of weapons our ancestors had laying around. I'm not sure if I've been thorough enough with my own homework, but I've noticed something like this hasn't happened in Texas (castle law) or Florida (stand your ground law).

And ALL of you forget the REASON why you have the right to these arms in your constitution.

The entire point of it was so that The People could form a self-armed self-organising militia as required (either to repel invaders or overthrow their own despotic government, should either of those actions become necessary).

It's trivial to argue that MOST of the "right to bear arms" is irrelevant with the advent of a major government funded military force, and the ONLY reason you need "arms" is for self defence.

Once you go that far it's easy to demonstrate that (aside from more rural communities where "a rifle" is about as standard-issue as putting on your pants) a single handgun per person is adequate.

This American penchant for anything-less-than-WMD is, quite frankly, rampant insanity.

HAVING SAID THAT I fully support your national wish to apply natural selection and the principles of Darwinian Evolution.

Personally I think many of you are akin to crack-smoking retarded monkeys on this issue, but I fully support your right to choose the direction of your own society.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[number6x]

Stating that the Mother is responsible for the safe keeping of her guns is not blaming her for the masacre. It is blaming her for being irresponsible with deadly weapons. I think we can take it as a fact that she did not fullfill her responsibilities as a gun owner and maintain her weapons in a secure manner in order to protect hersefl, her son and others.

Gun owners must be responsible with their guns. If you do not understand this, I hope you never own guns. I understand that you may have the right to own them, but if you are unwilling to accept that that right means that you also have a responsibility, then you are not really ready to own a gun.

I also hope you don't own a car because they are far more dangerous than guns and kill more people.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Kiraxa]

To an extent. Full disk encryption when its not necessary is unnecessary paranoia. But preppers take that paranoia to an extreme. Like having an entire arsenal that can be used for shooting up a school.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[kelemvor4]

Some people collect... those same people also lock up their weapons in a safe and don't share the code. For instance, I don't know my brother's safe combo, and I don't really want to. I have a gun that I use strictly for target shooting for self entertainment and if I ever want to shoot one of his, I simply ask.

For those "collectors" that don't lock up their collections, I'd say that there may be a problem. Considering a fairly high end gun safe will run less than the cost of a few guns, it would be retarded not to own one.

If you've got kids in your house (like this lady) or something then yes, safes are important. As for criminals and your guns being safe in a safe from theft... you're only fooling yourself. Go look at safe cracking videos on youtube - safe manufacturers make such videos against competitors. It takes two guys about 60 seconds to break into the most expensive safe you can buy (for home use) with a pry bar and sledge. Maybe if you've got a full room safe like you'd have at a bank or something...

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[MichaelSmith]

Its just a box with a lock. He wasn't completely useless. He could memorise a PIN or the location of a key. That sort of thing. The gun safe puts everything you need in one place so in that sense I wonder if it is safer to use one. Maybe a gun safe is more secure against strangers. People breaking in, that sort of thing.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[kelemvor4]

Its been reported that she was a "prepper." So there's an underlying mental illness going on there. Preparing for the end of the world is not something sane and rational people do.

Not that I am one, but there are plenty of people who think the exact opposite. Those would say that not being prepared indicates you have an underlying mental illness.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Obfuscant]

Uh no. this will just build up hysteria driven witch hunts based on all kinds of fallacies. The result would be catastrophic to any last semblances of freedom/liberty we have right now.

You've just identified the successful reductio ad absurdum argument I made. Some people call this "trolling", but in truth it shows the flaws in the claim that "we cannot allow this to happen again", and it annoys people who think we "must do something" when there really isn't anything that can be done.

As you said, the only solution to the problem is not acceptable to anyone, and would destroy any semblance of liberty we have.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fahrbot-bot]

You see, you can claim to want a gun for self defense but how many do you need?
What did she need that arsenal for? Why so much ammo?

• Mal - Jayne, how many weapons you plan on bringing? You only got the two arms.
• Jayne - Well I get excitable as to choice; like to have my options open.
• ... Mal - No grenades!

So, it could have been much worse...

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[camperdave]

You'll want to use the shotgun for personal defense, not the handgun. Nothing says "back off, Jack" like a shotgun being levelled at your head.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[hierofalcon]

It is true that the 2nd amendment was written in a time when none of these existed. But it was also written in the time immediately after the Revolutionary War when we fought for our freedom from England. Every weapon of war was included in their minds when they wrote that amendment. They didn't exclude cannons. They didn't exclude warships. If they'd just wanted people to have guns to hunt with, they would have. They wanted a people who were armed and ready to fight the next war that came along.

The reason they didn't need to worry about Farmer Jones up the road going off with a cannon and firing a shot at the school house is exactly the same reason you don't have to worry about nuclear weapons or cruise missiles or tanks or F-15s parked on your street. The big ordnance was expensive then and it is expensive today. Sheer cost of purchase, maintenance, and operating limited the people who could afford them then, just as now. But you can be assured that if modern weapons had been around then and used to fight off the British, there wouldn't have been an exception for them in the 2nd. Every military weapon was included so a militia could be called up at a moments notice to protect against any and all invaders.

Yes, we have armed forces now. Yes, we have a National Guard now. But a lot of them are elsewhere and are likely to be elsewhere for the long term. They aren't hanging around the U.S. So just because times have changed doesn't mean the risk has. I hope we never have a government go actively against its citizens in the U.S. But it has happened recently in many other countries. I don't like the fact that so many people feel the need to potentially defend themselves against the government at all. I personally don't. But I do respect their positions considering all that has gone on in the world in the last century by supposedly benign governments.

I wish there was no need to worry about crime as well, but the police manifestly cannot be everywhere at once. They mostly react to crimes that go on for a long time (riots for example) or react after a crime has occurred. Both make it necessary for a large portion of the population to wish to have a gun to protect themselves and the bigger the advantage that gun has over what the intruder might have, the better.

I appreciated the comment by seumas. He summed the argument threads up nicely.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[drinkypoo]

Why would someone that has firearms for self-protection "advertise" that fact?

The more people advertise the fact, the more suspicion that any given target might own a gun and be protected. Everyone benefits.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[drinkypoo]

You'll want to use the shotgun for personal defense, not the handgun. Nothing says "back off, Jack" like a shotgun being levelled at your head.

The shotgun isn't so portable and it also requires a much more expensive safe to lock it up well. A handgun with frangible ammo is a perfectly reasonable self-defense weapon, preferably something .40 caliber or larger for the wow factor.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Obfuscant]

This post went from protecting rights to advocating for thought crime. A+ would read again.

Wrong. You should read again. It doesn't advocate for "thought crime", it points out how dangerous the "we must do something" cry is, and how the idea that "we cannot allow this to happen again" is a danger sign to any free society.

If you seriously thought that I was suggesting that we lock up millions of "unstable" people just on the off-chance that they might do something bad someday, based on everything I wrote before that and everything else I've written in this discussion, then you're a prime candidate for first in line for the hoosegow under that policy.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Lehk228]

she knowingly and willfully kept weapons in the home with a mentally defective person without bothering to invest in suitably security.

a real gun safe that will not fail to a crowbar or sledge will run you $400-$1000 depending on size, she could have gone with a smaller unit. or even a little less with just a pistol safe and kept the bolt assembly from the AR in the safe with the pistols.

an AR-15 alone goes for $800-$1500 depending on maker options and vendor.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Obfuscant]

If you want to stockpile 1000 guns; I think I do as member of this society, have a right to know why.

No, you don't. I don't need to explain to you why I want to exercise my constitutional rights, any more than you need to explain to me why you should be allowed to exercise yours.

Why don't you allow cops to search your house when they ask? Are you hiding something? Why do you need any right to be secure in your person and property unless you've done something wrong? What are you hiding? As a member of this society, I have a right to know why you are invoking the fourth or fifth amendments. Don't I? (Note to readers: that's a rhetorical question intended to make the point that the argument "I have a right to know why you want to..." is specious and patently absurd.)

There is no reason to own many of the guns that are sold,

No reason you understand. Are constitutional rights only valid if you understand why someone wants to exercise them?

And I see absolutely no reason for the conceal carry laws other then

The right of people to defend themselves is a pretty good reason. You don't understand why others use their rights. We get that. Your lack of understanding is really irrelevant to the discussion.

I believe in responsible gun ownership but I don't see how that right is unlimited and unrestricted.

"I don't understand why you want to own a gun" isn't a valid restriction, and there are already quite a number of restrictions that you don't seem to know about. It's hyperbole to claim that gun ownership is "unlimited and unrestricted" just because you don't think they are limited enough to meet your understanding.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[HornWumpus]

Not having these kinds of weapons isn't going to ruin anyone's life

History epic fail.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[HornWumpus]

They make 3 round hunting mags for most any 'assault weapon'. Makes them legal to hunt with (assuming the round is legal in the first place).

Other then that; No. You (deliberately) miss the point of the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[DarthBling]

An ArmaLite 15 (AR-15) is not an assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic (which means, one trigger pull = one bullet, and the rifle automatically loads another round for you without you having to manual use a pump, lever, or bolt mechanism to load it yourself) rifle than shoots a relatively, albeit incredible fast, small rifle round. Commonly, it can be describe as a varmint rifle.

An assault rifle is normally a rifle that has full auto capabilities (one trigger pull = more than one bullet), firing a small intermediate-sized rifle round. This would include the military version of the AR-15, the M16, as well as the AK47.

Yes, both the M16 and AR-15 look similar, which is why people like yourself can't tell the difference. But, they are not the same gun (despite what the media wants you to think). The AR-15 might look black and scary, but they do come in pink with hello kitty stickers if that's more your style.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

[Citation needed]

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[cfalcon]

Well, for self defense you might need a lot more rounds. Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[jayveekay]

Here's how Adam gets into the safe: "Hey Mom, I'm going to the range to do some shooting, can I get a gun from the safe?" Mom: "Sure, and make sure to wear a jacket, it's chilly outside today."

His mother (who was a target shooter) introduced him to target shooting as a hobby. His mother did not believe that he was capable of violence so saw no reason to keep guns away from her son.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

"Extended"? Probably standard capacity as high-capacity magazines are cripplingly expensive. I've seen 60 and 100 rounds mags, but they're WAY too expensive for me.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[canadian_right]

I thought the AR-15 was pretty much an M-16. How is that not a military assault rifle? Reading the wiki on the AR-15 it seems like a full out assault rifle to me.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

"Assault weapon" is a made up term that has no actual meaning.

Keepign them at the range makes the range a nice target for theft. The range that I've been to the most is in the sticks and doesn't have anyone there most of the time. Perfect for stealing tons of guns. And what happens when I want to go to a different range? Or not go to a range at all? I live out in the sticks, I have enough land available to do shooting on my own. Both of the options you're suggesting woudl be enormous inconveniences while doing next to nothing to prevent sprees.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[PlusFiveTroll]

A. her son was an adult.
B. We don't know what signs of illness he was showing and for how long.

With A he could have premeditated getting the weapons for a long time. Safes need keys, it's highly likely he knew where they were. There is no such thing as keeping something safe in your own house against a motivated person. The fact he was willing to murder her is testimony to that, he could have very well bashed her head in an taken the keys.

B is pretty obvious, he could have been showing signs like depression, but not 'i'm going to go the fuck off.'

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[kaatochacha]

This: Own a gun, be responsible for it.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[quenda]

Unless you think that an AR-15 is an assult rifle in which case you need to check your definitions

Maybe not technically, but it sure looks like one, and is very effective at killing lots of people very quickly.
You can understand people thinking is is made to kill humans, and not deer. (Unless you want to thin out a herd from a helicopter.)

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[PlusFiveTroll]

Um, yea. A 20 year old can go buy ammo for the .223. Keeping the gun and ammo apart is useless in a situation like that. You must think that an adult is retarded not to locate both the gun and ammo over time (years maybe). We're not talking kids here.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[PlusFiveTroll]

Get some of that really thin stretch plastic wrap and line the key pad (if it's one of the flat shiny pads like some safes have). Wait till someone uses the safe. Pull off plastic and look for finger prints.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[PlusFiveTroll]

He was an adult.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[quenda]

And where to draw the line ? Crossbows ? Bows ? Slingshots ? Knives ?

All those are illegal in Australia, to some extent. You cannot legally carry around a large knife without a legitimate reason (e.g. going fishing, cooking)
Compoud bows and crossbows are restricted. Slingshot varies by state.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[PCM2]

Unless you think that an AR-15 is an assult rifle in which case you need to check your definitions

This is debatable. At the time we had an "assault weapons ban" in effect in the United States, the AR-15 was one of the weapons listed in the ban.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[quenda]

She had 2 handguns, completely reasonable for self defense.

Why on earth would a middle-aged teacher reasonably carry guns for self-defence? From what? Cougar attack?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[PlusFiveTroll]

There are a number of manufactures of hollow point and soft point 7.62x39. Not every place carries them though.

The SKS was a precursor to the AK-47 and managed to stay around even though it was a fall back if the AK design didn't work.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[PlusFiveTroll]

Expensive and far less reliable. The larger the magazine the higher chance of jamming.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[PlusFiveTroll]

Um, how do you keep people from buying lots of ammo a few rounds at a time?

Small cartridges? They still kill you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer

Or, you can do it the American way when things are outlawed. Import them from Mexico and Canada creating a huge profit black market where shitloads more people die then the original problem caused.

Also, you seem to forget that people have been making ammo since way the fuck back when, so ammo production is possible. Yes, that may stop a lot of people from getting it easy, but there will be a profitable market to make and distribute it.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Macgrrl]

Doesn't the AR in AR-15 stand for Assault Rifle?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[SecurityGuy]

Friend of mine has 5 fire-arms (guns & rifles) and makes his own ammo. If he ever goes mental I'm sure it will make the world-news too...

Friend of mine has dozens of firearms and used to make his own ammo. That's not at all a predictor of going mental. I know you weren't saying it was, btw, but there are those reading it who think so. This friend of mine is pushing 70 now, and is a happy, well adjusted grandfather.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Euler]

The Colt AR-15 as it is generally known is basically the civilian version of the M16. This means semi-auto only, not fully automatic or burst mode. By exact definition, "assault rifles" are fully automatic rifles such as the M16, which are generally not obtainable by most US citizens. Therefore, not an assault rifle.

Furthermore, the "AR-15" by name is typically banned in state-level "assault weapons" bans, including Connecticut. However, many different manufacturers make similar rifles often with interchangeable parts. Since these are sold under different model names, they are not explicitly covered in these bans. The shooter in this case had an XM-15 made by Bushmaster, which actually is more like the military M4 rifle.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Lehk228]

he had Aspergers and personality disorder, that alone is enough. any unstable mental illness is enough that firearms really must be under heavier security than the $99 special at walmart.

and a combo lock that is not opened while he is in the room is not something he can steal or copy the key for

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[cold fjord]

Okay, how about this. When out hunting you don't need hundreds of rounds, and even if for some reason you do you don't need high capacity magazines.

Sorry, but wrong.

You could even buy your own and keep it at the range, or even keep it in your house but keep the cartridges at the range.

Right, pull the other one!

Perhaps, some day, the home of a British subject will be a castle again.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

It lacks selective-fire capability, which is required by defnintion to be an assault rifle.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

Using an AR to hunt deer would be stupid, 5.56 is only marginally powerful enough to serve against humans. Most people won't hunt deer with anything smaller than a .30-30 with .30-06 being probably the most common.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

Hunting deer with an AR would be stupid as 5.56 is only marginally good enough for humans (there's been a debate raging since it's introduction about its suitability). Most people hunting deer choose something like the .30-30 or larger, like the .30-06.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

The AWB was made by people who knew nothing about guns except that they were scary. Their opinions on the subject should be taken with a shaker of salt.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[ahabswhale]

You are wrong on several counts:

1) This kid had mental issues since birth. He had Aspergers and difficulty dealing with others and was a problem kid his whole life.

2) The mother bought these guns to teach her kid how to shoot so he could learn about responsibility. Talk about the stupidest fucking thing you can think of to teach a mentally ill kid responsibility...

3) It's the mother's responsibility to make sure her mentally ill child does not have access to deadly weapons. You can't blame a nut for their actions when everyone knows he's got major problems. If she felt the need to have guns, she should have properly secured them such that he could not get access to them. (Maybe that should be a law?)

In short, his mom was completely irresponsible. If she weren't dead, I'd say she should be prosecuted (at least for being a complete fucking moron).

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Charliemopps]

oh... I dunno... maybe her psychopath son?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[rtfa-troll]

If you want to kill a lot of people, making guns illegal isn't going to stop you.

That depends, however it will almost certainly reduce the number of people you kill.

They are simply the most accessible means right now.

Guns are the best easily accessible means. Knives are even more available and people even do go on rampages with them. The only difference is that few people end up dead.

Make them less accessible and he would have picked up a truckload of fertilizer and diesel fuel

And probably got the mixture wrong. Or put it in the wrong place or etc. etc. Alternatively someone would have noticed.

She didn't even have to give up her guns. Just having them all locked in a gun safe whenever they weren't actually on her person would probably have saved many people. Requiring, by law, everyone with a gun to have a gun safe and use it when appropriate would be a very simple start.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[rastos1]

You see, you can claim to want a gun for self defense but how many do you need?

How many rights do YOU need?

Can you remind me when was the last time the right (except of right to not be robbed by a thug) of someone living in USA was protected with a gun? I doubt that you have guns to prevent your constitutional rights being taken away. Perhaps you should seek another system to protect you from robbery?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Fjandr]

With politicians and the media constantly lying by implication, it's something even some pro-firearms people screw up. I'm sure the term was chosen because the similarity would allow for repeated "accidents" so that they could eventually make everyone think any scary-looking gun was an automatic weapon.

Not complaining about the clarification, don't get me wrong. It needs to be done to fight the above influence of liars and manipulators in politics and the media.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[SecurityTheatre]

Per incident?

Seriously?

If this dude had set fire to the school, how many people would have died?

Just because some nightclub somewhere has no exits (Rhode Island) or a boat has no means of escape when burning (Missouri), each having hundreds of deaths, doesn't make "fire" somehow a more dangerous weapon.

It just means that... sometimes, it's possible to kill an entire building full of people all at once.. but how many cases of arson each year cause no fatalities? Are they included in the average? I doubt it, because these "per incident" statistics are completely worthless.

Air France crashes have a death rate of 300 per incident... but it's been one of the safest airlines in aviation history...

meaningless bullshit...

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[SecurityTheatre]

As far as I have read, she had an AR-15, which may or may not be an "assault rifle" depending on the configuration and your personal definition.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[deroby]

Actually, you're quite wrong there.
Looking back on the people gone mental and going on a shooting spree : I doubt a lot of them were gun-nuts.
Besides : I don't have a clue what your hobby is, but most people who have one tend to be rather fanatic about it. That doesn't mean they are truly 'nuts'!

* Some people love to run. They buy GPS watches and cardio-loggers and track & analyse every single run and go as far as buying 10 pair of different shoes because that one 'obviously' works better on Sundays. Nuts!
* Some people love cars. They can dwell on the effect of some massively expensive oversized silencer (which isn't!) bringing another 3 HP to a car that already has more power than anyone would ever need in such a small package. Nuts!
* Some people like flowers. They'll spent a lifetime cross-breeding fairy-tale-named roses never getting that one which has the exact red and pink hue they are chasing after. Nuts!
* Some people like guns. They'll rant for ages on how the bore of rifle X combined with some bullet-tip of type X causes a fraction more spin so they can hit a nail-pin sitting at a distance which makes the thing invisible to my eyes. Nuts!
* Some people like MMO's and spent as much time as possible on the acquisition/improvement of virtual goods. Nuts!
* etc...

All of the above are just as stupid as the next one when looked at from the outside and all (**) can have some dangerous side-effects on society... should we simply abolish the concept of hobbies all together ? All work, no play ? In all honesty, there are virtually no things in life that are both interesting and 100% safe... In the end everything can be abused : guns, cars, spray cans, bananas, ... As long as people use them sensibly I have no problem with that...

FYI: I've tagged along to the shooting range once [requires certificate you don't have a criminal record btw] and the people there came in different types : some were mostly focused on the guns from an 'engineering' point of view and knew all the stats, how to assemble and disassemble them, what parts were exchangeable etc... Others were more into the actual firing, accuracy and speed... others simply considered it some kind of 'duty' to train once in a while as they had the gun 'in the family' for ages and didn't want to get rid of it, but neither wanted it to rust away ("It used to be my uncle's").
Regardless what 'group' they were in, they all shared one trait : they were extremely vocal about gun-safety. E.g. no gun would enter/leave the premises loaded, preferably with some kind of protection mechanism (eg. some kind of lock on the trigger) on top.

(**: OK, the flower guy is kinda hard to find a dangerous side-effect for... maybe some kind of pesticide bound to be drunk by a toddler that was playing in the shed.)

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[deroby]

With a bit of patience -- and we can assume he planned this for while -- ANY combo lock can be opened. Even 4-digit versions don't require all that long.(Yes, I know from experience).

Maybe an electronic one would be better as it might log the number of failed attempts and/or do some kind of tar-pitting in case of a 'brute force' attempt. Then again, I've never heard of an electronic gun-lock, nor of a safe-lock that would actually report number of failed attempts; but never really looked around for one either.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[deroby]

Disclaimer: I really don't have a clue, hence the question.

Are automatic-fire rifles that much more dangerous ? I've always thought of it working counter-productive. I can see the use of automatic (or even burst) fire in panicky close-combat situations where the "target" would be "stopped" by 5 bullets instead of 1; but in 'normal situations' I would assume _trained_ people would use single-shot anyway.
Sure, in the movies they just keep shooting, but with firing rates of 800/min a magazine of 20 would be emptied in under 2 seconds. I'm guessing it takes some moments to switch to the next one + you can only carry so much.

So, wouldn't it be "overall" better if the guy in question had run out of bullets faster ?

PS: come to think of it, instead of banishing automatic-fire it would have made more sense to banish automatic-loading weapons. Having to pump the gun between shots would slow down an attacker much more.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[xhrit]

An AR-15 is black and looks scary, so it MUST be an ASSAULT rifle. And everyone KNOWS assault rifles are MURDER TOOLS. The only thing you can do with one is ASSAULT people with it.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[AmiMoJo]

I fully understand the 2nd amendment, I just think it is stupid so chose not to address it. Do you seriously think you would have any chance what so ever of going up against the government?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fearofcarpet]

How many rights do YOU need? What is it about the concept of a right that is hard to grasp? Is there some new twist to "rights" that says that you can only exercise one to the limit that someone else thinks you need to?

So, by way of the Second Amendment, I have an absolute right to posses as many "arms" as I want end of story, period (does that include biological weapons?). Do I also have a right to privacy, or can the government tap my phone and read my email without a warrant? Do I have a right to get gay-married or does equal protection not extend to sexual orientation? Do I have the right to put whatever I want into my body, or can the government ban drugs? Do I have the right to travel freely, or can my passport be revoked or my flying privileges suspended? How about the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness? Do I have the right to take my own life (it is mine, after all), or should the government intervene if, say, I'm being held awaiting trial or serving a prison sentence? Do I have the right to live, or do I surrender that right if I commit a certain crime? I think taxes infringe on my right to liberty, can I stop paying them and still keep my house? I'm positive that a few things that make me happy would make you very angry and vice versa.

Which is it is? Is the world black and white: do we all have absolute rights as dictated by some dead guys? Or can some rights can be limited for the good of society? Or do you get to pick which rights are absolute and which can be tempered and regulated? If not you, then who? Hey, maybe we should vote on this sort of thing?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Talderas]

We can conjecture all day long but IMHO, safes should be required "accessories" for responsible gun owners.

That an unenforceable edict. Attempting to do so would run hard against the 4th Amendment.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Talderas]

Enforcing that would infringe the 4th Amendment.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[alexo]

What did she need that arsenal for?

Who cares? It's not your right to decide what she needed her rights for. If I want to own 1000 guns, it's my right, and you have no right to second guess whether I get the right based on what you think I need.

Rights come with responsibilities.
If you want to own a shitload firearms it's fine by me, as long as you are held responsible for any use or misuse of each and every one; no excuses, no exceptions. If any person gets unauthorized access to any of your weapons, even if their sole intention was to gaze lovingly at them, you should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and punished to the full extent of the law (which, I understand, in the US is a legally mandated anal rape).

Ten to one the mother is the answer to this drama.

Then the way we prevent this from ever happening again: ban mothers. You can't shoot your mother in her sleep if you don't have a mother. And ban schools. You can't shoot up a school full of kids if there is no school for them to be conveniently corralled into.

Quite a drama queen are you? As the saying goes, try to engage brain before putting mouth (or, in this case, fingers) in gear.

Bans are rarely the right solution to anything. Try education instead.
1) The mother should have figured out that her son was disturbed and sought help for him. This is what parents do.
2) The mother should have taken care to ensure that the weapons were not accessible by her unstable son. Up to and including giving them up, if necessary.
3) A mental health professional should have been available to provide the family with advice. And the mother should have sought and heeded it.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[operagost]

Seems to me that for a four digit code, assuming it takes three seconds to enter a code and test the handle, would require about a median 10.4 days-- just constantly punching in codes-- to compromise. Again, that's if you're lucky and only need to cover half the possible codes before finding a match. It's likely you're only going to get a few minutes or hours at best alone with the safe each day, so it might take you several months to several years. Yeah, you'd have to be pretty crazy.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Talderas]

Guns are the best easily accessible means. Knives are even more available and people even do go on rampages with them. The only difference is that few people end up dead.

The historical rate for mass murders (minimum of 4 deaths during the incident) using firearms (4.92/incident) and mass murders using knifes/bludgeoning/fists (4.52/incident) is not too different and only 52% of mass murders were done with firearms.

We don't glamorize the usage of knives, baseball bats, or arsons at all unless the circumstances are wildly out the normal and we generally ignore most firearms murders unless they are wildly outside the norm or is going to attract controversy and by extension ratings. A murder-suicide isn't going to attract national attention, unless person committing the murder is a NFL player. A person attacking people with a knife isn't going to attract as much attention unless the guy decides to also consume the eyeballs of the victims or the attack is a child. Arsons that lead to deaths are practically unheard of in national news, yet these things still all happen.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[operagost]

Like what? Personal armed guards like politicians and celebrities?

When was the last time your right to vote was protected from a poll tax? When was the last time you had to stop soldiers from being quartered in your house? When was the last time you were threatened with an illegal search? Maybe we don't need those rights.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Talderas]

I've heard that line tossed many times, but I think you and those who ask that are extremely foolish and do not understand in the slightest that the odds of obtaining victory are not what matters.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Talderas]

Any firearm can have a bayonet mount, even pistols.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[operagost]

Fire would be more effective if we didn't have fire alarms. Why aren't people talking about securing the schools against all sorts of intruders, like we're secured them against fire? We know that things like hurricanes and tornadoes can't be stopped: they're forces of nature. Evil is also a force of nature. Fortunately, we can do a lot more to control it than we can control the weather, but there will still be murderers. It's better to build a storm shelter than curse the wind.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[operagost]

Yet we've stopped short of designing cars so that they are incapable of exceeding 120 MPH, or requiring special licenses for 120 MPH cars... which is the effect of gun control laws.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[tofarr]

No other ammo aside from that he provides will work with the gun? He must work for Apple...

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[ph34rtheSAiNT]

I'm not American. I don't believe, and many people would agree with me, that your 'constitutional right' is the fundamental right which you defend so vehemently. It was included in the constitution with explicit reference to 'a well regulated militia'.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[ImprovOmega]

You are wrong on several counts:

1) This kid had mental issues since birth. He had Aspergers and difficulty dealing with others and was a problem kid his whole life.

2) The mother bought these guns to teach her kid how to shoot so he could learn about responsibility. Talk about the stupidest fucking thing you can think of to teach a mentally ill kid responsibility...

3) It's the mother's responsibility to make sure her mentally ill child does not have access to deadly weapons. You can't blame a nut for their actions when everyone knows he's got major problems. If she felt the need to have guns, she should have properly secured them such that he could not get access to them. (Maybe that should be a law?)

In short, his mom was completely irresponsible. If she weren't dead, I'd say she should be prosecuted (at least for being a complete fucking moron).

A couple of things about your points:

1) Fuck you. Asperger's is not the root cause here. Most Aspies and Autisics are completely non-violent

2) Agreed, that was dumb.

3) I do still blame the nut for pulling the trigger, but the mom definitely had a responsibility to secure her weapons and failed to do so. Still the bulk of the blame is on the psycho for his own actions.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[ImprovOmega]

That small .223 is great for varmints such as groundhog - generally the same person will own one or more larger deer rifles, like a 30-30 or a 30-06.

Umm...that "small" .223 with all that powder behind it will absolutely redmist a groundhog, squirrel or similar small game. They're more reasonably used for small deer, coyotes, wolves, and maybe down as small as foxes. Now a standard .22LR (or hell, even a short .22, if you're using a lever action instead of a semi-auto) is your basic small game gun. Close in size, *vast* differences in muzzle velocity.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[ahabswhale]

Fuck you. Aspergers was only one of his mental problems. He had trouble feeling empathy for others.

You can't blame psycos for their own actions since they are not in control of them.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[AmiMoJo]

Actually all Japanese cars are limited to 112MPH by a gentlemen's agreement between manufacturers. Some of them disable the limit when the sat-nav detects that they are at a race track.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[YodasEvilTwin]

I think chad understood that, the "advocating for thought crime" is tongue-in-cheek.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[YodasEvilTwin]

Nuclear weapons are the most lethal mass murder weapon as yet. They are obviously not comparable to guns, but neither are explosives. The questions that matter are whether (a) the prevalence of guns, and the effects of loose gun laws, increase gun-related violence and (b) whether increased gun control can reduce overall human suffering and if so, whether it would be worth it.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[YodasEvilTwin]

I basically agree that crazy people be crazy and will do crazy shit, but that doesn't mean making guns illegal (and/or restricting other potentially dangerous items) won't have an effect. It's supply and demand; reducing the supply of potentially dangerous things won't eliminate the demand but it will indeed affect the number "customers" who "purchase". The question is whether restrictions could be reasonable or effective, as well as whether other measures (education, catching people early, changing culture, etc.) are reasonable or effective.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

Sure. That's why it wouldn't be enforced until after the fact. If your gun is used in a crime they'll stop at your house and look at your safe. If it's broken into then you're in the clear, if it not they'll investigate. If it looks like you've been storing your guns improperly then they'll fine you based off of the level of certainty that you were improperly storing your weapons, so if they show up and your house and you have guns strewn about, no sign of a break-in and your safe is pristine and never opened you're in deep shit.

Imperfect for sure, but better than nothing and it will reduce gun crime a bit without being overly intrusive.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

Reposting from above:

Sure. That's why it wouldn't be enforced until after the fact. If your gun is used in a crime they'll stop at your house and look at your safe. If it's broken into then you're in the clear, if it not they'll investigate. If it looks like you've been storing your guns improperly then they'll fine you based off of the level of certainty that you were improperly storing your weapons, so if they show up and your house and you have guns strewn about, no sign of a break-in and your safe is pristine and never opened you're in deep shit.

Imperfect for sure, but better than nothing and it will reduce gun crime a bit without being overly intrusive.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Lashat]

True, his mothers guns were not stored in any locking mechanism what-so-ever. So she failed all over the place a gun owner.

For more than 3-4 rilfes/shotguns an owner should purchase a proper safe. And keep that safe locked with a combination only they know. Jsut like a computer password. You don't keep the password written down on a sticky, stuck to the monitor

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[fredgiblet]

Above there's a post with a quote from one of the writers of the Constitution wherein he states that "the militia" is everyone. The "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment is attached to "the people" not the "well regulated militia". Others here have posted statements that the word "regulated" would be more accurately translated to "trained" today.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[sd4f]

Although i have firearms, and am quite pro ownership in a country which has somewhat strict laws (australia). those statistics don't paint a full image without indicating the magnitude of each of those murders. I am curious because i don't really know, but from what the media leads me to think, that while firearms may not be the most deadliest in an incident, it is probably the most numerous.

The australian gun control advocates, though, keep on using dodgy statistics in any case, to justify the gun buyback we had over 15 years ago. The reality is, it has done no noticeable effect, except for one, suicide with a firearm did drop, but overall suicides didn't, so the gun control advocates just use the one statistic. Maybe one could argue that drops in gun suicides reduces the risk of mass killings, but i think this is a mental health issue, and especially how the media broadcasts these occurrences, any attention seeking fruitcake is going to go down that path.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Lehk228]

combo locks like on a gun safe are typically out of 100

and digital locks like on my cheapass $40 sentry are 8 digits plus a letter

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[rmdingler]

You sir, are absolutely right. It is with an extremely low success rate that you can stop a man on a suicide mission.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Falconhell]

Are you living in the same Australia as I am? Here is one simple plain undeniable dose of realty for you. Number of gun massacres in Australia in 20 years before the gun ban-18. Since the gun ban zero. None. Not one. It seems gun advocates have the same level of cognitive dissonance world wide. And gun control advocates use dodgy stats-give me a break!

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Falconhell]

Only an American would say 3 weapons is not an arsenal. That particular kind of stupidity is an American characteristic.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Runaway1956]

I suspect that only a European would say that. I have been looking at news casts for decades now. It seems that everyone in south western Asia, Asia minor, and north Africa has an "arsenal". Much of Africa, as well. Pay attention to the news from Africa, Asia, and the mideast, see how many guns are visible during the news cast.

Your particular kind of stupidity is only found among privileged and protected fools who have never been anywhere that isn't protected.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Algae_94]

A North American hunter could very easily have three guns for valid hunting purposes. A shotgun for birds, a large caliber rifle for big game (elk, moose, bear), and a smaller caliber rifle for smaller animals. Often times hunters would rather have someone go hunting with them, which may mean having a spare gun for your buddy if he doesn't regularly hunt the size game you are going for. 3 guns is hardly an arsenal.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[rastos1]

If someone threatened by right to vote by taxes, attempted to quarter soldiers in my house or perform an illegal search on me, I would not seek a gun. I would call the police and/or file a complaint at the court. You do it differently?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[pantaril]

And where to draw the line ? Crossbows ? Bows ? Slingshots ? Knives ?

I think that no automatic or semi-automatic guns would be good start.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[sd4f]

18? Citation needed! From my rudimentary searching i can't even find 18 massacres by any method for that period. Since the gun ban, there was the monash shooting, but since only two people died, it's not officially considered a massacre, but five others were injured, i think that counts for something, because it still is a random shooting spree, the intent was there, to discount it is misleading. We've also had very deadly cases with arson, and a few years ago a man killed a whole family of 5 by bludgeoning them to death (iirc).

Also, the stats are misleading, because none of the changes are attributable to the gun buyback, all the trends started around the mid to late 1980's. You can read this paper to see, it's from some academics at uni of melbourne. pdf of the paper

In short, the gun buyback was a very expensive endeavour to achieve nothing.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[pastafazou]

No, it's not an issue of loose gun laws or the prevalence of them. If some crazy has decided he's going to kill people, he's going to do it no matter what. Ever heard of the Unibomber or Timothy McVeigh? Guns don't make people violent. Guns don't make people snap. Guns don't make people want to kill others. Take away all the guns, and you'll have just as many people intent on doing harm. They'll find something other than a gun. Some will build explosives. Some will use knives. The big problem with taking away all the guns, is you will only be taking away the guns owned by law abiding citizens. And the criminals out there will now have a huge advantage, knowing that regular citizens are now unarmed.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[SkimTony]

Yes, and those were the same militias that fought against and eventually threw out the British during the American Revolution. Many of the first amendments to the constitution were reactions against the abuses of the colonial British rulers (e.g., Quartering troops, searches and seizures) that they meant to prevent from happening again.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[SkimTony]

So that it can act as a deterrent, just like those "Protected by ADT" signs that people with security systems (and even some that don't) put in their windows. The "Speak softly and carry a big stick" method works best when everyone knows you have the stick.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[scot4875]

But you can be assured that if modern weapons had been around then and used to fight off the British, there wouldn't have been an exception for them in the 2nd.

It's a good thing we have you here to clear that up. And here I foolishly thought that everybody who personally knew not only authors of the US Constitution -- but also knew exactly how they'd behave in different situations -- was dead.

--Jeremy

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[hierofalcon]

There are many contemporary quotes from their papers and other general position papers of the time that I could use in support of my comments, but today - I like this one.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." — Tench Coxe, 1788.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[DarthBling]

My person opinion, no. Automatic fire isn't really that much more dangerous. It's just scarier.

Automatic fire really only has one useful function, and that's for fire suppression. Other than that, it's a big waste of ammo. In fact, while the first version of the M16 could fire fully automatic, I believe the military found this to be a waste of ammo and today's version of the M16s (now called the M4) have a "burst" mode (3 rounds per trigger pull).

I don't think banning semi-automatics would solve much. With just a little bit of practice, one can fire a pump/level/bolt action firearm very quickly. Limiting the the magazine capacity is also another way to "slow down" a shooter, but in reality re-loading doesn't take that long with practice.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[deroby]

I doubt Jay Leno would agree to it being the same thing.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[quist]

Denial is the problem... folks refuse to ascribe guilt to the fella pulling the trigger.

Aspergers does not directly lead to downright violent, evil actions.

Quite perhaps the mother was negligent, but the kid pulled the trigger--the kid did it.

For Pete's sake, what is so hard about accepting that?
--
"We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." --R Reagan

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[ahabswhale]

No one was debating who pulled the trigger. You do realize he had mental issues besides simple asperger's syndrome?

You're retarded if you think you expect crazy people to be responsible for their own behavior.

If he were truly sane, I would have zero issues ascribing guilt to this kid. But he wasn't. Which means society is responsible for this fuck-up. Ignore crazy people at your own peril.

Re:Or...

[vlm]

Here I go ruining all my mod points just to fix AC...

You could just ask 4chan. I recall seeing a (possibly fake) screencap that implied that someone was going to do something at 9am at a local school on some day.

OK AC I know something about you, and its that you subscribe to the subreddit /r/Imgoingtohellforthis or whatever its exactly called, because that's exactly where I saw what you're describing about 3 days after, like maybe Sunday or so. A pretty good photoshop job, compared to some.

I will say the very first posts on /r/imgoingtohellforthis like mere minutes after the news broke were all self referential about how they're pretty sure /r/igthft is going to have a field day with this, etc, and boy oh boy were they correct its been an absolute flood of bad jokes. Most of the time, I assure you /r/igthft is just intensely politically incorrect humor, lots of racism mostly. Like most things its 99% boring garbage and about 1% pure gold worth searching for. Hundreds of posts basically jokes along the line of "is it too early yet" is actually very unusual for /r/igthft

Posting AC for cowardice in the face of fibbers.

WTF does that even mean? English translation please.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

But "Plays lots of video games" means he was a Windows user... Windows 8 must really be that bad...

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course! What better place to meet hot chicks and SCORE!!!!

Stop watching Fox

[SmallFurryCreature]

Seriously kid, stop watching fox, your bain is rotting away. Australia and Europe both got lower crime rates.

Re:Stop watching Fox

[Nimey]

lol newsmax. Those folks are about as nutty-biased as Fox and Glenn Beck.

Re:Stop watching Fox

[epyT-R]

You might consider also taking your own advice about NPR, CNN, ABC, NBC, and the NYT. Along with fox, none of these are real news sources anymore. They're propagandists that tow the party line of their financial backers.

The gp should not have been labeled troll. Moderators need to learn what 'troll' actually means. It does not meant to be a label for statements that piss you off.

Re:Stop watching Fox

[fredgiblet]

Going up != high. Going up = going up.

Re:Stop watching Fox

[thejuggler]

Here try this data: Murder rates world wide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Please not the very high rates of murder in countries that ban guns. Also, look at violent crime rates. Just because guns are banned does not mean people don't find another weapon to use. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

To stop all of this you'd have to ban people.

Re:Stop watching Fox

[cold fjord]

Seriously kid, stop watching fox, your bain is rotting away. Australia and Europe both got lower crime rates.

Rather bad news, I'm afraid, it seems that the rot has got you as well.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - 02 Jul 2009

The figures were sourced from Eurostat, the European Commission's database of statistics. They are gathered using official sources in the countries concerned such as the national statistics office, the national prison administration, ministries of the interior or justice, and police.

A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 – a 67 per cent increase in the past decade – at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population.

The Home Office says there has been a downtrend in overall violence for the past decade.

But last October it emerged that levels of violent crime in England and Wales had been underestimated for more than a decade because of a blunder in recording methods.

Regarding Australia:

Violent crime statistics

Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996. The 2007 rate was the highest recorded since 1996.

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

Since it "can't happen" . . .
Gun crimes soaring despite ban brought in following Dunblane - 15 Jul 2001

THE controversial ban on the ownership of handguns which was introduced after the Dunblane massacre has failed to halt an increasing number of crimes involving firearms.

An independent report, Illegal Firearms in the UK, to be published by the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College in London tomorrow, says that handguns were used in 3,685 offences last year compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40 per cent.

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade - 27 October 2009

Re:Stop watching Fox

[Tuoqui]

Dont forget Canada which has more guns per capita than US and has a gun crime rate that is some of the lowest in the world.

Re:Stop watching Fox

[fishthegeek]

Australia and Europe both got lower crime rates.

You're a little bit ill informed my friend.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

http://io9.com/5933173/three-strange-theories-about-why-americas-crime-rate-is-so-low

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/08/crime-in-europe-and-the-u-s.html

Re:Stop watching Fox

[Pav]

Wikipedia (citing various national bureaus of statistics) states that you're four times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK or Australia and about 2.5 times more likely than in Canada. In addition the violent crime rate in the UK is listed as being much lower than the numbers you cite. Regarding the comparison with Australian numbers (and perhaps those of the UK) the US only records aggrevated assaults so it's apples to oranges.

For some analysis and conclusions in much more depth take a look here and here.

I really do not like how different these figures are though. They speak of spin somewhere. I tried for a third hopefully impartial source using Wolfram Alpha, but perhaps I don't know the magic keywords to pull up the crime statistics let alone graph them.

Re:Stop watching Fox

[Pav]

For some reason the US only counts aggrevated assault (ie. using a deadly weapon) in its numbers vs counting all assaults in UK, Australia etc... - apples to oranges.

Re:Stop watching Fox

[fishthegeek]

The parent said that crime was lower. The parent was wrong.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[jythie]

The trouble with 'warning signs' when it comes to events like this is we are talking about a FP/TP ratio of possibility millions to one... meaning that as indicators of mass shootings, they are completely useless.

Now, they might have utility in getting people help that would increase their quality of life or of that around them.. but more likely they would just be used to crack down on people who are already having trouble...

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[DrgnDancer]

The guy killed 28 people, including 20 small kids, in a international media circus that included the personal attention of the POTUS. Every single piece of that hard drive is in an FBI clean lab with specialists trying every trick they know, and NSA consultants coming in just to see if they help. If there's anything the FBI and NSA specialists can't figure out, any university in the country will be happy to lend whatever professor is most appropriate out, and the national intelligences services of any county in western world and a good chunk of the developing world will be available for consult should it be required.

Trust me, for something like this, resources are not going to be an issue.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave the truly utterly paranoid confident that their data isn't recoverable by a technician with an electron microscope.

Note -- I am not claiming an electron microscope can recover media from a modern (or even remotely not in antiquity) hard drive.

I'm just saying it leaves the paranoid confident that it can't.

Re:No online footprint?

[mrbester]

Indeed. My footprint isn't easy to discover either and a computer is required for my vocation. Go ahead and look based on what you can find from my profile. I'll wait.

Re:We need a national registry and federal licensi

[NatasRevol]

And people who want to shoot other people.

Re:asbergers

[HornWumpus]

10 year olds aren't exactly strong on thinking ahead in the best of cases.

Re:My idea for preventing this from happening agai

[Fned]

I'm totally sure that students with fireworks would never dream of regularly pranking whatever school had this setup...

Jack Thompson is already on the case

[langelgjm]

I can see where this is going, and sure enough, Jack Thompson is already on the case. He or someone claiming to be him has been active in the comment sections of major newspapers, suggesting that this incident was motivated by violent video games.

Remember, it's not an ad hominem attack to point out that he was disbarred in Floria, because that fact is relevant to his credibility.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[UltraZelda64]

How? That illogical asshole and nutjob has been disbarred from his state's court system last I heard.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Seumas]

It was motivated by availability of guns.
No, wait -- because of mental illness issues in America.
No, wait -- because of video games.
Wait, wait, -- I mean, because of goths.
Wait, no, I mean it was because of music.
What am I saying? I meant to say it was because of movies and television.
Oh, geeze, I forgot -- it's because "they took god out of schools".
Oh, whoops. No, it's because not enough people at the school were armed.
Uh oh, no it's because of the evil internet.
No, no, no -- it's because of bad parenting.
Oh, boy, it's actually because he was a loner and didn't fit in.
No, wait a minute -- it's clearly because of bullies.

Or maybe everyone on the planet should shut the fuck up, grow up, and acknowledge that fucked up shit happens that is beyond our control and you can't blame freak occurrences into never happening and therefore somehow assuring eternal safety. People will lose their shit. Nature will throw something totally fucked at you. Accidents will happen. Mistakes will be made. Instead of realizing fucked up shit happens, we aid those trying to manipulate these freak events to push their personal agendas by somehow trying to reverse-engineer a stream of chaos -- which butterfly's flapping wings in the world lead to the hurricane?

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Anonymous Coward]

People will lose their shit. Nature will throw something totally fucked at you.

66 of mass shootings were on SSRIs. If alcohol or cannabis produced these numbers people would have a problem with the numbers.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Synerg1y]

I think Tarantino said it best:

blame the playmakers

source

Seeing and doing are two different things, however we live in a nation of retards, so every time something bad happens, the tards come out in force with their "ideas".

My thoughts are it's a tragedy, there was a time you could walk into a school without a visitor badge to pick somebody up, it's not the guns that are to blame, it's the fact that we as a society are producing people who go out into their neighborhoods and do such things. I don't hear anybody proposing a solution for that.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[circletimessquare]

actually, it's pretty much the quintessential american tragedy

we gut mental healthcare safety nets, and healthcare in general we don't care about

we flood society with guns

and here we have a deranged person with a gun. it's called cause and effect. of course lanza can happen anywhere in the world, but because of american society, adam lanza becomes more likely here

adam lanza as a phenomenon says a lot of about the USA's culture and priorities in regards to healthcare and guns, and less about humanity in general

and we as americans can do something about it, by emphasizing healthcare as the solution to our problems, and deemphasizing guns as the solution to our problems, and we can make adam lanzas less likely to happen

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Seumas]

I don't buy into this. Arguing over how many rounds a weapon may carry is irrelevant in a world where someone can stab thirty children (killing 8+) with a knife (in China a couple years ago)..

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Seumas]

I don't think that is cause and effect whatsoever. If that were the case, these would be regular occurrences; not statistical anomalies. The frequency of mass killings and the number of people in them is so small (though that doesn't seem to be the case, based on coverage, of course) that to treat them in the same way you would a flu epidemic is sort of silly.

And if it were an issue of "there's lots of guns and no mental health care", then you'd have tons of people shooting up everything in site, instead of just the occasional person who went berzerk.

You are not going to stop people from shooting up schools or places of work or other gatherings, no matter what restrictions you put on guns. You aren't going to stop people form going nuts and hitting the gas pedal and plowing their car through a crowd. You're not going to stop people from poisoning salad bars at Sizzler. You're not going to stop people from releasing anthrax or releasing poisonous gas in a subway. You're not going to stop people from planting pipe bombs.

All of these other things -- health care, society, religion, weapons, medication -- are all elements in the story. So are a million other things. Ultimately, there is nothing that will stop these events.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fredgiblet]

Mag changes don't take long, most of the sprees end because the shooter kills themselves or is stopped. If you reduce the capacity of magazines the sprees will simply last longer.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[canadian_right]

A columnist at the CBC has a good article on how many Canadians feel about the USA's attitude towards guns and these horrible tragedies.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[PlusFiveTroll]

Yep, good idea, lets ban guns, because no one will ever just stab the fuck out of a classroom. It seems likely that the chinese guy wasn't trying to kill student, because a knife is very deadly if intended to be. Us Americans have a violence problem that is not going to be solved by banning anything. Every time something is banned we just seem to make a bigger more violent black market for it. I'm not sure what the solution is. I'd start with getting rid of the "OMFG it's the fucking end of the world, everyday" news we have to put up with. Hear that message everyday and you are apt to flip out, seriously, why keep on living if it's so bad. You'll get the depressed and insane thinking that they are doing the kids a favor by taking them out of this evil place.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[kaatochacha]

And here I was about to say it was because we don't have any good programs for the crazies, and how crazy people ( like the woman up my street who once broke someone's arm with a bat) are ignored until they snap and kill.
Yes, you're right, the gun shot everyone.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[PlusFiveTroll]

You forgot to add one thing.

2.1 The daily message of things are bad and getting worse showing on just about every news channel.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[PlusFiveTroll]

Oh, and the guns part is American, but the odd insane violent attacks, that is not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57559179/china-school-knife-attack-leaves-23-injured/

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[donscarletti]

At the same time a crazy Chinese guy stabbed 23 primary school children at school. None died.

You know, it's damn hard to kill someone with a knife. The areas that cause someone to die instantly are quite small and take a fair bit of force to stab, most people do not have the strength or dexterity to do that. Knife murders usually rely on the victim being alone and bleeding out, all it takes is pressure on a stab wound and it will bleed slowly enough for help to arrive in time. Unless one is some form of stabbing virtuoso that practices every day with a bayonet dummy, the idea that one can lunge at a crowd of people and fatally wound even one of them is somewhat optimistic.

I am still totally perplexed as to why rational thinking people could consider a law giving the right to bear arms, written in the days where arms meant sabres, brown bess muskets and the occasional long rifle (half a century before the invention of the Minié ball or rotating bolt) entitles them to buy AR-15 rifles and automatic handguns.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[chill]

China school knife attack leaves 23 injured

..Sandy Hook Elementary school, which took the lives of 20 children and seven adults, including the shooter's mother.

Are you telling me you don't see the difference in those two incidents?

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[skitchen8]

I am. Are we saying that we're okay with our children being stabbed? That's basically the argument being made when you say "but none of them died." I think maybe we should stop people from killing rather than make it so they kill less. If you're the parent of a child who has been stabbed to death I highly doubt your first thought will be how thankful you are they only killed your kid.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[circletimessquare]

EXACTLY

why do you present links that prove my point?

murderous intent is everywhere, but only in the usa, because of guns, do so many die

answer me this, genius: how many of those 23 injured in china are dead?

please, go: look it up. get educated

i'm waiting for you to post your findings in this thread

guns are obviously the problem, to all of our economic peers who look at the usa like some deranged fool in denial about an obvious problem, to all of us americans with some clarity and intelligence on the subject

opposed as we are, by this quasi-religious cult of the gun in this great country, but obviously fundamentally flawed country, deranged as it is on a subject like guns

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[chill]

We can do both. It isn't an all or nothing solution. Reducing the availability of guns will reduce the number of fatalities.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[skitchen8]

As would reducing the number of cars on the road reduce drunk driving fatalities. Reducing the number of prescription narcotics would prevent accidental or purposeful overdoses. Cutting off everybody's electricity would reduce world pollution. Just because someone does something bad with something doesn't mean it doesn't have a legitimate use and should be taken away from the people that use it responsibly.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[infidel_heathen]

I wish I had mod points to give to you. This is exactly how I feel about this whole thing as well.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[circletimessquare]

i have to apologize

i reread your comment and i believe you are trying to support me

please accept my apology for responding so quickly without properly ascertaining intent on your part

i screwed up

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[circletimessquare]

i have to apologize

i reread the parent post and i believe they are trying to support me

please accept my apology for responding so quickly without properly ascertaining intent

i screwed up, mea culpa

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Macgrrl]

Gun control won't reduce the number of people 'losing their shit' and going berserk. It will however, limit the amount of damage they can do before being contained. It's much harder to murder 20 plus people with a hunting knife before someone steps in and stops you.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[yawaramin]

I know you're a troll. I know it. But I just can't leave this kind of nonsense hanging around where people can see it without at least one sane answer. With your first sentence, you're doing the exact opposite of what you later suggest as your solution--i.e. sensationalising bad news. No, really, you're sensationalising: because the single fucking most important point is this: how many of the Chinese victims survived the knife attack? Read your own article for the answer: `The editor of the local newspaper which first reported the story said none of the children had injuries severe enough to threaten their lives.' So: all of them. Now how many of the Newtown victims survived the gun attack?

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[chill]

What, pray tell, is the legitimate use of high capacity magazines? Other than pure laziness and convenience they serve no legitimate purpose.

You can't hunt with them, as most (if not all) States place limits on the number of rounds in hunting weapons.

If you can't hit what you're shooting it with the first couple of rounds, you need to go back to the range and practice until you can.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[msauve]

"What, pray tell, is the legitimate use of high capacity magazines? "

Sport and fun. What's the use of a snowboard? Other than sport and fun, they serve no legitimate purpose.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[skitchen8]

I'm not against limiting high capacity magazines and assault rifles, there is no legitimate need for either. I am against the "ban guns" argument, as there are legitimate uses for guns. My apologies if there was a misunderstanding with the point I was trying to make and thank you for the chance to clear that up.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Known Nutter]

it's the fact that we as a society are producing people who go out into their neighborhoods and do such things. I don't hear anybody proposing a solution for that.

Stop producing so many people. You're welcome.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BitZtream]

Why is it that slashdot is head over heals to claim gun control laws are needed but no way in hell do violent video games that use guns to mimic killing people could be at fault as well?

Lets be clear, I'm in the 'you'll have to pry my guns AND video games from my cold dead hands' camp, but I find it amusing that the site in general is against something that most of its users have little or no experience with and all for something they do on a regular basis.

How are those rose colored glasses?

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BitZtream]

You know with the exception of actual mental illness, pretty much all of those other things are the result of bad parenting.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[MightyYar]

It's all besides the point. Rifles aren't used in many homicides. Handguns on the other hand...

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

Gun control won't reduce the number of people 'losing their shit' and going berserk. It will however, limit the amount of damage they can do before being contained. It's much harder to murder 20 plus people with a hunting knife before someone steps in and stops you.

You got the first sentence right, but then you went and blew it with the following sentences.

How could gun control...or even a ban on guns...ever possibly stop a nutcase who won't obey any laws from obtaining a gun? Do you think more regulations, restrictions, or bans will halt the availability? With some 200 million guns already out there?

Heroin and cocaine are illegal, and up till recently, marijuana was too. Didn't seem to stop anyone from obtaining those things. They've pretty much already admitted bans don't and won't work with the current movement of government towards decriminalization of marijuana.

Just as with recreational drug bans and alcohol prohibitions, the people that you'd most want to NOT have them will be the ones that have them and sell them.

Which came first? The nutcase? Or the nutcase getting their hands on a gun? Check the facts. The number of mass murders by gun are actually down. We are in a 40-year low in violent crime.

The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.

In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States.

And to those who try to characterize the 2nd Amendment right as some sort of "hunter's rights" and thus attempt to justify their desire to severely restrict who may own, and what types of firearms that may be legally owned, to licensed hunters with single-shot rifles and shotguns, you are wrong.

The 2nd Amendment was PRIMARILY about ensuring US citizens could do one thing above and beyond all others; Overthrow the US government by killing _people_. Not Bambi. People. Government people.

Hunting and personal defense are merely nice side-benefits.

The problem is not guns. It's the crazies. The Left battled mightily and won in the '70s and '80s to have mental patients out walking the streets instead of being institutionalized. What the ~fuck~ did you people EXPECT to happen? Hello? McFly?

Now it looks like the Left wants to turn the entire country into a mental institution and all the citizens disarmed and treated as dangerous mental patients rather than admit their screwed-up, blind-ideology-based policies are to blame.

Molon labe.

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

Forgot to include the cite.

The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.

In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=0

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[danlip]

I am still totally perplexed as to why rational thinking people could consider a law giving the right to bear arms, written in the days where arms meant sabres, brown bess muskets and the occasional long rifle (half a century before the invention of the Minié ball or rotating bolt) entitles them to buy AR-15 rifles and automatic handguns.

It's clear the intent of the founding fathers was to provide the people with the ability to overthrow the government. If you only allow people to have sabres and muskets in this age that clearly isn't following the intent. Automatic weapons are necessary to even have a chance.

However, I think we should definitely consider whether that is still necessary. Our democracy has had a long history of success and we have resolved many tough issues peacefully. We should repeal the second amendment. That doesn't mean that all guns would be illegal, but it would mean the government has the power to regulate them.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Boronx]

"How could gun control...or even a ban on guns...ever possibly stop a nutcase who won't obey any laws from obtaining a gun?"

Because you are stupid, that's how.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Cruxus]

Alternatively, we can just arm kindergarteners with pistols. Semi-automatics would probably be overkill for that age bracket, though.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[cyn1c77]

A columnist at the CBC has a good article on how many Canadians feel about the USA's attitude towards guns and these horrible tragedies.

That sensationalist article had exactly the type of tone that you'd expect to come out of a socialist state like Canada: The government will decide what rights you can be granted.

The thing is, do you really want someone telling you what gun is appropriate for you to own? If so, where do you draw the line? How much alcohol can you own? Can we decide what kind if car you have to buy? (No SUV's for you!) How about how much electricity or bandwidth you can use?

Mercury contamination (from burning coal for electricity), SUVs, and alcohol kill far more people every day than guns, yet most people don't think twice about utilizing those resources to excess.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[cyn1c77]

What, pray tell, is the legitimate use of high capacity magazines? Other than pure laziness and convenience they serve no legitimate purpose.

You can't hunt with them, as most (if not all) States place limits on the number of rounds in hunting weapons.

If you can't hit what you're shooting it with the first couple of rounds, you need to go back to the range and practice until you can.

It's the same reason that your car can hold 350 gallons of gas even though (1) you usually pass a gas station every 5 miles and (2) you could haul extra gas around in gas cans in your trunk.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[ryen]

I've heard a lot of 12 year olds make those exact statements. Well done

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

"How could gun control...or even a ban on guns...ever possibly stop a nutcase who won't obey any laws from obtaining a gun?"

Because you are stupid, that's how.

[golf clap]

Your brilliance is...amazing. 0.o

I shall now, based on the brilliance of your reply, destroy all my firearms and petition for a total gun ban. [rolls eyes]

Sheesh! What a maroon!

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Kreigaffe]

That's not the only intent.
There's also defense. Of the community, of the nation, of the self. Revolution against an unjust government actually falls under this umbrella entirely.

The Second Amendment recognizes the innate human right to defend themselves against aggressors, be they a criminal personally threatening them, or king george threatening us all. If you can't defend yourself, you're simply a victim-in-waiting.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Fr33z0r]

They're also not routinely used to commit massacres.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[bmcage]

He is actually not that wrong. In the sense: you need to be clever to obtain an illegal gun. Chances are you will not find it. So if they make big magazines illegal, but normal magazines are still ok, the nutjob will get the smaller magazine, and not go through the troubles of obtaining big. Same if they prohibit semi-automatic, ...

Yes, organized crime will have no problem obtaining those weapons, they have them in Europe too, they just steal them from an army depot, .... But the common nutjob is not in organized crime, and will use the weapons available to him in the most easy fashion. As a consequence, the number of deaths he can cause will be less.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Fr33z0r]

The 2nd Amendment was PRIMARILY about ensuring US citizens could do one thing above and beyond all others; Overthrow the US government by killing _people_. Not Bambi. People. Government people.

"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."

It's not about overthrowing the government, dumbass, it's about defending it.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[N1AK]

How could gun control...or even a ban on guns...ever possibly stop a nutcase who won't obey any laws from obtaining a gun?

If you don't already own a gun then you need to buy or steal it both of which take more time, and have a higher chance of leading to the individual being intercepted. America does have a real issue because of the amount of guns already there so any change would invariably take decades.

The truth is that there is no good reason to make gun ownership as easy as it in America. The constitutional argument made is complete nonsense. The odd pistol isn't going to allow the people to overthrow their government; you'd need to massively shrink the military and allow the public to own fighter jets, nuclear subs and drones for that to be remotely plausible. Is anyone really suggesting that the public be allowed to own these types of weapons? If not, then the basic premise doesn't stand up.

If we ignore the smokescreen provided by that constitutional argument then we can at least address the true reasons why people want guns to be available 1) They believe gun restrictions are a restriction on freedom 2) They like owning guns. Neither of these are bad points or things people should be ashamed to admit and defend. The freedom argument is true and I'd love to take the position that no freedom should ever be restricted but we do that when we don't let people buy enriched uranium, run meths labs etc. Ultimately we'll never come to a workable solution to guns in the US without getting the constitutional issue out of the way of debating the real points.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

He is actually not that wrong. In the sense: you need to be clever to obtain an illegal gun. Chances are you will not find it. So if they make big magazines illegal, but normal magazines are still ok, the nutjob will get the smaller magazine, and not go through the troubles of obtaining big. Same if they prohibit semi-automatic, ...

The problem is that many of these perpetrators plan their atrocities months and even years in advance. Many are extremely intelligent. Most of these mass-murderers wait until they have the means and the opportunity to carry out their plans. These are for the most part NOT heat-of-the-moment actions.

What does it matter if they ban or restrict semi-auto firearms or limit magazine size? I guarantee you, I can walk out my door today and buy a fully-auto submachine-gun or assault rifle with high-capacity magazines and the ammo (including 'cop-killer' AP rounds) off the streets within a few hours and be home in time to watch the evening news while I clean and prep it. And I'm an old gray-haired white dude!

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Macgrrl]

As an Australian, I may have an unreasonably high expectations on how gun control might work. The buy back scheme worked out pretty well for us, most people handed their firearms in, there are few legal weapons still out and about that aren't in the hands of the police, rangers or farmers.

As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, most illegally obtained weapons start out their lives having been obtained legally by someone else. If you reduce the overall number of weapons out there, there are less to fall into the hands of criminals or the crazed.

Of course, in the US, rather than handing them over with barely a grumble it would be You can have it when you pry it form my cold dead fingers. I feel sad for you all.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[bmcage]

I guarantee you, I can walk out my door today and buy a fully-auto submachine-gun or assault rifle with high-capacity magazines and the ammo (including 'cop-killer' AP rounds) off the streets within a few hours and be home in time to watch the evening news while I clean and prep it. And I'm an old gray-haired white dude!

Yes, but with a partial ban, and heavy fines for transgressors, after some years of this ban, that behavior will hopefully have changed. That is, there is not that much incentive at the moment to assign port and cop duties to policing the sale of cop-killer round, although they are prohibited.

Also, how good are cop-killers bought on the street in reality? I wonder if it is not like medicine bought on the internet.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[CarbonShell]

If people were always rational and clear headed, there would be no problems with gun ownership. But that is not the case.
And it is when the line has been crossed, you cannot tell until it is to late.
Or, in your case, cannot do anything against it until it is to late. (i.e. legal guns but did nothing wrong so that they could be taken away)

The problems with guns: they are massive enablers.
Yes, you could kill people with other items as well, but guns make it SO much easier.

Some other notes:
Comparing to other deaths like accidents or whatnot are simply stupid straw men. Water kills more people, should we ban it?
And other people wearing guns to 'protect themselves' is not only a mute case because the negative occurrences far outweigh the positive ones, but also those are the kind of people that should not wear them (a little paranoid, are we?). Not to mention if they even use it. That governor was surrounded by body guards yet was still shot.

How often have guns been used for good?
Lincoln, MLK, Malcom X, Kennedy, that governor.

Finally I will say this:
If you, regardless of the evidence that the solutions to your problems are visible, continue to ignore them, you get what you deserve.
So if you do not want to change anything, then don't. But don't come crying when another crazy shoots up a school.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

The constitutional argument made is complete nonsense.

Then you, sir, are a fool that has not learned any of the lessons of history.

The odd pistol isn't going to allow the people to overthrow their government; you'd need to massively shrink the military and allow the public to own fighter jets, nuclear subs and drones for that to be remotely plausible.

"The odd pistol"??

Try millions of high-powered rifles behind every window and door, hidden in every thicket, forest, and swamp, and along every road and highway. You think IEDs are a problem in Afghanistan and Iraq? With the tech and knowledge/skills available here in the US, the losses to any hostile force attempting to travel by road/highway would be horrific and prohibitive.

And, not all the military will be on the government's side or follow their orders once the government has started to, or made clear their intentions to, kill large numbers of civilians. A large percentage will side with the population, I guarantee it. If nuclear subs start launching their ICBMs the entire planet is going to have much larger problems on it's hands, as will the US government. Somehow, I don't think the other nations will be willing to put up with that.

If we ignore the smokescreen provided by that constitutional argument then we can at least address the true reasons why people want guns to be available 1) They believe gun restrictions are a restriction on freedom 2) They like owning guns. Neither of these are bad points or things people should be ashamed to admit and defend. The freedom argument is true and I'd love to take the position that no freedom should ever be restricted but we do that when we don't let people buy enriched uranium, run meths labs etc. Ultimately we'll never come to a workable solution to guns in the US without getting the constitutional issue out of the way of debating the real points.

If you think that your views are right and correct, then amend the Constitution. That's why the amendment process was included. You don't get to simply ignore the parts you don't like. Yes, it's difficult because you must have the approval of the majority of the nation and people. That's intentional to prevent just the sort of knee-jerk reactions we see from you and those like you who think with their raw emotions instead of their brains.

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

Of course, in the US, rather than handing them over with barely a grumble it would be You can have it when you pry it form my cold dead fingers. I feel sad for you all.

Don't feel sad for us.

We are citizens, not subjects or slaves to whatever the armed minions of government demand from us.

An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject and a slave to whomever is armed.

All governments, as proven time and again throughout history, have and will ever trend to tyranny, and will never reverse their course but at the threat of armed resistance & rebellion by their citizens.

Love your country, but NEVER trust it's government!

It's full of politicians!

Strat

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[chill]

A perfect example of a type of item that is regulated by the government for safety. The gov't regulates, restricts, and bans consumer items on the grounds of safety all the time.

High capacity magazines are no different.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

I guarantee you, I can walk out my door today and buy a fully-auto submachine-gun or assault rifle with high-capacity magazines and the ammo (including 'cop-killer' AP rounds) off the streets within a few hours and be home in time to watch the evening news while I clean and prep it. And I'm an old gray-haired white dude!

Yes, but with a partial ban, and heavy fines for transgressors, after some years of this ban, that behavior will hopefully have changed. That is, there is not that much incentive at the moment to assign port and cop duties to policing the sale of cop-killer round, although they are prohibited.

Fully-automatic weapons in the US have been almost totally illegal (except with heavy and restricted licensing to a very few heavily-monitored and select individuals, and at extremely-high costs) for the average person to posses since the 1930s. Penalties are very harsh. It hasn't stopped their availability, and they've gotten even more easily available with the increase in drug trafficking. A large percentage come smuggled in across the porous US borders because of their heavily-restricted nature within the US.

Also, how good are cop-killers bought on the street in reality? I wonder if it is not like medicine bought on the internet.

The "cop-killer" bullets are simply military armor-piercing rounds. They typically last for decades, so deterioration is not a large concern. They also come in military sealed containers to preserve them while they may sit for decades in armories, and so it's not hard to spot bogus/fake ammo.

Much of this type ammunition is either smuggled in across the porous borders or is stolen directly from local armories and military supply depots. There are many criminal gang members in the US military.

Strat

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[chill]

No problem. I'm a gun owner myself and will fight tooth and nail against a full ban.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[chill]

Many handguns accept high-capacity magazines. A Glock 26 comes standard with a 10-round magazine and the Glock 17 with a 17-round magazine. Both will accept a 33-round, high-capacity clip.

[Note: Anyone who puts a 33-round clip in a "baby" Glock 26 needs help understanding the purpose of a sub-compact pistol.]

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[donscarletti]

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.

The intentions were clearly to arm a militia to protect the state from external threats, not to provide the means to overthrow the state itself, I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from, it sounds nice.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[msauve]

No one has ever been injured by a high capacity magazine (well, maybe a pinched finger).

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[skitchen8]

Okay, so let's say we live in your perfect world and suddenly someone who is already plans on committing a crime is thwarted by guns being illegal (come to think of it, since laws stop criminals from doing things we should just make murder illegal or something) and uses a knife. Now we already know that in China more children were stabbed, and it is very clear if the guy knew what he was doing he could have killed them all, but we'll ignore that because we're living in your fantasy land now, so he only kills 10 children. Imagine you're a first responder and you are tasked with notifying the families of the victims. Imagine how happy the parents will be when you tell them how successful you were in your campaign against guns and how happy you are that he only killed 10 children. I give it, in this situation, even odds that you get stabbed with a knife by a family member.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

The 2nd Amendment was PRIMARILY about ensuring US citizens could do one thing above and beyond all others; Overthrow the US government by killing _people_. Not Bambi. People. Government people.

"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."

It's not about overthrowing the government, dumbass, it's about defending it.

How about we ask one of the guys who WROTE THE THING!?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788.

Looks like you're completely and utterly wrong, "dumbass", since you enjoy being so juvenile.

I didn't know the grade-schoolers got out on Christmas holiday so early.

Here's another quote to grow on.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

Here, maybe Penn & Teller can help you out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Fr33z0r]

I can't watch the video right now, but I can point out that the militia mentioned in the constitution isn't defined as simply a bunch of civilians with guns - it's defined as being both well regulated and necessary for the security of the state.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Daddy-Oh]

The problem is not guns. It's the crazies.

You're correct, the problem isn't guns per se, but the type of guns that are *legally* available. I'm tired of the assertion that anyone should be able to legally purchase a military grade assault rifle.

Also, you may want to come up with a better analogy than illegal drugs here. Recent stats (no, I'm not providing links) show that 47% of Americans *self identify* as gun owners (as of 2011), whereas 8-10% of Americans are identified as illegal drug users. If being illegal had not impact, one would expect these numbers to be closer. And, drugs are typically used by the individual purchasing them, on themselves. Not so much with guns.

I don't advocate general gun bans, but the slippery-slope argument regarding regulation of certain types of weapons is getting old and tired. Just like me.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Isaac-1]

Not the security of the state, the security of a FREE state, meaning lack of tyrannical rule.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you not seen what our country has done to other people?! We helped Panama gain independence in order to build the Panama Canal. We invaded Panama without regard to international law because we could. We've invaded Iraq looking for WMD. We've invaded Afghanistan. We've funded/trained insurgents in more than one country (Nicaraguan Contras, Afghanistan mujahideen, etc).

Our democracy has had a long history of abusing other nations' "inalienable rights." I can't think of *one* tough issue that was resolved peacefully. Civil war? MLK assassination? Union organization? Women's right to vote? All involved heavy violence against the oppressed. If anything, we resort to violence first.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[CoolHnd30]

I wish I had mod points today to mod up all your posts BlueStrat. You are exactly correct in all your statements. People forget that our founding fathers overthrew their oppressive government through use of their militia (common citizenry), and wanted to insure that ability for future generations in the event that the government they forged went awry. I believe in that idea, that it is our responsibility to our own freedom to keep our government in line, if necessary. I'd like to see no gun control on non-criminal US citizens. The one thing I worry about is our guns crossing over our borders to arm drug gangs in other countries (I've seen several very troublesome documentaries on that topic). So, I might accept more stringent regulations when it comes to background checks for certain weapons even when sold by a private individual to help limit this issue. (I'd also legalize all drugs to cut off funds to those same drug gangs, but that's another issue)

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[dhermann]

"What, pray tell, is the legitimate use of high capacity magazines? " Sport and fun. What's the use of a snowboard? Other than sport and fun, they serve no legitimate purpose.

A snowboard was never used to kill twenty children. Hope you're having loads of fun with something that was.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[msauve]

He used a car to drive there. You'll be turning your's in shortly, right, Mr. Disingenuous? And of course, you'd never use fertilizer, or consume food it was grown with, since that was used to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City. And, you don't use electricity, right, since much of it comes from fissionable material, which was used to kill 200,000 people?

Will you be writing your congressmen, asking that the military be banned from using high capacity magazines, since they have no legitimate purpose?

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

It's clear the intent of the founding fathers was to provide the people with the ability to overthrow the government. If you only allow people to have sabres and muskets in this age that clearly isn't following the intent. Automatic weapons are necessary to even have a chance.

However, I think we should definitely consider whether that is still necessary. Our democracy has had a long history of success and we have resolved many tough issues peacefully. We should repeal the second amendment. That doesn't mean that all guns would be illegal, but it would mean the government has the power to regulate them.

Yes, our democracy has had a long history of success. Besides, a lot of good some handguns and automatic rifles would do against a tank or carpet-bombing by a B2-Bomber. :P

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

I don't buy into this. Arguing over how many rounds a weapon may carry is irrelevant in a world where someone can stab thirty children (killing 8+) with a knife (in China a couple years ago)..

In Sandy Hook, only THREE people were admitted to the hospital. The rest, 20 Children ages 5 to 10 and six adults were dead...dead, as in killed. Now do the math against your incident in China.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

What reason (responsible or not) would you have for owning and using a Bushmaster automatic rifle, which fires 45 rounds per minute?...with rounds that do max damage. And why would you need hundreds of rounds of ammo? Let me guess...for the Zombie apocalypse?

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Ledgem]

You draw the line when it starts to affect other people. The government (and society in general) ration resources when they become scarce - this isn't new. Similarly, the concept of speed limits and driver alcohol testing came about for safety, because enough people weren't able to handle themselves responsibly that measures were put into place for the good of everyone. On the topic of guns, I can say that I do not care for them and do not own or intend to own any. However, I also don't care if my neighbors want to have five guns for every room in their house, and if they want to go to the shooting range every day - they can do what they want.

The problem arises when we have people using guns to kill large numbers of people. Statistically speaking, our country is the most violent of any developed nation (see point #5), and we also have the most guns. Further, you'll find that the most violent region of the United States (the South - see point #6) correlates with the greatest number of guns, according to self-reported gun ownership. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but there's a trend that I'm sure you're noticing.

Additional regulations and restrictions is a raw deal for responsible gun owners, but we have a problem that unfortunately is affecting many people. I respect the rights of gun owners, but their rights end where mine begin. Sadly, the focus of their hobby is a factor that puts me, my family, and my community at risk. Hopefully we can come to an agreement such that the gun owners can still enjoy their hobby, and the threats that guns pose are greatly reduced.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[dhermann]

He used a car to drive there. You'll be turning your's in shortly, right, Mr. Disingenuous?

No, as a car has never been used to intentionally kill twenty children.

And of course, you'd never use fertilizer, or consume food it was grown with, since that was used to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City.

I'd never buy five thousand pounds of it, and I hope the FBI would arrest anyone who does.

And, you don't use electricity, right, since much of it comes from fissionable material, which was used to kill 200,000 people?

This is your argument? Really? You're comparing firearms to electricity? Do you have any idea how puerile that makes you sound?

Will you be writing your congressmen, asking that the military be banned from using high capacity magazines, since they have no legitimate purpose?

I can't say I've ever been in a combat zone, but from what I understand, our military forces need high-capacity magazines because they do serve a legitimate purpose you effete, nonsensical toddler.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[jackbird]

I wonder whether the actual slaves were counted among that "whole people." Maybe they got 3/5 of a musket.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[msauve]

OK, we're done. You've admitted that high capacity magazines have a legitimate purpose. That's self defense, and it doesn't change whether you're a civilian or a soldier.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Cederic]

No. Because it's fun to play with.

I like playing with cars, bows and women too, all of which are known to be lethal when misused.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[dhermann]

Wrong. Utility changes a massive amount based on if you are a civilian or a soldier. What planet do you live on?

Your arguments are baseless and weak. You also can't seem to decide if you want to attack my position by asserting that high-capacity magazines serve a legitimate purpose outside of a warzone (they don't) or if other dangerous objects should be similarly restricted (fallacious and absurd). Frankly, I'm surprised you can remember a username and password to log in. Your point of view is worthless, and the only people who despise you more than I are the hunters and sport shooters who believe reasonable, feasible, and enforceable regulations should be in place for purchasing guns should be in place, because the inherent idiocy of your perspective actually hurts their cause.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Yes, all are lethal when misused but which one is easiest by far to kill with and easiest to kill lots of people with? Before you answer that you could easily plow through a farmers market with your car, consider that its easy to put up barriers at strategic locations.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Cederic]

I was merely answering the question of "Why would you own.."

I would own one because damnit, they're fun. Noisy, but fun.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[skitchen8]

Semi-automatic rifle, automatic weapons are already illegal to own. The rest of your comment doesn't get credibility when you don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. Automatic weapons would probably be harder to kill people with, unless you have experience with them your aim lasts for exactly one round and then you are shooting at the ceiling/sky.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[SkimTony]

For reference, I don't think it's "common" nutjobs that are flipping out and killing people. Based on the article above, this latest was perpetrated by someone with the foresight to destroy his hard disk before going to carry out his plan. "Nutjob" and "clever" are hardly mutually exclusive.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[sunsurfandsand]

The thing is, do you really want someone telling you what gun is appropriate for you to own?

I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will spray our children, our relatives, our friends, or our fellow citizens with bullets.

How much alcohol can you own?

I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will drink herself insensible and crash her fucking SUV head-on into any more of my friends' cars.

If so, where do you draw the line?

There is no "line". The slippery slope argument, as you present it, is nonsense. We can say "No, you can't have an assault weapon," without saying "No, you can't own all the liquor you can afford." We can say "No, you can't drink and drive," without saying "No, you can't buy an SUV."

See, here's how it works in civilized societies: we weigh the costs and benefits of particular freedoms and responsibilities. We agree, as best we can, after consideration and argument, what we should allow and what we shouldn't. For example: the benefit to gun nuts of owning assault weapons is exceedingly low in comparison to the cost to parents whose children are slaughtered. The benefit to drunkards of guzzling all the liquor they can hold and then going for a spin is exceedingly small in comparison to the cost to society. Remember society? That's US...you, and me, and all our friends, and all theirs...

As it is clear that if considerations were limited to the costs and benefits mentioned in my examples, then owning assault weapons would be prohibited, just as drunk driving is. Why then isn't it? I speculate it is because the folks who make a killing by selling assault weapons spend a lot of that money on advertising and PR to get folks like you to think the way you do. They want you to imagine that if they can't sell their deadly wares that will somehow diminish your freedom. Now that the liquor industry has given up fighting against drunk driving laws, are you less free? I'm not.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fredgiblet]

"automatic rifle"
No.

"rounds that do max damage"
lolno, there's been a debate about 5.56mm since the M-16 was first issued about whether or not it's powerful ENOUGH for a military use.

"And why would you need hundreds of rounds of ammo?"
A day at the range.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fredgiblet]

Gun violence is drastically lowered, violence isn't. I was reading a report earlier about how homicide went UP in Australia after the gun ban. Sure they weren't killed with guns, but dead is dead.

Automatic weapons are rare in civilian violence because they are more expensive to buy (even when unrestricted), more expensive to practice with, more expensive to use, usually larger (machine pistols exist, but they're pretty rare) and for most purposes LESS effective.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fredgiblet]

You'll note that the "shall not be infringed" is on the part referring to the people, not the militia.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fredgiblet]

What happened to the murder rate and overall violent crime rate after the ban? I was under the impression that stopping violence was the goal, not just disarming people, everything I've seen indicates that murder rates went UP (albeit slightly) for several years after the ban and didn't start to drop until about 6 years after, property crimes and other violent crimes went up as well.

The buyback may have worked if the goal was to remove guns, but it didn't work if the goal was to reduce crime.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[ganjadude]

62 mass shootings in 30 years

61 took place in gunfree zones

an attempted mass shooting tok place this weekend in texas, (ignored by the media) a citizen stopped the crazy with 1 bullet from his legally carried gun.

yeah...guns are the problem...

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[ganjadude]

outlawing marijuana REALLY stopped all of us americans from smoking it......

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[ganjadude]

if I were crazy (i am not... at least the voices keep telling me so) and I wanted to hurt alot of people and there were no guns... what is to stop me from making an IED like the crazies in the middle east?

in other words, do you want to see bombs going off in america every other day?? I dont

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[ganjadude]

you dont really need to be that clever to find an illegal gun. I would wager if you ask 10 people, at least one of them will be able to point you in the right direction

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[nobaloney]

It is a good excuse to finally limit access to guns

Okay, you've convinced me. I no longer have the right to bear arms. I'm heading out now to the local Walmart to buy long-sleeved shirts.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Agnapot]

The Left battled mightily and won in the '70s and '80s to have mental patients out walking the streets instead of being institutionalized. What the ~fuck~ did you people EXPECT to happen? Hello? McFly?

Citation? How is it "the Left" when Regan was president and pushed for the defunding of our mental health facilities.

http://www.miwatch.org/2011/02/_ronald_reagan_and_mental.html

Although not perfect, the Mental Health Systems Act [of 1980] responded to these problems. For the first time since the National Institute of Mental Health became part of NIH in 1949, mental health was front and center in federal policy. Then came Ronald Reagan. Within a month, the Office of Management Budget announced it would curtail the budget of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), phase out training of clinicians, interrupt research, and eliminate services. Cutbacks to staff followed; chaos ensued.

http://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas_d.html

Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness.

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html

The Ugly: the closing of mental health hospitals in California and across the United States. Is it any wonder that California seems to have all of the crazy homeless people? State mental hospitals were taken away by Governor Reagan in the seventies, and federal mental health programs were later taken away by President Reagan in the eighties. When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he systematically began closing down mental hospitals, later as president he would cut aid for federally-funded community mental health programs. It is not a coincidence that the homeless populations in the state of California grew in the seventies and eighties. The people were put out on the street when mental hospitals started to close all over the state.

So... how is this the fault of "the Left" again?

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

The needs being address in the 2nd Amendment are military, so the "arms" in question are undoubtedly military-grade arms. Presumably the authors understood that there are public safety implications to having military-grade weaponry in the hands of the general public, but those threats were outweighed by the very real danger of our country being invaded.

And clearly, that sort of threat is no longer as potent, seeing as the USA now has the most powerful military on earth. So perhaps some re-thinking of the 2nd Amendment is warranted.

You came close, but this is incorrect in that you've left out what they considered the MOST important reason for an armed populace; to be able to overthrow the government when (not "if"...when) it became too tyrannical. Jefferson believed there would/should be an armed overthrow of the government by the citizenry every 20 years or so in order to maintain the superiority of the people over the government and thus maintain the people's liberty and freedom.

They staunchly believed people should not live in fear of their government, but government should fear the people, as that is the only way people remain free and do not become subjects of government rule, rather than free citizens being in control of their nation and their freedom and liberty.

If there should be any "re-thinking" of the 2nd Amendment, I say it should be to make even more clear the rights of the people to own and carry firearms, including full-auto assault rifles like the M16, M4, and similar modern military infantry weapons in order that the threat to the government from a well-armed populace should be maintained and preserved.

Rights are not worth the parchment they are printed on if the people cannot defend those rights against the government.

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[ganjadude]

answer me this... of the 62 mass shootings in america in the past 30 years... how many took place in gun free zones???

all but one...yeah

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[ganjadude]

ar-15 = hunting rifle, no more, no less

ALL automatic guns are illegal, so.... yeah

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[ganjadude]

Clearly you do NOT understand the 2nd amendment

The colonies JUST spent years, and risked their lives, to set up a NEW government, one never tried before. They wanted to get AWAY from oppressive governments.

As such is it REALLY so crazy to think that our government wouldnt be worth overthrowing a few hundred years later?

learn your history

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

I wonder whether the actual slaves were counted among that "whole people." Maybe they got 3/5 of a musket.

Why don't we ask the first American slave-owner?

Oh, that's right...he was a black man, Anthony Johnson.

Slaves were counted as 3/5ths in the census merely for purposes of calculating the number of Representatives that a State had in Congress, so that slave-owning States would not have an unfair over-representation in the House of Representatives.

If slaves had been counted the same as free men, the slave-states would have had an overwhelming majority of power in the House and thus would have enabled those slave-States to ensure slavery remained an institution for far longer than it did.

Are you saying that slaves should have been counted whole to enable the Southern States to maintain legal slavery in the US?

Or are you simply engaging in facetious bomb-throwing?

I think the latter. But maybe I'm wrong, and you sympathize with the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood.

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[dave.haku]

Not being a US Citizen I always thought that was the reason for the right to bear arms. In my head this is how it went: "Once independence was attained, and it was peaceful again, there was an intent to reduce the weapons owned by the civil population. But people had to trust power to someone, and if this guy went batshit the population could get caught defenseless. So the ruling class ceded the right to bear arms as a guarantee that the government will not try to do crazy shit on the people". Of course I might be wrong. Having always believed this, I think that original reason for the right to bear arms is outdated (I find it difficult to picture how that would go, also i think democracy works reasonably well, and differences would be solved democratically rather than at gun point). But I can understand that there are other situations in which having a gun would be useful. Only I think that in the US people get overexcited about guns, it quasi-religious.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Falconhell]

You are really out of touch with reality Strat. Here is a simple fact, in Australia in the 20 years before we saw the light and got rid of a lot of the guns there were 13 gun massacres. Since then none. Zero.
Even rabid right wing nutjobs like you should understand simple math.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Falconhell]

You are really in total denial of reality mode today.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Falconhell]

The gun massacre rate in .au went from 13 in 20 years to zero. Simple plain fact. We havent had a massacre since. That is reality not the fantasy that US gun nuts religiously believe.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Falconhell]

Surely the fact that shooting took place is evidence they were not gun free zones. Gawd. gun nuts have so little connection with reality.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[jackbird]

I'm saying that the irony of a founding father exhorting gun ownership as a means of averting "slavery" in a slaveowning society is a bit rich.

More generally I'm alluding to his likely belief that women and white males without property similarly need not be armed either.

And that his enthusiasm for personal armament as enabling "freedom" in a society where many were decidedly not free has strong echoes today in the way people on both sides of the gun control debate perceive the social meaning of guns (freedom-preserving self-sufficiency-enabling tools for independence on the pro side; democracy-thwarting social-contract-breaking unequalizers on the anti side).

Which gets at the heart of why the gun control debate goes nowhere - guns mean such different things to the people on either side that arguments to statistics, reasoned solutions, and history don't carry much weight.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fredgiblet]

How did the overall murder and crime rates go?

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fredgiblet]

I haven't seen murder rates in Britain pre- and post-ban, but the general violent crime rates of Britain and Australia and the murder rates in Australia seem to indicate that those things don't make us LESS safe either. Guns are tools of violence, not the cause, we will be violent (and yes that includes murder) until we solve our social issues, regardless of the availability of guns.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fredgiblet]

Depends on what you mean by "successfully implemented", if you mean the people were disarmed then yes, if you mean violence decreased not so much. Australia saw an increase in murders (albeit a small one) after the ban and a significant increase of non-murder violent crime. I haven't seen numbers for murder in Britain pre and post ban but I have seen non-murder violent crime and it skyrocketed post-ban.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fredgiblet]

How many murders in the years before the ban? How many murders in the years after?

Please note, we're talking about all murders, not just gun murders.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Macgrrl]

If you actually read what I said - most guns start their life out as being obtained legally. If you reduce the number of legally obtained guns in the community there are less guns to be re-routed for illegal purposes. While there will always be determined criminals who will find a way to commit their crime of choice, it will minimise the number of more casual incidences which are largely crimes of opportunity.

Your argument that criminals will do illegal things anyway like obtain guns illegally therefore you shouldn't consider reducing the number of weapons in the community is like saying - there will always be people who can pick locks therefore why bother with locks.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[circletimessquare]

moron: every economic peer of ours controls guns and has far lower homicide rates

please wake the fuck up, moron. it's just not that fucking complicated

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[circletimessquare]

you can't tell the difference between a knife and a gun in terms of lethality?

fucking pathetic

the problem with gun control in america is the number of fucking morons in this country

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

You're correct, the problem isn't guns per se, but the type of guns that are *legally* available. I'm tired of the assertion that anyone should be able to legally purchase a military grade assault rifle.

Very few people are saying that.

You can't buy a "military grade assault rifle". Well, unless you can obtain a Federal Firearms License, or "FFL" (NOT easy), have a good bit of money, and are prepared to have the BATFE up your ass for the duration.

Those are select-fire weapons that can fire like a machine gun.

What you are calling a "military grade assault rifle" is nothing of the kind. It's a standard semi-automatic rifle (one trigger-pull, one bullet) that has been around for decades, just dressed up in scary black nylon and anodized accessories.so that it looks scary, and may also provide a bit more practical utility (can throw it in the cargo-rack of your ATV and bounce it around without destroying pretty wood stocks, engraving, etc) and have a bit more flexibility in mounting scopes and aim-pointers, etc.

Talk about tired? I'm really tired of people equating regular old semi-auto hunting/sporting rifles, that again, have been around without a problem for decades, to military weapons, simply because someone dressed it up. It's like equating Grandpa's old Buick to a nitro-fuel funny car if Gramps painted a racing stripe on it and put a spoiler on the trunk lid. If you're going to criticize something, I'd think you might want to know what it is you're critical of!

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Boronx]

Your argument is about as dumb as "If we evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys around?" In other words, too dumb for refutation. But what the heck:

point 1:
If you reduce legally own guns, illegal guns become rarer and more expensive.

point 2:
Many people who kill people with guns use legally obtained guns. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is to obtain one illegally.

point 3:
If someone obtains a gun illegally, then you have grounds to arrest them before they kill anyone.

I'm not necessarily for gun control, but the argument that regulations won't reduce guns to criminals is stupid.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[djh101010]

62 mass shootings in 30 years 61 took place in gunfree zones an attempted mass shooting tok place this weekend in texas, (ignored by the media) a citizen stopped the crazy with 1 bullet from his legally carried gun. yeah...guns are the problem...

It's almost like, stay with me here, it's ALMOST like the criminals seek out places where they know they won't have someone shooting back at them. You'd think they'd see that "gun free zone" sign and stop, because, after all, it's posted and all. Weird.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject and a slave to whomever is armed."

Maybe, but it shows a lack of faith in your government and society that you feel you need guns to defend yourself against them.

"Lack of faith in your government"?

Damn straight! Have you not been paying any attention at all to the almost-daily new reports of government violations of public trust and trampling of rights and over-reach of powers, many right here on /. ?

Damn straight I don't trust the government, and neither should you or anyone! else

The government is not your friend.

I have never felt the need to own a gun beyond an air rifle for target shooting.

That's fine. You're welcome to keep your status as helpless victim to the first armed person or agent of government that decides to violate your rights and freedoms, and maybe decides to take your life.

Don't take away everyone else's right to self defense because you prefer victimhood and dependence.

Before anyone says it, no, we are not "subjects" in the UK, we are citizens.

In name only. I can call a turd a rose. Don't make it so.

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Hognoxious]

Lets ban guns, because no one will ever just stab the fuck out of a classroom

Just because two things can be used to kill people doesn't mean they're equally effective at it.

How many armies go into battle armed only with swords? There might be a reason for it.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[canadian_right]

We Canadians generally DO want the government to control guns. There is very strong support for our current gun control regime. We did just recently get rid of a "long run registry" as it was decided it was a waste of money that wasn't making anyone safer, but in general, we like the current balance our gun control laws provide.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[quist]

we have resolved many tough issues peacefully.

heheh, I take it you weren't here for the '60s...

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fluffy99]

Define Assault rifle. You realize the "assault rifle" the media is hyping was a run of the mill, somewhat boring hunting rifle right? In this instance, the shotgun that was left in his car would have been more effective as close range than a hunting rifle.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[fluffy99]

The Bushmaster used was a SEMI-automatic rifle. Learn the difference. You might also learn about what size clip it usually comes with.

Re:Incoming! New legislation...

[vlm]

You're assuming top down, I see no reason it couldn't be bottom up this time around, like the school's in 24x7 lockdown for adults, not allowed in until they log into a valid, active, and normal looking facebook account using a PC right outside the door. Which would be a big problem for a non-facebook parent like myself, and the response will be who cares its for the children blah blah whatever BS. Of course the solution is to use someone elses stolen account.

Re:No online footprint? Bullshit.

[DrgnDancer]

So when his logs reveal that his IP address has been hooked up to an encrypted annonymizing service pretty much 24/7, and that all traffic from his computer went to IP addresses in the Cayman Islands before it ever went onto the Internet? It's really not that hard to make it difficult to track your online history. Given a lot of time and resources the police and FBI can probably dig up at least part of his online footprint eventually, but it's only been a few days. If he was employing forensic countermeasures on his online activities, it's certainly possible that it will be quicker and easier to get the info from his computer. Especially since it seems like his data destruction attempts were somewhat amateurish.

Re:It is 10 not 100

[seven of five]

There are about 10000 death per firearm per year , about 3000 are murder

Sorry, your numbers are seriously fscked up. 10,000 deaths per firearm would wipe out the US population many times over. Maybe you're trying to say, "10,000 deaths from firearms per year" ?

Re:Drudge linked to something over the weekend

[icebike]

They won't get anywhere with that. The cops are almost as gullible as drudge.
Soon the adults from the FBI and the NSA will tell them the sorry truth of the matter.

Re:They can still recover data

[icebike]

You've been watching way too much CSI.
Please Stay in School.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Spaseboy]

I am glad there won't be any "guilt by association" witch hunts like people already have engaged in incorrectly by hunting down Ryan Lanza and attacking Blizzard.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[MaWeiTao]

I'm sure he was fully aware that the authorities and the media would try to understand him. I'd guess his intent was to do something horrible, hitting the most vulnerable part of society in order to inflict maximum pain. That he could leave everyone with questions to which they'd never have answers was the final aspect of his plan.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Eh, even frat bros have xboxes now. I'm pretty sure that you have to be able to type in 'HTML Machine Language' in order to be a computer genius these days... Taking the side panel off your case and just running it that way is also useful, like growing a beard if you want to be taken seriously in the humanities.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[blueg3]

I believe it's currently in a Connecticut State Police lab, and it doesn't really have much of a chance of preventing future crimes. It's high-profile enough that I'm sure they'll look in to it pretty well, but they already have a pretty significant backlog of evidence that will be used to prosecute people to prevent them from continuing to commit crimes, which is more useful.

Re:Yeah well

[Obfuscant]

Australia banned automatic rifles after several mass shootings and since then, they have had none.

TSA banned liquids and gels in more than small quantities, and since then, there have been no incidents of liquid-based explosions on US aircraft.

Where exactly are your numbers from?

[Shivetya]

I cannot get to 100 day no matter what source I look at. I am not denying there is a problem in regards to homicides by any means, but even the CDC only shows 32,000 deaths by firearms which is lower than those by auto or even poisoning.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Why?

[Hentes]

Why destroy evidence if he was going to kill himself anyway? Something isn't right here.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

A false flag attack to take away your right to own guns, a major step necessary towards dictatorship.

Re:Why?

[pclminion]

The thing that "isn't right" was Adam Lanza's brain. There is no deeper reason.

Re:Why?

[mapsjanhere]

Because these mass shootings are typically massive ego trips by normally pretty bright people. It doesn't help their future "bad boy" image if they find boy on boy hentai or a fetish for amish cooking on the computer afterwards.

Re:Why?

[YodasEvilTwin]

Crazy people are crazy: News at 11.

Re:Why?

[sd4f]

Something isn't right here.

lol

dban

[nurb432]

Would have been easier. Even if its not 100% perfect, the cost wouldn't be worth it to extract, as there really isn't any question of quilt here.

But then again, im thinking rationally, he wasn't.

Every time some tool/artifact is used for a crime.

[Paracelcus]

Every time some tool/artifact is used for a crime, outlaw it!
Every year at least one hundred unarmed people get shot to death by the police, some are children, it seldom gets reported and almost never gets prosecuted!
Oh yeah, they're mostly poor people.
Let's ban the police!

Re:Yeah well

[ShanghaiBill]

Australia banned automatic rifles after several mass shootings and since then, they have had none.

The USA banned automatic rifles in 1934, and they have been illegal ever since. We have had plenty of shootings, but none involving automatic rifles.

Perhaps you meant semi-automatic rifles? If so, you should say so. If you don't know the difference, perhaps you should avoid using terms you don't understand.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

But when questioned further, they'll all remember tons of warning signs that they ignored, because nobody gives a shit until somebody starts killing.

The problem with 'warning signs' is that(without a much larger and better constructed study population, which you would be unlikely to get) is selection bias: It is, indeed, very unlikely that somebody who goes in and shoots up the place acted 100% normally in the time leading up to doing so. However, without doing an equally-invasive-and-thorough investigation of a fairly large number of demographically similar non-shooters, how do you separate signal from noise?

Practically any instance of assholery, alienation, or general dark muttering looks like a 'warning sign' once you've gone and emptied a few magazines into cowering elementary school children; but that is diagnostically useless unless you have reason to suspect that a given behavior doesn't show up(or shows up orders of magnitude less frequently) in non spree shooters.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Brian Feldman]

What a retarded waste of resources. A media circus helps no one. The for-profit medical industry in this country isn't meant to help anyone get better if more profit could be squeezed out by keeping them just barely happy and not ever getting better. This is most especially true for mental healthcare.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[pep939]

If he really was computer-litterate, he would have known that a hammer is less effective than overwriting his drive two dozen times with trash... cops wouldn't have a chance, IMO.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[DrgnDancer]

Ordinarily you'd be right, but the profile on this is too big. They'll pour whatever resources are required in if they think there's a chance of getting anything. If it's a lost cause, it's a lost cause, but they'll make pretty damned sure before they give up.

What a joke

[katorga]

Gun control? Like they control illegal drugs? Like they control felons getting illegal guns? Please. All they will do is harass people who never do anything wrong. The criminals and wackos will get guns and still do their thing.

Its pretty simple. They either follow the rules and change the US Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment or go home, because the US Supreme Court keeps over turning gun bans.

Re:What a joke

[White Flame]

It is a joke, yet the congresscritters vote for crap like that because they need to look like they're doing something about it. They know it won't do anything, and that it might have seriously detrimental effects, but they need to get their votes by flaunting "being tough on crime".

Re:What a joke

[athenaprime]

Drunks still drive cars. Why bother with drunk driving laws? They just harass sober people who can't drive on their own side of the road.

To compare guns and illegal drugs, you have to look at them from a societal perspective. Enough members of our society, when presented with the choice of avoiding engaging in controlled substances, versus risking their freedoms by breaking laws, choose the controlled substances. Their possible incarceration is an acceptable risk, to both them and society at large. Otherwise, we'd change things. And maybe we are, slowly, as the cultural taboos surrounding the illegality of behaviors around marijuana break down through widely acceptable use by all strata of society.

By the same token, right now at this minute, enough members of society, when presented with the choice of limiting widespread access to guns, or risking the possibility that those guns will be used in the slaughter of innocents, have thus far chosen to define the *level* of mass killings experienced thus far as acceptable risk.

Neither of these activities are entirely victimless. People's need for controlled substances engenders a worldwide trade, regardless of the legality. The drug war spawned a global criminal culture. And individually, people's lives still get fscked up because of their addictions. Thus far, people in homes where guns are owned are twice as likely to be involved in gun injuries or deaths than people who are in homes without guns. The illegal gun trade seems to be thriving in the midst of an entirely legal gun trade (explain that one), and the massive amount of cash flowing to and from government from the gun lobby has engendered the societal notion that to even suggest putting a few caveats between a hand and the gun it wants to hold is tantamount to treason. it is easy to get a gun, and the gun goes from "in case of emergency" to "pick me first."

Thing is--the right controls *do* work. Other countries have restricted sales on weapons and seen a drop in mass shootings. Rehab works for many people whose addictions have taken over their lives. And yes, gun registrations have helped solve crimes. Seat belts save lives without diminishing your enjoyment of the open road.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Mister Transistor]

Run more than once in a row :)

Re:Mossad false flag

[vlm]

9) The hospital went into lockdown and cleared four trauma rooms, but received only three patients, two of them dead children (according to the official story) and one mildly wounded adult.

I've noticed this too, and I believe the cops are trying to cover for being cowards. I've had minor wounds that just won't stop bleeding without medical attention and there's nothing cops love more than playing domination games with who's in control and who's allowed to do what on scene and act out their twisted little swat fantasies, so I suspect at least half the kids had a minor wound but were left untreated to slowly, painfully bleed out while cops played SWAT games, and if the truth came out they'd look bad and/or get sued, hence no pics, no autopsies, intimidation from officers, etc etc. From military experience its very hard to have a firefight, even a one sided ambush, with absolutely no wounded whatsoever. Simply mathematically astounding, is what I'd call it.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[nurb432]

There is no facts here, he was mentally unstable, and there could just have likely been nothing on there but it was 'his' and didn't want anyone getting it.

I would really doubt he would be trying to 'save' someone else, as he clearly had little respect for others.

Why bother?

[AmazingRuss]

He's dead. We know he shot the kids.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the question all intelligent people would ask. And yet the circus will continue for as long as possible. This fact alone shows that something is not right.

It is worse than this. Prolonged examination of the details of the case are simply likely to play to paranoid emotions. Types of kids, types of hobbies, and types of lifestyles will end up being demonised for no useful gain, just so the mob can continue to gossip and gawp.

Many typify this as 'Problem, Reaction, Solution'- the way in which those that consider themselves masters of Humanity use the innate power of the mob against itself, further curtailing the rights of ordinary citizens in order to improve their own power-base. In the land of the TSA, is there even one person so stupid he/she does not know that the people behind Obama (and the Republicans) desire the disarming of the American public.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[drkim]

...he may even have had a slashdot account.

Ewwwwww. You may be right.

Now I'm creeped out.

Re:No data trail?

[ColdWetDog]

No more bath salts for you!

Re:We need a national registry and federal licensi

[LanMan04]

All injured, but none killed.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[nitehawk214]

The trouble with 'warning signs' when it comes to events like this is we are talking about a FP/TP ratio of possibility millions to one... meaning that as indicators of mass shootings, they are completely useless.

Now, they might have utility in getting people help that would increase their quality of life or of that around them.. but more likely they would just be used to crack down on people who are already having trouble...

FP/TP Ratio? So people with a high First Post to Third Post ratio are more likely to be killers? I knew it....

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Megane]

Maybe he was just a crazy paranoid asshole.

Who apparently had a crazy paranoid mother.

Maybe the dude saw how to do it from movies...

[thewils]

...and just put a bullet through the monitor.

On a more serious note though, some comments on this thread are along the lines of "Fuck you!! Don't you dare touch my guns - I'll own as many as I want" - unfortunately, until your attitude changes (for whatever reason), or until you are able to sit down and have a rational discussion about the topic, your country will always have the problem it has now.

Secondly, as a compromise, why not involve gun clubs more in the purchase and use of guns. What is missing is the human control aspect, and if a member of a gun club is slightly loopy then it is much more likely to be picked up through contact with other club members than if the person is isolated. That way there is little or no change for responsible gun owners, but a little more self-policing by clubs. Hell, it's your community, but it seems to want to distance itself from any members that go postal.

Re:Maybe the dude saw how to do it from movies...

[Pop69]

"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"

Not so much gun clubs, it should be the well regulated militia that people conveniently forget about from the first part of the sentence.

Re:Maybe the dude saw how to do it from movies...

[russotto]

On a more serious note though, some comments on this thread are along the lines of "Fuck you!! Don't you dare touch my guns - I'll own as many as I want" - unfortunately, until your attitude changes (for whatever reason), or until you are able to sit down and have a rational discussion about the topic, your country will always have the problem it has now.

A "rational discussion" on the topic does not start with waving of the bloody shirt and demanding we accept as a baseline the premise that we need more gun control, and that's almost always what is demanded.

Secondly, as a compromise, why not involve gun clubs more in the purchase and use of guns.

The right to bear arms is an individual right. Many gun owners aren't even members of gun clubs, nor want to be.

Hell, it's your community, but it seems to want to distance itself from any members that go postal.

There is no "community" of gun owners. Gun owners are individuals, and gun owners as a whole have neither the authority nor responsibility to police each other. Non-car analogy: imagine if there were said to be a "community" of people who use email, and it was suggested that this community be held responsible for spammers or idiots who forward chain letters.

As for "going postal", one major problem with denying guns to those considered "crazy" but not adjudicated mentally incompetent is that inevitably it is seriously suggested that anyone who wants to own a gun is too unstable to have one. This makes gun owners and gun rights advocates very wary of psychological tests.

Re:Maybe the dude saw how to do it from movies...

[betterprimate]

Hell, it's your community, but it seems to want to distance itself from any members that go postal.

+5

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Megane]

Run without installing Linux?

Re:It is 10 not 100

[Dahan]

There are about 10000 death per firearm per year , about 3000 are murder

Sorry, your numbers are seriously fscked up. 10,000 deaths per firearm would wipe out the US population many times over. Maybe you're trying to say, "10,000 deaths from firearms per year" ?

The first definition of per is: 1 : by the means or agency of : THROUGH <per bearer>

While it's arguably confusing to use "per" in two different senses right next to each other, what he wrote is a valid way of saying, "There are about 10000 deaths by firearm each year."

Annonymous police sources?

[gr8_phk]

Slightly off topic but:

said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

I'm always amazed that someone whose job includes keeping their mouth shut is always willing to spill the beans. Or do the people who know how to keep a secret work for the higher paying TLAs?

Re:English much?

[Smallpond]

'It's not clear that (police) are going to be able to extract any information or not.'

Actually, it's 100% certain that they will, or will not, extract any information. There is no third option.

Until we have quantum computers...

Re:Yeah well

[bill_mcgonigle]

Australia banned automatic rifles after several mass shootings and since then, they have had none.

yeah, their mass murderers just switched to arson for the largest mass-killing in Australia's history since then. Much better, right?

They did however, see a large spike in violent crime after the 1997 ban. Go ahead and look at the stats on their government's statistics website. For some reason they're not publishing any data after 2007, though - I wonder why.

Unstable individual

[phorm]

I haven't heard yet that there were any very visible signs of his instability (not arguing that he was). From what I've heard, he was quiet, smart, didn't get into much trouble, etc.
I'd imagine that if the guy was a raging nutball with a history of violence/threats/instability it would be fairly front-page. Maybe I'm just not reading the right articles, but I haven't seen such.

I remember just after Columbine, people at school were suddenly "unusually nice" to me. I hadn't read the news so didn't know why. Apparently they were scared I was going to do something similar (because they were dicks to me). However, I really didn't have the mentality for such things, and don't really believe in violence except in self-defence.

So here we have a guy who was quiet, apparently smart, and possible a bit of a loner. No indication of provocation or history. I'm hoping that in the next while we'll see some (real, not just "hey he played video games a lot") signs that led to his impending mental instability.

Re:Unstable individual

[Dekker3D]

The funny thing is that I thought those mass shootings achieve nothing-... but apparently they do scare people into being less dickish towards the less socially-acceptable among us. Scaring people into doing the right thing never lasts long, and tends to bring more bad than good (fairly obvious in this case), but I didn't expect it to do anything at all. Apparently the people being dicks do realize they're being dicks. One would imagine they'd try to be pleasant people just for the sake of being.. you know... likeable.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Nadaka]

It sure seems like her paranoia was justified.

Re:They can still recover data

[nschubach]

Fu... now I have to change my password.

Re:My idea for preventing this from happening agai

[caknuckle]

I personally recommend building gated doors that automatically drop down when a gunshot is detected by omni-mics placed throughout schools.

Whats to say you aren't locking the kids INSIDE with the shooter. This is an utterly terrible idea. You effectively prevent the best means of survival (escape).

Re:Incoming! New legislation...

[vlm]

MACs aren't as hard to change/spoof as you'd think. Also it was either HP or SUN who was famous in the early 90s for shipping multiple cards with the same MAC. After all no one would ever plug two into the same LAN, right? This is no sea story I was there and saw the protocol analyzer traces with my own eyes. Hmm so we've got three cards on this test lan, and the analyzer only sees 2 mac addrs, wtf?

Now I could see tying into something you'd not want to give away/share... like a valid, chargeable CC number. This also takes care of the whole micropayment thing. So you can log into facebook (or slashdot?) but that login cookie will cost you 10 cents on a valid credit card and anyone with access to the account can see who paid for previous access...

no all domestic terrorists commit suicide

[peter303]

They are are either caught or did not plan that far ahead. The Arizona congressman shooter and theater shooter were captured alive.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[omnichad]

Oh yes, because his dead body has so much use for a working hard drive.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[PopeRatzo]

Who knows, he may even have had a slashdot account.

Say, has anyone seen pudge lately?

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[omnichad]

Not that it matters. Modern hard drives are unrecoverable after one pass.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[tom17]

so dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda && dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda && dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda && dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda etc?

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[jedidiah]

You should read the DSM-IV sometime.

Pretty much anyone can be "diagnosed" with something. It's not just Aspergers.

This is one good reason to never trust anyone that calls themselves a mental health professional. You never know when the Soviet or McCarthy era abuses will begin again.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Seumas]

Most importantly, these were primarily WHITE children. That means all the stops will be pulled out to trace every last thread of everything, here.

Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we stop discussing this event in every piece of media under the sun. It's a tragic incident, incredibly sad. The coverage it is getting though, surely only goes to encourage others who would consider similar actions.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's plenty of mental health care. How many times have we heard of some kid who was taking an anti-depressant who went nuts and turned violent? Remember the kid who flew a plane into that building and was taking medication? I bet this kid was, too. But instead of investigating these medications and the companies behind the, we investigate how we can make the government DISH OUT MORE OF THE DRUGS TO MORE CHILDREN (hint: Most anti-depressants warn that they can cause suicidal thoughts in young people and children -- duh).

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[sycodon]

I wonder if he had a Slashdot account.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Megane]

He was one of the few things she was not paranoid about. So, no.

She did get one thing right, though. Her world did indeed end in December 2012.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[jedidiah]

They have tried to insulate themselves from much of the real world that others have to face daily. That doesn't make it all go away. It just leaves you unprepared when it finally catches up to you.

Perhaps people in "big cities" are a little more vigilant.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Darinbob]

Microwave oven is very good at this too, though you need to crack open the enclosure first.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[jedidiah]

...assuming he didn't do that before he employed the hammer.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[lister king of smeg]

well he all know he must of had Riser for his filesystem

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[jedidiah]

Yeah, there's that. The guy had a rifle with slugs that can go through steel quite readily.

Street drugs are banned

[csumpi]

So nobody can buy, use nor die using them. Oh, wait...

Guns And Abortion

[assertation]

Right wingers believe that new laws will prevent people from getting abortions. Why don't they believe that new laws will prevent people from shooting guns at people?

Re:Guns And Abortion

[pipedwho]

Because 'right wingers' are generally about curtailing "other people's" freedom. And without them there guns (and pitch forks), how else are they going to be able to form a posse to enforce their fundamentalist prejudices.

Luckily, there aren't too many that far to the right.

Re:Guns And Abortion

[UpnAtom]

Over in Britain, left wingers have been far more successful in curtailing freedom, scrapping most of our rights, locking up people for protesting, getting a shadow minister arrested for doing his job...

Probably successful because left wingers are trusted more to not do this stuff.

Re:Guns And Abortion

[zigfreed]

It's already illegal to shoot guns at people.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Deadstick]

Eons ago, on a TV sitcom called [i]Maude[/i], there was a sequence at a country club bar involving several golfers, one of whom was a doctor. The dialog went like this:

Golfer 1 (walking in): Hey, did you guys hear? Harry committed suicide!
Golfer 2: Hey, that's terrible.
Golfer 3: Yeah, he wasn't the kind of person to do that.
Golfer 2: Aw, c'mon, there isn't any specific kind of person to commit suicide.
Golfer Doctor: Oh, yes there is.
Golfer 1: Really? What kind is that?
Golfer Doctor: It's the kind of guy that when he does it, everybody says he wasn't the type to commit suicide.

so?

[ILongForDarkness]

'Does he have friends he communicates with online? Was there a fight with somebody?'

Who cares? Lots of people have lots of shit in their life they don't go off on a shooting spree at a school they don't go to. How about blaming it on being bat-shit crazy and having access to guns?

Re:You're assuming it's a burglar

[afaik_ianal]

Sure, if that actually happened, I'd fight tooth and nail to protect my family. Home invasion rape are incredibly rare - it's not something I lose any sleep over, and it's not worth culling 0.01% of your population annually "just in case".

I strongly suspect a gun owner is considerably more likely to accidentally shoot themselves or a member of their family than they are to successfully ward off a rapist.

Oh good.

[glwtta]

You found a way to work a "tech" angle into this story.

Congratulations.

Israel Civil Force

[Bodhammer]

I just read this entire thread and find it fascinating. There are some well thought out arguments on both sides. One thing I have not seen mentioned is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Guard_(Israel) . This is a volunteer force, administered by the police. One of the areas they protect is schools and kindergartens. The volunteers are screened, get training, and provide a first line of defense until the troops show up. They have over 50,000 in the force out of a population of 7.7 million. If we had the same percentage in the USA we would have over 20 million people helping with security and crime.
I'm interested in what this community thinks. Would/Could this work in the USA? Would you volunteer for 12 hours/month?

Re:Israel Civil Force

[MrQuacker]

But they are at perpetual war and have the real and constant threat of people bombing said locations.

Re:Israel Civil Force

[caitsith01]

Will this armed paramilitary wear brown shirts and make sure that any "abnormal" citizens are detained and interrogated?

Re:Israel Civil Force

[PurplePhase]

This might be a good way to:

* screen people for mental health
* get people involved in the community
* show both patriotism and care of fellow man
* possibly even get people less afraid of guns

How do we make it happen?

Oh.. or did you just mean some add-on to the National Guard? ... or Neighborhood Watch?

Re:Israel Civil Force

[Bodhammer]

No, I did not mean the National Guard and something more than a Neighborhood Watch.
Write/Call your elected officials at the local, state, and federal level and advocate the idea.

Re:Israel Civil Force

[Bodhammer]

No. Did you read the article and do any further research on the idea? What exactly do you no like about the idea? Do you have any better suggestions?

Re:Israel Civil Force

[athenaprime]

Possibly because to admit that we need a civil defense force like this is to admit that we live in a dangerous society where people should expect their lives to be threatened. It's embedded in the Constitution that we have a right to walk around and reasonably expect to do so unmolested. To suggest otherwise would probably make a lot of people uncomfortable. And still others would see a civil defense as a step towards a police state.

"Better Security" is not always the answer. Better security works great when you live in a war zone or a volatile society. The US is not supposed to be a volatile society. After all, the most secure places in the country are prisons, and no one wants to live in a prison (although from some of the suggestions I've seen here and elsewhere along the lines of "arming the teachers" and "security guards at the entrances" are stopping just short of concertina wire around the playground. But the day's still young).

Re:Israel Civil Force

[Bodhammer]

The US is not supposed to be a volatile society..

But unfortunately we do have volatility and crime. To protect our children we need to defend our children. I agree about a police state but as a civilian volunteer, one will still have the right to refuse an illegal order against another civilian just like the military does.

Re:Israel Civil Force

[sd4f]

Even the jewish schools in australia have armed guards.

Re:Israel Civil Force

[Pav]

Wow... an actual "think of the children" argument that's OT. ;)

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[number6x]

To be a computer genius you have to be able to 'program' HTML or 'write' Excel Macros. Nobody would use the term Machine Language.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[jfengel]

And that's why Asperger's was eliminated in the DSM-V.

The new DSM is problematic, just as the last one was. Yes, it's certainly possible to abuse it. But the psychiatrists really are trying to help people, and they're just beginning to explore a difficult new field.

The range of human behavior is far, far more variable and intricate than any protein or subatomic particle. A century ago the science was nonexistent, then barbaric, then more harmful than helpful. Now occasionally it does more good than harm. If you don't like your shrink, get a new one. But rejecting the whole profession is just... well, paranoid.

The DSM was not concocted as part of a plot to lock people up. Its goal is to help. It may not, and that's why there's a DSM-6 already in the works. That's how science works.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[kelemvor4]

Might be !

I used to hang out mostly with people who (at the time) ran DOS or OS/2 (that should be XOR I guess =) when I had my Amiga. It was kinda fun to hear about all their problems and things they could not do that came 'out of the box' for me. (And, I'll admit, also because Amiga-owners were sparse -to put it mildly- in my neighbourhood =)

I had both. Doing advanced things on the Amiga was not easy. Doing the things that made the Amiga great (for me) didn't come with it out of the box, either.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[kelemvor4]

I believe it's currently in a Connecticut State Police lab, and it doesn't really have much of a chance of preventing future crimes. It's high-profile enough that I'm sure they'll look in to it pretty well, but they already have a pretty significant backlog of evidence that will be used to prosecute people to prevent them from continuing to commit crimes, which is more useful.

That was a nice sentiment. Unfortunately I suspect that most law enforcement agencies would be far more concerned with what the national news media is going to say about their handling of this case than they are with preventing other crimes. No citation, that's just my opinion on "the way the world works".

Cant protect an open society without closing it

[Anonymous Coward]

The quest for finding a way to "not let this happen again" seems impractical. Everyone is looking for that Reagan-esque Safety dome, that will keep all the bad things out,... The best we might do is a bunch of small things that would reduce the likelihood of this happening again Inspire a sense of community instead of alienation, reduce martyr status heaped on by the press, reduced road rage by better traffic patterns... It wont be one thing that "fixes this" situation.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[ArsenneLupin]

Trust me, for something like this, resources are not going to be an issue.

... and then, after having spent all this effort, they'll find that the hard drive was full of one single phrase, repeated all over again: "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"...

Re:We need a national registry and federal licensi

[icebike]

Read the whole story.
It wasn't one incident.

Massive Obvious Failure

[Crypto Gnome]

All "right to armed bears" arguments aside, clearly the weapons and ammunition were not sufficiently secured.

Had THAT been done in a safe and sane manner, THIS event would never have occurred.

American society has changed HUGELY (attitudes, values, etc) compared to back in the "recently separated from Britain" days and the assumption (at the time) that "people with guns are both reasonable and sane" no longer applies.

Add to that the fact that guns these days are smaller and lighter and fire faster and more accurately than they did in the days of way-back-when (semi-automatic handguns were invented only just prior to the 1900s) and you have what's officially known as "a volatile mix".

DESPITE these facts (ie MASSIVE CHANGES over time), the second amendment to the constitution remains unmodified, a historical artefact.

SOMETHING needs to change.

Would all gun owners be willing to submit to random inspections of their weapon/ammunition storage and safety? Would the government fund the additional manpower/resources to perform such validations?

Answering YES to both might possibly lead to more freedom for enthusiasts of recreational firearms.

What we know so far:

[SternisheFan]

What we know about the Connecticut school shooting By By The Associated Press – 40 minutes ago Key facts related to the Connecticut elementary school shooting: THE INVESTIGATION: Twenty-year-old Adam Lanza was carrying an arsenal of hundreds of rounds of deadly ammunition — enough to kill nearly every student in the school if given enough time, authorities said, raising the specter the bloodbath could have been far worse. Lanza shot himself in the head when he heard police approaching the classroom where he was gunning down helpless children. He had multiple high-capacity clips each capable of holding 30 bullets, and the chief medical examiner said the ammunition was the type designed to break up inside a victim's body and inflict the maximum amount of damage, tearing apart bone and tissue. The gunman shot his mother four times in the head before going to the school and gunning down 26 victims there. THE VICTIMS: All the victims at the school were shot multiple times with a high-power rifle, some of them up close. All six adults were women. Of the 20 children, eight were boys and 12 were girls. All the children were 6 or 7 years old. Among the dead were popular principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach, who rushed toward Lanza in an attempt to stop him and paid with their lives; Victoria Soto, a 27-year-old teacher who died while trying to hide her pupils; 30-year-old Lauren Rousseau, a teacher thrilled to have been hired this year, and Ana Marquez-Greene, a 6-year-old girl who had just moved to Newtown from Canada. THE GUNMAN: Lanza was described as a bright but painfully awkward student who seemed to have no close friends. In high school, he was active in the technology club. The club adviser remembered that he had "some disabilities" and seemed not to feel pain like the other students. That meant Lanza required special supervision when using soldering tools, for instance. He also had an occasional "episode" in which he seemed to withdraw completely from his surroundings, the adviser said. Authorities said Lanza had no criminal history, and it was unclear whether he had a job. THE SCENE: Families sought to comfort each other during Sunday church services and vigils devoted to impossible questions like that of a 6-year-old girl who asked her mother: "The little children, are they with the angels?" Many of Newtown's 27,000 people wondered whether life could ever return to normal, and, as the workweek was set to begin, parents pondered whether to send their children back to school. Signs around town read, "Hug a teacher today," ''Please pray for Newtown" and "Love will get us through." THE PARENTS: One of the parents who lost a child in the attack spoke publicly about his loss. Robbie Parker fought back tears and struggled to catch his breath as he described his 6-year-old daughter, Emilie, as a little girl who loved to draw. He also reserved surprisingly kind words for the gunman, saying he was not mad and offering sympathy for the gunman's family. To the man's family, he said, "I can't imagine how hard this experience must be for you." THE GUNS: Federal authorities visited local gun ranges but found no evidence that the gunman trained for the attack or was an active member of the recreational gun community. Investigators also have interviewed gun dealers trying to determine whether there was any training or other behavior that precipitated the attack. THE HISTORY: The Newtown massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history and one of the deadliest mass shootings around the world. A gunman at Virginia Tech University killed 33, including himself, in 2007. It appears that only Virginia Tech; the mass killings of 77 in Norway last year; and a resort massacre with 35 victims in Australia had greater death tolls across the world over the past 20 years.

Re:What we know so far:

[mrbester]

Small question: how the fuck is it legal to buy fragmenting rounds? Presumably the mother bought them as they were for her rifle.

Re:What we know so far:

[fredgiblet]

They aren't special. 5.56 rounds tumble and fragment in flesh. IIRC it actually wasn't a design goal when the bullets were being designed but the result of the design fragmented.

Shorter barrels cause less fragmentation.

Re:What we know so far:

[cfalcon]

Statements like that probably mean he had hollow points in his pistols- aka, the same ammunition cops use. That phrase sounds VERY flaky. Given how badly the media has fucked up the details on this case (remember when the shooter was a 24 year old, there might have been a second shooter, and a younger brother was hiding in the woods? Remember when his mother was a kindergarten teacher at the school? All initially reported and totally untrue)

Re:What we know so far:

[Jason Levine]

I'm wondering just what purpose a semi-automatic assault weapon with a clip of 100 rounds serves. Do you go shooting deer and are so bad a shot that you need to spray a wide area with bullets? (If so, just go to the store to buy your venison.) Self-defense? (Man breaks into your house and you spray 50 bullets in his general direction?)

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Kjella]

Perhaps, I've seen many claims but no reliable studies that conclusively say they can't - but even if the writable areas are unreadable, remapped sectors etc. aren't overwritten. Of course that'll be a bunch of random 4096 byte (or 512 byte, if old) sectors from random spots on the drive but if you can get any crucial information in 4096 bytes like the names of undercover sleeping agents, foreign informants, top secret programs, classified details on weapons capabilities or whatever then physical destruction is still going to be the gold standard, unless you have some low level format to really wipe every physical sector of the disk. This is far more obvious and explicit on SSDs where there's a huge spare area and only a low level format or secure erase of the whole disk will really overwrite everything.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Lehk228]

I run linux because i can't be bothered with windows bullshit on my laptop, i have work to do and that laptop is 7 years old.

i run windows on my desktop because I still play video games, but as i get older i play fewer and fewer games that can't run on linux, both because i play fewer games and more and more will play on linux

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[HornWumpus]

They've heard the term and assume it means any language a machine understands. So of course HTML is an example of a 'machine language'. C3PO spoke lots of machine languages.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[HornWumpus]

I don't agree with the clams about much; but anybody who would see a shrink ought to have their head examined.

Vent to a sympathetic bartender, it's cheaper and more fun.

Math is FUNdamental

[Mr. Underbridge]

(Seriously. If there are 100 shootings per day, out of 250 million persons in the USA, your chances of being so shot on any given day are 4 places to the right of the decimal point in terms of percentages-- (borrowed possibly false statistic from previous poster.) At that rate, you are more likely to die in an airline catastrophe.

What the fork? 11k people die from gun related homicide per year. Can't say the same for airline catastrophes, can we?

The solution to deaths like these is NOT "gun control".

That's an unjustified conclusion. It might be, or it might be part of it.

The solution to deaths like this is to get people the help they so desperately need, without any overtones of disparagment, or of belittling the people who need that help.

OK, fine. Except when the patient stops taking the medication - which happens often - are you sufficiently willing to solve the problem that you're willing to involuntarily commit the patient? Isn't that a whole lot more infringing on liberty than getting rid of the guns?

(If not a gun, then perhaps a bomb, or poison, or any number of other methods.)

I keep seeing this but it seems rather unjustified. Assembling a bomb isn't easy. Particularly one that takes out more than a few people. Poison is pretty hard too. Additionally, the violent nature of guns makes them so damned appealing - thanks to the Columbine generation there. Take away the guns, you take away the appeal, I think.

Re:Math is FUNdamental

[wierd_w]

Re: bombs and poison are difficult

Then clearly you don't comprehend what you are seeing when you see big 5gal buckets of sodium hypochlorate, or know that you can get a nice batch of hydrocyanic acid from controlled hermitic combustion of a bag of bloodmeal fertilizer.

Here's a hint. That 5 gal bucket of hypochlorate intended to kill the algae in your swimming pool can make a bomb big enough to blow a house into splinters. It is frequently used as an oxidizer in rocket fuel. Guess what, unless you go on a binge on buying the stuff, the checkout lady won't even look twice about you buying it! Make it into a bomb? Crush the shit up, blender it with some deisel fuel, and pour it into a sturdy container. Use a model rocket engine as the ignition source. One improvised explosive device, all ready to go.

Or, if you want a dangerous high explosive, you can go the more complicated route of putting ammonium nitrate into a bunch of 1 gal glass cider jugs, attaching some labgrade tubing to a glass shunt inserted into a stopcock, and putting aquarium bubbler stones on the other side, dropping some copper items into the cider jugs, corking them off, and using the resulting nitrogen oxide gasses to produce clean nitric acid with some distilled water. After that, you simply titrate out a nice supply of ETN explosive using the big bottle of truvia brand sweetener as the erythritol source. A 16oz bottle of truvia sweetener will get you one hell of a bomb.

For the above mentioned poison, you hermitically burn the bloodmeal without an oxygen source, and bubble the gas through a tall cylender of water. (Such as in a high temperature glass crucible). After that, the method of delivery is a subject best left for the madman; one I felt would be particularly nasty would be to add the hydrocyanic acid to some freshly milled mazipan, then chocolate coat it and hand it out. Marzipan already contains very small quantities of hydrocyanate from the bitter almonds used for flavoring, so it would be completely undetectable by the victim.

Remember, people who do this kind of thing premeditate. That means they plan, and make arrangements. These processes are dangerous, but not that difficult to do.

The same rationality behind banning firearms would also make you have to ban pool chlorination supplies and rose and lawncare fertilizers.

Don't make the mistake that just because somebody has gone off the deep end that they are dumb, and incapable of complicated premediation. There are plenty of homocidal geniuses out there, for whom such things would be child's play.

Re:Math is FUNdamental

[Pulzar]

Here's a hint. That 5 gal bucket of hypochlorate intended to kill the algae in your swimming pool can make a bomb big enough to blow a house into splinters. It is frequently used as an oxidizer in rocket fuel. Guess what, unless you go on a binge on buying the stuff, the checkout lady won't even look twice about you buying it! Make it into a bomb? Crush the shit up, blender it with some deisel fuel, and pour it into a sturdy container. Use a model rocket engine as the ignition source. One improvised explosive device, all ready to go.

Or, if you want a dangerous high explosive, you can go the more complicated route of putting ammonium nitrate into a bunch of 1 gal glass cider jugs, attaching some labgrade tubing to a glass shunt inserted into a stopcock, and putting aquarium bubbler stones on the other side, dropping some copper items into the cider jugs, corking them off, and using the resulting nitrogen oxide gasses to produce clean nitric acid with some distilled water. After that, you simply titrate out a nice supply of ETN explosive using the big bottle of truvia brand sweetener as the erythritol source. A 16oz bottle of truvia sweetener will get you one hell of a bomb.

For the above mentioned poison, you hermitically burn the bloodmeal without an oxygen source, and bubble the gas through a tall cylender of water. (Such as in a high temperature glass crucible). After that, the method of delivery is a subject best left for the madman; one I felt would be particularly nasty would be to add the hydrocyanic acid to some freshly milled mazipan, then chocolate coat it and hand it out. Marzipan already contains very small quantities of hydrocyanate from the bitter almonds used for flavoring, so it would be completely undetectable by the victim.

Are you seriously saying that those are equally hard to kill 30 people in a school as walking in with guns and shooting? You are going to hand out poisonous Marzipan bars in kindergarten to 30 kids that will eat it without anybody stopping you? Do you really think that building a chemistry set at home and learning to titrate is as easy as picking up a gun? And, how are you going to get into the school, blow up the front door, and then get kids to nicely wait in the classroom while you get in and set up another round?

There's a reason why almost all mass killings here are with guns -- they are by far the easiest way to kill a whole bunch of people. The fact that it's possible to do it another way doesn't make it nearly as easy.

Re:Math is FUNdamental

[wierd_w]

Hydrogen cyanate is deadly as a vapor in the PPM range.

An aerosol can sprayer is not hard to fabricate, and can be thrown in through a window. Like I said, the method of application is best left to the madman. I simply listed a nice easy way to go about it.

In this case, our killer was the son of an employee of said school. Getting into the school to plant a bomb is as simple as swiping her keys for the weekend, and getting a duplicate made.

Schools are hardly fort knox you know. (And titration is NOT hard to do at all. You can do it with an over the counter eyedropper. You can get them in the pen and ink section of an art supply store for under 3$, with tax. Special equipment is NOT needed to manufacture bombs. Drugs, yes. Bombs? No.)

Re:Math is FUNdamental

[Cederic]

Ah, but compare ease with efficiency.

The IRA used to shoot a lot of people, but used bombs when they wanted a high body count. In Afghanistan the locals happily don police uniforms to shoot a couple of soldiers but roll out a car bomb if they want a high body count.

See also: Pakistan, Palestine/Israel, Iraq, etc.

Who cares?

[scottbomb]

He doesn't deserve this attention.

Re:Yeah well

[fredgiblet]

You can, but you'll have to get a tax stamp and fined someone willing to sell you one (Nothing made after 1986 is transferable). So you'll have to pony up a few thousand.

Re:Yeah well

[camperdave]

Actually, I don't have a problem with that. You're on a plane. It's not like you're going to need large volumes of liquids or gels (medical exceptions apply).

Is it more likely

[pkinetics]

Saw an article that claims the mother destroyed the computer, which triggered the whole thing. That sounds more plausible.

Re:Is it more likely

[Skapare]

Many other plausible theories exist, too.

The things I heard on TV news this evening about how his mother was treating him was the people with Asperger's Syndrome hate being treated. They want to be accepted for who they are and what they are. They don't want someone trying to make them different.

Or maybe he was just pissed because DSM-IV recently deleted AS.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Dr Modesto]

Probably just a porn clear out.

Re:No online footprint?

[mrbester]

Nope, not me (someone else nabbed that username before the turn of the century). Sorry, try again.

Re:No online footprint?

[mrbester]

Is that from last.fm? That guy is also into Beach Boys, t.A.T.u and Prodigy.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Normally "Machine language" refers to the 1's and 0's that are readable by a machine or virtual machine (or hybrid thereof), not the context-free-grammar that is a human-readable computer language that can be interpreted or compiled.

No social net

[stanjo74]

Despite the billions the US spends on welfare, there is really no social net in the US society. We have no family or social fabrics either. It's a thin line between lack of social responsibility and hatred of others - the mentally troubled may not see that difference.

Socialized healthcare, for example, could go a long way in giving people the sense that someone cares about them.
The American society is a "jungle, survival of the fittest" society and it has it's price. We, at some point, need to decide if this is how we want to keep going, and if so, accept the loss that comes with it.

Re:Yeah well

[amRadioHed]

The reason why this comparison is invalid is because there were no incidence of liquid explosives on planes before the ban either. So while there have been no incidents after the ban also, it doesn't represent any change.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[sarysa]

I wonder if it ran Linux

The end of the world will come when a introverted former postal employee + warcraft fan writes a ReiserFS IFS driver for windows and proceeds to install mcafee on first successfull boot while listening to linkin park.

You forgot to mix DOOM into there.

Re:Yeah well

[GigsVT]

You must not travel much. Generally you want to pack enough stuff in your carry on so that if your checked bags are lost, you won't be completely fucked. So that usually means your toiletries go in your carry on. It's a hassle to have to buy little toothpastes and little bottles for shampoo that you have to carefully decant shampoo into, because a normal sized shampoo might blow the plane up or something.

On the same token, it's not like a would-be bomber would need a huge volume of liquids either. You can take a quart sized bag packed full of little 3 ounce bottles. Lets assume that you can conservatively carry 12 weight ounces worth of liquids on in that bag. That's 340 grams.

340+ grams of high explosive would be more than enough to wreak serious havoc. On mythbusters they used a 100 gram shaped charge on the side of an airplane and it blew a massive hole in it.

So what's the point? Would be liquid bombers are limited to 350-500 grams of explosives vs 1 kilogram? That doesn't seem like a very useful security measure to me.

Re:Yeah well

[GigsVT]

The NFA doesn't ban automatic firearms. It just taxes them at the rate of $200 per gun for a one-time tax stamp (which in 1934, was a de facto ban). In 1986 they closed the registry to new tax stamps for full auto so all automatic firearms that are legal for civilian ownership were manufactured before 1986.

So, no, they aren't really banned. Legally taxed ones have almost never been used in crime though, and fully auto is very rare in crime overall, even counting illegal ones.

Re:Yeah well

[Roachie]

I keep shitloads of garlic around the house. So far no vampires!

Most common use != Most common use against humans

[mdmkolbe]

[Kiling your self] the most common use of guns against humans

...

why wouldn't we identify the most common use as the purpose of the tool?

After that absurd level of equivocation,

Yeah! And screw scientific anomalies too!

[TheSwift]

It's because of the wave nature of electrons!

Whoa, hang on, it's because of the particle nature of electrons!

Pssssh, fools! Relativity! E=MC^2. You're welcome.

Wait, wait - I got this - we have this cat in a box and it dies, or something... I'm pretty sure this has something to do with it.

Hold on, I think it's because of innumerable, invisible vibrating strings that permeate the universe.

Noooooooo, it's from this thing called the Higg's Boson and once we understand it, it'll explain it. Ah, shit. Now there's two.

Well, no one really understands gravity, so it is probably caused by whatever causes that. Um, dark energy/matter, perhaps?

Well, at least there's a parallel universe wherein we do figure it out.

Just because something's complicated doesn't mean we don't try to figure it out. If we see a trend or occurrence in a scientific discipline that is unprecedented or poorly understood, then we try to find the a reason or cause for such anomalies. In this case, finding a cause (or several causes - which is more likely to be the case) could help us prevent similar incidents in the future and potentially save lives. Isn't that worth the speculation? Besides, societal trends, regardless of the complexity of a society, are still less complicated than theoretical physics.

Re:Most common use != Most common use against huma

[mdmkolbe]

Gah!! I submitted before I finished, but you get the idea.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[anagama]

Encryption schemes are great for the present and immediate future, but what about ten years from now? There's no certainty that what is today unbreakable will not be trivial to brute force in a few years time, or some vulnerability will be discovered which renders the encryption worthless.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Nyder]

... You never know when the Soviet or McCarthy era abuses will begin again.

You mean like instead of being a communist, they call you a terrorist when they don't like you?

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Nyder]

The trouble with 'warning signs' when it comes to events like this is we are talking about a FP/TP ratio of possibility millions to one... meaning that as indicators of mass shootings, they are completely useless.

Now, they might have utility in getting people help that would increase their quality of life or of that around them.. but more likely they would just be used to crack down on people who are already having trouble...

Well, it doesn't stop them when it's terrorist, and terrorist must do more damage then people who shoot up schools based on all the laws that have been change to protect us from Terrorist.

Re:Yeah well

[shutdown -p now]

The USA banned automatic rifles in 1934, and they have been illegal ever since.

They're not illegal. They're illegal to import or manufacture for civilian use, and their transfer is tightly controlled, but in most states it is legal for you to acquire, hold and use a full auto firearm, so long as you do all the paperwork, pay the transfer fee, and actually have enough cash to afford one to begin with.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[HornWumpus]

Duh. I'm trying to get to where the morons got 'HTML machine language'.

The word you are looking for is 'OP code'. Perhaps mention assemblers.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[PlusFiveTroll]

There is always the chance you fail to destroy yourself and you give it up after the rubber hose beating.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[PlusFiveTroll]

You're a racist. Flat out and simple. Disgusting.

No, he may or may not be, we cannot discern this from his statement. It's likely this is just an observation on how law enforcement works in America, which institutionalizes discrimination against the poor and minorities.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Jason Levine]

Aspergers has ZERO to do with the killer's rampage. I have a son with Asperger's (yes, diagnosed by a doctor and, no, it wasn't an easy process to figure out what was going on with him) and I can tell you that the nature of Asperger's is completely counter to something like this.

First of all, people think Asperger's means a lack of empathy. It doesn't, though. It's a lack of an ability to pick up on social cues. My son can't tell if his endless story about the video game he's playing is boring you or if you are riveted. Communication is 20% words and 80% non-verbal. Aspies have trouble deciphering the latter 80%. Imagine trying to read Slashdot posts/comments with only 1 out of every 5 letters in place. C____ __u ____y __ _n_ __ ___m? O_ _____d ___ __t___a_ __o_ ___ __n____a___n? (i.e. Could you reply to any of them? Or would you withdraw from the conversation?) Aspies might withdraw simply because they don't understand how to respond/interact, but they *WANT* to participate.

In addition, Aspies tend to be over-sensitive to the emotions of others once they are told about them. If you tell an Aspie they they offended you with somthing they did, the Aspie will likely feel awful. They might not know how to "make it better", and might withdraw more for fear of making more mistakes, but don't mistake withdrawal for lack of empathy.

Finally, I've found that Aspies (like my son) tend to be sticklers for the rules. They find comfort in rules and get upset when people violate them. So an Aspie isn't likely to plan something that completely "violates the rules" to the degree that a mass shooting does. (They might not get subtle social cues, but they understand that hurting people is wrong.)

Anyone who tries to link mass shootings (including this one) to Asperger's/Autism is just displaying a vast lack of understanding of what Asperger's/Autism is.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Jason Levine]

So your suggestion would be that my 9 year old son go to a bar and talk to the bartender, presumably while drinking? Somehow, I don't think that will help him one iota.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[davydagger]

"The guy was a diagnosed aspie"
was as in paste tense, aspergers is no longer a valid medical condition, and has been removed from the DSM-IV

my thoughts on aspergers, is that its nothing more than

1. an insult for someone you don't like who acts derpish. Like calling someone a retard

2. excuse for why you are a looser.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Jason Levine]

Actually, I'd hope that they would do everything possible to reconstruct the lost data. No, he can't be prosecuted, but perhaps a clear picture of what drove him to do this could lead to policies that prevent future tragedies. Otherwise we're left with picking semi-random "things to blame" (guns, untreated mental illness, video games, etc), assigning them to him regardless of any evidence, and trying to "fix" it without knowing just what "fixing it" would entail.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[DeathElk]

If this is true, then godspeed white coat dudes.

Re:Yeah well

[fredgiblet]

They still have them and they are still accessible to the owner. Most of the spree shooters are using weapons they own (Kip Kinkel's parents bought him the guns) or weapons that were stolen from friends or family members, guns stolen in straight up robberies are rarely used. There's nothing stopping a Swiss person from taking their own gun and using it, and it's hardly a stretch to say that a child could see the code their parent punched into the safe or find the place they stash the key and use the gun.

They don't because the Swiss are better people than we ware here, but they could.

Re:This is why the cops...

[PlusFiveTroll]

Hole-E-Fuck, you have any idea how much data that is?

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

Anyway, if they play games like that, jerks like me will make p2p style programs that transfer chunks of random non-compressible data and pass that shit around for fun on our extra bandwidth.

Mostly they keep headers and tcp connection info. Which still involves contacting the remote party and getting logs of what they viewed and such.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[blueg3]

It's not difficult and it's probably quite factual to say, "the drive was destroyed beyond recovery".

Re:I can understand.

[fredgiblet]

"I prefer non-lethal weapons because I want the fucker to suffer and hopefully end up crippled."

And then sue you for pain and suffering. Don't think it won't happen.

Re:Yeah well

[PlusFiveTroll]

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

Don't let facts and statistics get in your way either.

It seems shooting people in mass was very rare in AU well before the ban.

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

Historically it seems, that's it's much more dangerous to be an Aborigine around white people then it is to be gunned down by a random psyco.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Alex Belits]

No, it's just everyone thinks, any place other than his home town, that everyone known about, is something like Manhattan. Littleton, for example, is really an enormous discontinuous splotch of suburban sprawl inside a larger and more discontinuous splotch of the same that is Denver Metro Area.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Alex Belits]

P.S. Oh, and so is Aurora.

I'll jump in here

[rsilvergun]

and point out that right up until about 1950 there was regular terrorism and atrocities perpetrated against minorities (not just blacks, we did the Irish until there was too many of them to be a minority). Basically, there used to be a socially acceptable whipping boy for this sort of thing, and we kinda don't like to talk about that...

Guns don't kill people; bullets kill people!

[beaverdownunder]

I wonder; what if guns in the US themselves were to remain relatively unrestricted (but still required registration) but instead, bullets became closely tracked, and that the purchase of additional bullets by a gun-owner required them to account for the bullets they had previously acquired?

After all, someone who has a handgun for 'protection' from a sole assailant only requires a small number of bullets for such a purpose. This would make casual stockpiling more difficult. People who gave vague reasons, but went through a lot of ammo would also face more intense scrutiny, weeding out poachers or people on-selling bullets to criminals. Additional metals could also be added to bullets to 'fingerprint' them, making it easier to tie bullets back through the supply chain.

Regulating and restricting bullets doesn't take away the US citizen's right to 'bear arms' while increasing accountability and hindering the ability to go on a shooting spree. To me, it looks like a win-win.

Re:Guns don't kill people; bullets kill people!

[MetaPhyzx]

Kind of late to the discussion, but regulating and restricting bullets sounds easy, but no.

In order to remain proficient with a firearm, you're going to have to practice shooting. If you're the sort to prefer a certain type of ammo, you might buy 100 rounds or so (50 per box for 9mm, .380, on and on.).

You can easily go though 100 rounds at a range in one day.

Hell, you can easily go through 500 rounds in a trip to the range (.22LR) using ONE firearm. Heaven forbid you have two that use the same caliber, or multiple that use different calibers.

Now, if I take a 22LR caliber competition target pistol, and say, a 22LR rifle to the range to practice say once a month, then have to explain to someone why i'll buy another 500 rounds by ACCOUNTING for every bullet I just fired at a range (by filling out a form? By saving every expended shell? By justifying why I need to practice my marksmanship once a month?), that makes no sense.

It is almost like my boss asking me to account for every paperclip I use in the office.

I'm not attempting to belittle your question; You might not be someone who uses firearms. There's enough bickering going on here.

The reality is that Gun owners in the United States, and people who shy away from it are going to have to stop making budgetary decisions based on greed.

There is no reason we can't have background checks on every gun transaction that takes place (although I can actually think of exceptions to this rule, but it doesn't matter). Hell, I'm for a one time tax in which the proceeds go either towards prevention of gun violence efforts (supporting the apparatus that keeps guns out of the hands of those who should not have them), or as a "tax" that goes toward supporting mental health budgets in states.

There is no reason why we determine our budget cuts by undermining the weakest in society. (Healthcare, physical, mental or otherwise is not an "entitlement"; the ability to provide it universally is an extension of technological and societal progress, and if we have to pay for it so be it).

Quit the "I know better than you, My values are more important than yours." bit. On both sides. If you live in a urban area or if you live in a rural area, your lifestyles might be significantly different. It doesn't make your values any less. Quit thinking you know more that the other guy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Yeah well

[camperdave]

I've never lost my bags, but I've also never been in a hotel that didn't supply shampoo and soap either.

What is the reason for purchasing so many guns?

[cribera]

Even if we accept the claim that guns have zero guilt in the shootings. Why so many guns purchased? For self defense at home, one pistol is enough.

I could understand one gun, but have you seen how these loonies have so many guns and military equipment?

Why the parents purchase so many guns, why not spending such money in books for their kids, and isntead of goint to shooting practice, why not read them books at their kids, at home, to teach them to love knowledge?

Mental Health Availability might be a contributor

[mwasham]

For everyone clamoring for better availability to mental health professionals be careful what you ask for. There is a pretty significant chance that this was partially caused by mental health professionals overdosing this kid on SSRIs which are known to cause anger, suicidal tendencies and violence. http://www.ssristories.com/ http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?sort=date&p=school

USA perspective = bizarre

[caitsith01]

She had 2 handguns, completely reasonable for self defense. A standard .223 carbine... standard rifle you can get at walmart, fun to shoot and then a shotgun, pretty typical for hunting small game.

You do realise that to most people in most parts of the civilized/first world, this sounds completely insane, right?

Two handguns for self defence? Insane. Guess what I have for self-defence in the first world country where I live? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not even a bat or knife. Times I have been violently murdered or robbed so far: 0.

A "standard" .223 carbine... that you can buy at a neighbourhood variety store. Insane.

A shotgun, "pretty typical for hunting small game". Insane.

Even more insane, though, is this idea that your hobby/paranoia (which are the two reasons you implicitly think people should have guns) outweighs other people's safety.

Where I live, you actually don't see guns, other than small handguns, in holsters, carried by the police. That's it.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns just make people way more effective at killing each other. That's what they are for. Take up archery, buy a can of mace, and stop being so completely ridiculous about your weapon-infested society.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Re:USA perspective = bizarre

[Charliemopps]

I'm sure there are things about your country that I'd find completely insane as well.

Re:USA perspective = bizarre

[Cederic]

A shotgun, "pretty typical for hunting small game". Insane.

Well then, just what the fuck would you use for shooting pheasants and rabbits?

In the UK we use shotguns.

Re:Yeah well

[chrismcb]

Yep... Its not like the human body needs liquids to stay alive.

Re:Yeah well

[ramsun]

Australia banned automatic rifles after several mass shootings and since then, they have had none.

TSA banned liquids and gels in more than small quantities, and since then, there have been no incidents of liquid-based explosions on US aircraft.

Modded "Funny"? This is why more and more children will get murdered in their schools in the USA.

Australia banned weapons that make it easy to kill lots of people in a very short while after they had been used to do so.

The TSA (again, using the same rigourous logic as the parent) bans liquids that have never ever been used, as far as anyone is able to tell, in a terror attack.

If you're a certain type of American, you may not see the difference in the two situations. Other Americans, and the rest of the world, can only watch in horror as children get murdered.

Re:Yeah well

[ahabswhale]

Actually, it's still legal in several states (all red) to acquire automatic weapons. Also, there is no federal law that prevents private ownership of said weapons. Registration and a big fee is required but it's legal. Also, it's not difficult to convert many weapons to be fully automatic yet that hasn't been a problem. The same states that allow automatic weapons also usually allow silencers as well (same registration and $200 fee required).

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[BitZtream]

Perhaps he's not the one with problems, maybe its you.

  You clearly don't have any issues telling the world who you are, and that you think your son needs to see a shrink.

While its possible he may have issue, I'd be more willing to be his parents are the ones with issues since you don't even have the common sense not to advertise that fact on a public website.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[UpnAtom]

Actually, we'd be best off abolishing psychiatry and starting again.

Or the same improvement might be seen by banning any psychiatric medicine which fails to outperform placebo by 10% ie all of it.

Note, I'm a psychotherapist with a success rate at least 40% above placebo.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[UpnAtom]

Someone mod this post up.

Others have mentioned that Aspergers has been removed from DSM V. This is irrelevant. DSM is like trying to describe a painting by doing a reverse painting-by-numbers and then averaging the number. Conditions still exist whether properly accounted for in DSM or not.

I did want to point out that if he actually got diagnosed then presumably a shrink missed this homicidal tendency.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Elvis77]

Well said my friend

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[belmolis]

Heck, he may well have been a Slashdot editor.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[tsa]

He was not a diagnosed aspie. As far as I understand it from the newspapers, some of the people who were close to him said that he may have had Asperger syndrome because he acted so weirdly. But with a mother like that and no real friends, who would have made him go to the hospital to be tested?

Jefferson disagreed with your interpretation

[UpnAtom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

Although I believe this to be a perversion of the US constitution...

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[cpricejones]

There is an article in slate written by a parent of a child with Asperger's (now autism) expressing the same sentiments that the condition has nothing to do with the motivation for shooting. ( http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/12/17/asperger_s_and_newtown_school_shooting_autistic_does_not_mean_violent.html )

mental health

[PurplePhase]

Please mod parent up!!

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[drkim]

Think how weird the rest of us feel knowing you're here.

Don't worry - I won't go on a murderous rampage 'cause that would ruin my /. karma rating.
(...or maybe it improves it, I'm not sure how the algorithm works.)

king fucker chicken

[Mana Mana]

>>>
The DSM was not concocted as part of a plot to lock people up. Its goal is to help. It may not, and that's why there's a DSM-6 already in the works.
>>>

All the guy needed was vitamins! Ask batshit crazy Tom Cruise---O! where is Jack Reacher, umm Ethan Hunt, amm Maverick, emm, Sly Stallone formulaics, imm, superstar actress movement #237:

Taking the audience on a Jungian journey into the collective unconscious by using the shadow as a metaphor for the primal self that gets repressed by the modern persona and also by using an underground setting and labyrinth office design to represent both the depths of the psyche and the dungeon-like isolation of our increasingly mechanistic society which prevents people from finding satisfying work or meaningful connections with others.

Re:Yeah well

[Tuoqui]

I dont know I'm sure theres been a few incidents of explosive diarrhea I'm sure but nothing they'd have had to land the plane over.

Guns don't kill people

[ko7]

... it is the effects caused by the impact of the bullets that kill people.

Snowboards kill one at a time

[mangu]

Perhaps you could use a snowboard to murder someone, but I don't know of any mass murder done with a snowboard.

If guns weren't widely available, people with mental disorders would be less likely to have access to them. If guns with high capacity weren't available to the general public, there would be much less probability of mass murders being committed.

Want to have fun with guns? What is exactly that you want to do that you cannot do with a .22 rimfire? Other than macho bragging, there's no need at all for a civilian to have access to guns that shoot military ammo.

Re: Snowboards kill one at a time

[skitchen8]

Bird hunting would be awful hard with a .22. Maybe you're a better shot than I, but I would much prefer a 12 gauge with bird shot. The exact point here is that what is useful to you shouldn't affect what I can and cannot do, my wants and needs may differ. It seems a bit ironic to me that on a site where people are so worried that the government may see words they type in a search engine that they also are so okay with taking an actual constitutional right away.

Re: Snowboards kill one at a time

[mangu]

It may be a constitutional right, according to some interpretations, but no one can deny that the way it is being applied is the main cause of these recurring massacres.

Assuming it IS a constitutional right, then a VERY strict check should be done to keep those guns away from deranged people. A guy who goes shooting people at random is not a member of "a well regulated militia".

Anyhow, "the right to keep and bear arms" does not specify which arms. Under the current interpretations, there are lots of weapons that are not allowed for civilian use. A common citizen certainly cannot have a nuclear weapon, it's just a matter of where to draw the line.

As for being hard to hit a bird with a .22, isn't how difficult it is part of the fun? If you want it easy, go get your birds at the supermarket.

Re: Snowboards kill one at a time

[skitchen8]

According to the interpretations that our current laws are based off of I have the right to own a gun. This interpretation has stood for longer than either of us have been alive, and though you may interpret it differently you are not the one that gets to make the laws. Also, have you ever gone bird hunting? I don't know many people that could shoot a flying bird out of the air with a 22, and I know a lot of people that shoot a lot of rounds. Anyways, I don't much like bird so the only birds I shoot at are made of clay, and they are plenty challenging enough for me to hit with birdshot.

Re:Snowboards kill one at a time

[fredgiblet]

You are aware that hunting rifles are far more powerful than military weapons rights? Other than snipers militaries pretty much exclusively issue weapons chambered for intermediate cartridges, which is to say intermediate between pistols and full power rifle rounds. Back in the day full-power rifles used to be issued, but that's not what we're dealing with now.

Check the energy in the "ballistic performance" box on the right side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56mm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06

Re: Snowboards kill one at a time

[fredgiblet]

"the main cause of these recurring massacres."

lolno, the main cause is a culture that glorifies crime and criminals (intentionally and unintentionally) and that that doesn't provide support for people who need it.

"Anyhow, "the right to keep and bear arms" does not specify which arms."
Right, it doesn't, because it's not supposed to be limited. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is national defense and protection from tyranny, that requires heavy firepower. Private citizens could own cannons in that timeframe.

Re:Mossad false flag

[SecurityTheatre]

According to what I read, he was shooting them point-blank with a high power rifle and likely using hollow point rounds.

Almost nobody survives this. Those who did were likely not shot directly themselves...

Just food for thought.

Re:Every time some tool/artifact is used for a cri

[FhnuZoag]

Banning the police from using guns would be a good idea in the long term, and would be much easier if the public doesn't have them.

So, what's the moral of your story?

[postermmxvicom]

And left wingers believe that prohibition will stop guns yet they preach to us that it doesn't stop marijuana...

So, what's the moral? Politicians on both sides speak out of both sides of their mouths and are masters of hypocrisy and stirring up their base against the "evil" other side...

Citation please?

[sacrilicious]

Tell it to the person in Milwaukee who, on November 21, used his carry weapon to defend himself in a hair salon. Two men knocked, were let in by a customer, then one of the men pulled a gun and aimed it at the customer, who knocked it away and then used his own gun to kill his attacker and wound the attacker's accomplice.

When I search for news of the above, I get an October (rather than November) 21st incident at the Azana Salon in Milwaukee. Of the several articles I read, not a single one mentions a customer having a gun or the heroics you mention. Would you please indicate the source of your information so that I don't have to wonder whether my search is of or your retelling is, um, overly enthusiastic?

Re:Citation please?

[medcalf]

Wikipedia's list of defensive gun uses. Granted, I didn't double-check the info with other sources. I chose those two specific incidents because I remember having heard about them at the time.

Re:There is such a thing as combined responsibilit

[Talderas]

A ban on even semi-automatic weapons doesn't really help. Mass murders (4+ murders as a single event) have been around for awhile and 1900 to 1999 saw 909 instances including the 1966 Whitman tower sniper incident. That incident would have still been a mass murder without access to the semi-automatic Garand he used in the tower. He had bludgeoned and knife killed two people and used a shotgun to kill at least two other prior to getting up in the tower. However, without the Garand he would have still had the bolt action rifles accessible to him to commit the act with and the casualty count probably would not have deviated very much. In fact it might have been even higher since armed civilian Texans firing back at him forced him to seek cover and significantly reduce his angle of fire and with a ban they likely would not have had guns to perform such response early on.

Re:You're assuming it's a burglar

[cayenne8]

I strongly suspect a gun owner is considerably more likely to accidentally shoot themselves or a member of their family than they are to successfully ward off a rapist.

I'm guessing you don't live in the US, so it really isn't much your problem or decision, is it?

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[thoromyr]

Interestingly, you haven't seen any reliable studies that conclusively say that they can. If you actually care about the subject it isn't that hard to educate yourself (hint for the search impaired: peter gutmann).

Unreadable sectors... hmm... and somehow you want it *proven* that someone will have difficulty reading that?

Remapped sectors -- oh, you mean the ones that the drives firmware won't allow you to read?

Etc. -- couldn't think of anything else?

I did leave some raisable points unanswered, but that is where educating yourself comes in.

Look, if you have an SSD then physical destruction is going to be a better bet than using a single pass with zeros, but even then it requires someone with equipment and knowledge. Spinning magnetic platters are easy to render unusable (the single wipe, but be sure to confirm that it actually completed) unless someone trots out a floppy or MFM/RLL encoded drive (I have one, btw, but not many people have use for a drive with a capacity of 40MB...)

Re:No online footprint?

[Methuseus]

I know you most likely enjoyed watching Babylon 5, but that takes little research.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Someone brighter than they are might have invented it as a joke. From a layman's view, everything from 010101 to a high-level text-based script like html might as well be the same damned ancient runes of the gods.

Re:No online footprint?

[linuxrunner]

You live in the UK, you're married, and enjoy cycling (or at least used too).

You work with computers/programming and by the looks, you're pretty good at it.

You're probably writing this from your Asus Transformer, and you also know a thing or two about astronomy.

I could keep going, but I'm bored (but I was bored and why I started this endeavor) and starting to feel like a stalker.

Good day sir!

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Or maybe he had embarrassing porn and wanted to maintain his clean image.

No, YOU are wrong on several counts, my friend ...

[King_TJ]

1. Aspergers is merely the very mildest form of autism on the spectrum. MANY people are diagnosed with it, and clinically, all it really means is that they have some difficulties interpreting non-verbal forms of communications (not likely to get the fact that someone just told a joke if the only clue given is a wink or a nod, for example), and they're likely to become fixated on specific topics or items of interest more than most people would. There's a whole list of other possible symptoms Aspergers people may or may not have, such as a heightened sensory response (tags on the back of clothing items annoying them and the like), too. But it's crazy to think this would flag a person as "potentially dangerous".

2. If you're a family who shoots guns, why wouldn't you want to teach all the family members what it's about? We've got so many people today who live in urban or suburban settings, who never learn the first thing about gun safety.... They often wind up being the ones who finally get ahold of somebody's gun at a party while everyone's been drinking, mis-handle it, and accidentally shoot themselves or others. Better to be familiar with a gun and how it's PROPERLY handled and used, IMO.

3. As others said, the guy was 20 years old ... No longer a minor and only a year or less away from being considered an "adult" in society. We really don't know that the guns weren't properly secured anyway? He very well might have bypassed the security.

Re:No online footprint?

[linuxrunner]

Ok, last bit... I got your gmail. Starts with a V and ends with a Y and is two words.

Ok... one more search, and I think I finally found you. Your name is Chris. Have your last name too, but not posting it.

Good job though, that was hard. I'm a bit too net savvy, so please understand not too many people can do what I just did, but with enough cross referencing I could do it.

PM me if you want to know how I did it specifically and I can point you to the places you could have fixed so someone can't do what I just did.

Re:No, YOU are wrong on several counts, my friend

[ahabswhale]

Aspergers was the least of his issues. Supposedly he had problems even feeling empathy for others. He simply didn't belong around firearms.

His family didn't shoot guns. His mother bought the guns to take him out and teach him responsibility. The kid had great pride in his knowledge of proper firearms handling.

Sorry but 20 year olds are still kids in my book. They don't know shit.

Finally, the fact that he shot up a school pretty much proves I'm right. Feel free to keep arguing though.

Re:No online footprint?

[linuxrunner]

May have jumped the gun with your name... but either way, I'm done.

Right or wrong, I'm no longer bored...

Groups of nutballs

[phorm]

The only concern I would have around this would be if he wasn't alone. Sometimes nutballs band together. While it's hard enough to imagine one sick person who would take a gun to a school full of kids, it's not impossible (though highly unlikely) to be part of something larger.

Certainly it wouldn't hurt to know more about the events that led up to the shooting.

Re:Groups of nutballs

[ILongForDarkness]

I agree. But there seems to be a tendency to try to find a reason for the unreasonable. Sure he killed a bunch of people but did you know his dad beat him? Oh he's a rapist but he was abused as a child. While environment can be correlated (and even somewhat causal) to behaviours at some level the fact that some people run to a church or group counseling session where as others become nutjobs seems to me to imply that at some level individuals maintain responsibility for their actions.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Cederic]

Sorry, you think DSM has even the most remote connection to real-world mental issues?

Shit, every person on the planet falls under at least one of the 'sexual disorders'. (I fall under several, but that's a topic for another day).

Oh look, I can find evidence on the matter too: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autistic-spectrum-disorder/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[codeAlDente]

Asperger's was not exactly eliminated from the DSM-V. Its diagnosis criteria were simply lumped into the category of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Many functional slashdotters would be diagnosed with this disease, and perhaps even medicated. How do you know that over-medicating kids isn't the main driver behind actions like these? Sure, psychiatrists are trying to help, but the fact that they're just beginning to explore a difficult new field should scream "HEY, they don't understand the systems they're pharmacologically manipulating, and their actions are quite possible doing kids and society lots of harm!" This is not how science works. It's how fishing works. They didn't catch a fish with their Asperger's lure, so they made up another ad hoc classification which will surely be changed again, probably to be treated with a different cocktail of drugs whose actions are minimally understood, but provide plenty of profit for pharmaceutical companies.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Machtyn]

I'd say, to the general public, "Uses the computer without complaining about it" == "Computer Genius".

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[jfengel]

There are drugs that genuinely outperform placebo, even if there's also a lot of horseshit in psychiatry. Intellectually, I'd love to see us scrap it all and start over, but that would make a lot of people miserable.

Medicine in general suffers from that problem. It is fantastic in certain areas, and helpless in others. Even some of what is genuinely helpful is poorly grounded. To deprive people of what works just because we don't know why might be intellectually honest but it would also cause unnecessary suffering.

So we continue to paint the car (and rebuild the engine) while drive 90 MPH down a twisty highway. You seem to be on the helpful side, so keep at it.

Re:Yeah well

[Muad'Dave]

The USA banned automatic rifles in 1934, and they have been illegal ever since.

It would be more accurate to say that the federal government put very tight restrictions on the ownership of fully-automatic weapons.

Re:Yeah well

[camperdave]

Again, they serve beverages on planes. No need to carry your own. Besides, you can last three days without water. A typical flight is less than half a day.

PICTURES: 20 children among 28 Victims of Connecti

[celestobuzz]

PICTURES: 20 children among 28 Victims of Connecticut Shooting http://celestonews.com/news/pictures-20-children-among-28-victims-of-connecticut-shooting/4951.html

Blizzard??

[ganjadude]

hey now, there are plenty of GOOD reasons to attack Blizzard these days

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[ganjadude]

destroying it is one option, but why leave the drive home? if you REALLY wanna make sure its unrecoverable, overwrite, Destroy, and bury

Re:There is such a thing as combined responsibilit

[UpnAtom]

I'm no expert but it's clear that auto and semi-auto weapons are far easier to mass kill with, especially for someone untrained.

They'd also be marginally better for defending the US from its own govt, although that really isn't much of a threat with your constitution.

Also highly amused I was modded down -1 Troll.

Re:There is such a thing as combined responsibilit

[UpnAtom]

Your list just shows that there are thousands of causes for every action, albeit of decreasing significance.

Blame is just vengeance/deterrence. With vengeance it almost doesn't matter who you aim blame at. With deterrence, everyone should think about the consequences of their actions, therefore blaming a single person is stupid.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[UpnAtom]

There are drugs that genuinely outperform placebo

There are drugs that genuinely outperform placebo

I might be a bit overzealous with setting the bar at 'beating placebo by 10%'.

I figure though, once you've run the experiment 4 times to get your first positive result, made absolutely sure the patients know what they're taking, run a 'placebo washout' etc, beating placebo by 10% pretty much means your drug is a placebo.

it would also cause unnecessary suffering.

Agree however, there is an immense amount of suffering in healthcare already. It's possible that SSRIs were implicated in this shooting -- they certainly have been in others. In the long term, it would greatly reduce suffering.

So we continue to paint the car (and rebuild the engine) while drive 90 MPH down a twisty highway. You seem to be on the helpful side, so keep at it.

I really like your metaphor. It's the way I've thought of it for a long time.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Dabido]

paranoid

Says the anonymous coward ... not that I have a problem with that .... just sayin'. :-)

Re:Yeah well

[Algae_94]

The North Hollywood bank robbery / shootout did involve fully automatic weapons. They were illegally modified, but they were fully automatic. Just pointing that out. I, like you, would like people to actually familiarize themselves with how guns operate before jumping to conclusions and use the wrong terms.

Re:Yeah well

[cavebison]

TSA banned liquids and gels in more than small quantities, and since then, there have been no incidents of liquid-based explosions on US aircraft.

Were there any liquid explosive before the ban? If not, then you have no point. I assumed you were being amusingly sarcastic, not Insightful.

Re:No data trail?

[3seas]

state a fact and ask a question and get rated troll.... Well this certainly shows the political bias of Slashdot. So the paid online data manipulating israeli's are here too... as has been noted about wikipedia editing.

Hard Disk?

[ptkdb]

He smashed the computer... Ok... what does that mean exactly? To some it could just mean that the monitor or case is cracked. Unless he smashed the disk drive(s), taking care to thoroughly fragment the platters or going so far as to bake it in the oven(500F for 1 hour), throw it in the fireplace or subject it to a good strong magnetic field data could still be recovered

Re:Well, yes.

[Paracelcus]

I was being SARCASTIC, I reall was not suggesting that the police be banned!

Re: Crowd sourcing the online investigation

[Halotron1]

Who knows, he may even have had a slashdot account.

Of course he left a trail somewhere.

I'd say there's a pretty good chance he did have an account on slashdot. Or 4chan. Or reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Google+
SOMETHING that he used pretty regularly.

1337 h4xorz these days don't spend much time just messing around with their computer, they're all over the interw3bz.
Even the anonymous and lulzsec guys screw up sometimes and connect to their IRC channels without TOR.

The thing I'm wondering is, are the high and mighty gods of the tubes off scouring their own records for anything that looks like L4nzAd92?

And if they find it, would they offer it up to the cops, or seriously scrub the crap out of their data
so it was gone forever and they didn't get the big scary government breaking down their doors demanding copies of their backups?

If the po-pos released technical information like IP address, any usernames or emails he discovered,
I have to believe the internet geek squad would be hella fast at digging up all the online traces.

Re:Editors

[cbiltcliffe]

Somebody set up us the bomb!

Evil, truly evil

[nerdpocalypse]

He smashed a young, innocent hard drive that was no harm to anyone ! Is there no end to his evil ?!? To think of the future that hard drive could have had...... the first novel, the first porn download, the first person shooter...... uh.... nevermind