I have had it with this.

[Maze1125]

Why are we shifting the blame onto inanimate objects again?

I'm a bit confused. A firearm is as much an accomplice to a murder as a car is to a speeding ticket.

Solution to speeding problem = ban all cars?

Would that not solve the problem? I'm fairly sure it would. If you get rid of cars then you do get rid of speeding.
The issue, however, is that cars are a vital part of millions of people's lives.

Guns, on the other hand, are not a vital part of millions of lives, and so can be banned without the same issues as banning cars.

 

[Maze1125]

Then again, you can look at switzerland to know less guns = less crime argument is bull because they have higher gun ownership rates and less crime.

a) No-one says that less guns = less crime. They say that less guns = less mass killings of 6-year-old children. Which is true.
b) What are the gun control laws of Switzerland? Do they only own hand-guns and hunting rifles? Or can they get hold of assault-rifles as easily as America?
c) So Switzerland has a low crime rate, you have absolutely no evidence that the crime rate wouldn't be even lower if they restricted guns further. (Although it probably wouldn't, as pointed out in (a) the point of gun control isn't to reduce crime, but to reduce the effectiveness as which if can be committed. A country with a low crime-rate doesn't need gun control as badly as one with a high-crime rate.)

 

[putowtin]

It's easier to blame something/one else than accept the blame yourself.

Goverments/Health Boards/Parents/Friends/Newspapers/Supposed "Experts" Have been doing it for years and will continue to do so because:

It's easier to blame something/one else than accept the blame yourself.

 

[Durzo_Blint]

I've been trying to ignore the internet, blogs, forums, etc all talking about Sandy Hook since a couple days after it happened. It all comes back to gun regulation, then you get all the idiots and the NRA saying that gun's are not to blame.

Probably because I'm from England and, (thankfully), have never seen a gun outside of military festivals in real life, but I really do not understand the rampant fervour and mania that American's have to cling to their guns and 2nd Amendment. Guns are not legal here. As a result, gun crime and related violence is minimised. It's really that simple.

Also, doesn't the 2nd Amendment say that guns should only be used for the good of a local militia? More to the point, why can't an Amendment ever be amended?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I thought you were gonna say "with this #$%& snakes on this "#$%& plane".
No, you're not alone. We've all had it.

 

[Oly J]

Okay, so, connecticut shootings again, we got people blaming everything from videogames to dark clothing.

Am I the only one who thinks this isn't even negotiable? I know, "You are never the only one" but please, reassure me.

Let's think about this. It was already known that the killer was not mentally stable, and nothing was done about this. Not only that, but the killer was allowed access to a gun.

So, let's see two things that leap out there. Mentally unsound and untreated. Given a gun.

Mental problems. Guns.

There is not much need, at least, not yet, to start looking for other reasons this happened. The reasons are right goddamn there.

AND YET. The press, the politicians, even members of the public who should know better, skipped right over the two obvious elements right there, to any other scapegoat they could find.

I just...can't. I just can't. It feels like nobody's even considered it. It feels like everyone in the public eye has glazed right the fuck over those two elements like they weren't even there.

Now we have the possibility of more laws put on videogames while gun laws take a back seat.

Rant over. Topic: Why has everyone ignored these two factors?

You need to pare your list down one more: Untreated mental problems. Guns had nothing to do with it.

I think the problem was that a known mentally unstable person was allowed access to a gun not with guns themselves, whether you agree with owning guns or not I don't think there can be any argument against the fact that guns can, do and in this case, did get into the wrong hands

 

[Bestival]

I think that today's Penny Arcade sums up my feelings on this quite well:
"It is a very odd sort of Patriot that would destroy the First Amendment to protect the Second."

 

[spartan231490]

Okay, so, connecticut shootings again, we got people blaming everything from videogames to dark clothing.

Am I the only one who thinks this isn't even negotiable? I know, "You are never the only one" but please, reassure me.

Let's think about this. It was already known that the killer was not mentally stable, and nothing was done about this. Not only that, but the killer was allowed access to a gun.

So, let's see two things that leap out there. Mentally unsound and untreated. Given a gun.

Mental problems. Guns.

There is not much need, at least, not yet, to start looking for other reasons this happened. The reasons are right goddamn there.

AND YET. The press, the politicians, even members of the public who should know better, skipped right over the two obvious elements right there, to any other scapegoat they could find.

I just...can't. I just can't. It feels like nobody's even considered it. It feels like everyone in the public eye has glazed right the fuck over those two elements like they weren't even there.

Now we have the possibility of more laws put on videogames while gun laws take a back seat.

Rant over. Topic: Why has everyone ignored these two factors?

You need to pare your list down one more: Untreated mental problems. Guns had nothing to do with it.

I think the problem was that a known mentally unstable person was allowed access to a gun not with guns themselves, whether you agree with owning guns or not I don't think there can be any argument against the fact that guns can, do and in this case, did get into the wrong hands

They can, but this wasn't caused by guns. This was caused by the fact that someone who should have been institutionalized and under heavy observation was not. It's even worse because the reason he wasn't was probably due to the abysmal mental health system in this country, it's almost impossible to get someone institutionalized until they have served jail time. How fucked up is that?

 

[Nimzabaat]

Snip

They ignore these because there's nothing they can do about it. If somebody wanted a gun, they would find a way to get it with enough effort. It'd be like how Prohibition went along, only with more dangerous people and less awesome gangsters. There's nothing they can do about video games either, unless they can ban internet as well, but it's new and it's following isn't as crazy, despite how they want us to look.

Actually, every country that has restricted firearms has found that that... works. Somehow the United States is that one magical country where a tried and true method will somehow automatically fail.

More on topic: What games did Charles Manson play? Jeffrey Dahmer? Son of Sam? Were text-based adventures the root of all evil? Seriously they just blame whatever media is relevant at the time as a stalling tactic until people forget all about it.

Except many of those nations, while they have fewer firearm related deaths, have higher violent crime rates.

Then again, you can look at switzerland to know less guns = less crime argument is bull because they have higher gun ownership rates and less crime.

You're absolutely right. Changing the whole culture of the United States and adding universal health care (including mental health care) would go a long way towards solving the problem. Where would you start?

 

[Maze1125]

a) A lot of people say this, guns would lead to an end of violent crime, brutal muggings, murder ect. Which is not true.

Can you point out one single example where someone has done that?

b) Adults are issued assault rifles to keep in their home as they are part of a civil defense force. it is EASIER to get an assault rifle in switzerland than the United States.

Okay, cool. Well, as I said before, gun control is more important in counties with a high crime rate anyway.
If you can trust your entire population to not go and shoot up a school of 6 year-olds, then you can probably trust them with assault-rifles.
If, on the other hand, you can't trust everyone in the population, then you should probably put measures in place to stop the untrustworthy types from getting those guns.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Personally? I love my guns, I love my country, but I would make it a point to add a new license into the works, if you want to buy anything more concealable or high powered than a hunting shotgun you need to take a mandatory gun safety course, psych eval, and a few hours on a range, make this last 5 years before needing renewal, and reselling to someone without said licence is a criminal offense. And have this be at the purchasers expense.

That way the responsible gun owners can buy their guns, enjoy them, but it would help to alleviate the more tweaked individuals from getting their hands on them.

Beyond that the healthcare system needs a good reform so said tweaked individuals get the help they need before they snap, because no matter how hard guns are to get, those tweaked fellows WILL find a way to kill others if they want, hell you can make dome very potent pipebombs from home-depot and google.

A good thing to remember, is that a gun, like a hammer, knife, or bomb is an object, it has no will or actions of its own the thing that gives these things purpose and makes them a weapon or not is the mind which wields them. And it is important to make sure that the mind behind the tools is steady

That puts you in among the responsible gun owners. The problem is that there are others who would call such a license "restrictive" and "against their constitutional rights". Until those people come around to a more reasonable way of thinking, such as your own, there will continue to be problems.

As an aside; Please don't use the "gun is the same as any tool" defense. A gun is a weapon with only one purpose, to kill things (not necessarily people). It was not invented or designed to shoot cans, paper, balloons etc. It was not meant as a paperweight until someone picked one up and shot something by accident and discovered an all new use for it.

As an other aside; Anyone have any guesses on what the next "thing" will be? Today it's video games. It used to be rock music. I dunno what they thought set Jack the Ripper off, maybe "saucy literature"? So what could the next "we don't want to put the responsibility where it belongs so let's blame the current entertainment" thing be?