Just hold on a dang second here. Someone's gotta defend Chief

once in a while.

US liberal gun law is used as a cause of the killings this weekend. What was the cause of the Utøya massacre then? It was done in the LEAST gun liberal country in the world.

I've never been pro guns. But it got me thinking. This maniac was out on an island, with an automatic gun, shooting sitting duck. What if one or two of the adults out there had been armed and trained to use a gun?

a) Would ABB have taken the chance to start his killing spree?
b) Would he have managed to murder more than 60 kids before someone had planted a bullet in his chest?

if you limit access to multiple guns!

then again, if they want to argue about their 18th century constitutional rights then leave them to it, not our problem.

If anyone is claiming that liberal gun laws are the cause of the attack on the school, then they're delusional. However, they sure as hell exacerbate the problem.

But both sides on the argument in America are so f**king entrenched, it's impossible to have a reasoned argument. On one side - "all gunz are TEH EVVVVIILLLLLL" - on the other - "gun controls won't stop EVERY SINGLE SHOOTING therefore they have no use at all".

It's fairly clear that there are useful measures that can be introduced to partly address the problem here, but neither side will have any truck with anything other than total control or (practically) no control.

I was wondering this morning, after very nearly getting run over by a cyclist charging through a red light (this happens at least once a week) whether violent cycle crime of this nature could be reduced if the good citizens were allowed to carry guns.

guns based on what happened in the US work against you if you look at Utøya or other scandy massacres (Finland).

It happened once in a country with tight gun laws, therefore gun laws are useless.

FFS.

It happens where nutjobs want it to happen regardless of gun laws.

Maybe they should focus on other things to prevent this from happening.

would make a world of difference. But, again, this doesn't invalidate the point that better gun laws would help reduce the impact of these events when they happen.

There's been a number this week, not just the school massacre.

The second amendment indoctrinates gun culture in US society, along with 'libertarian values'.

its a mixture of the national US pscychie and the fact that the US pharmacutical drug co's are allowed to peddle mind bending addictive crap to kids and palm it off as being helpful when in fact it drives some kids more psycho

The guns are available so they pick those tools. Utøya showed that a reasonably intelligent nutcase would get hold of his tools anyway. So have several nasty incidents in Finland.

Do you know which kids get help in school? Those with adhd. Why? Because they bother other kids, they cause trouble in class and disturbance. The once they don't help are those who struggle in silence. But they know about them, they just don't care. And if the kid's parents are not extremely resourceful, the won't get any help.

I touched on it in another thread earlier, social inequality and changing demographics (and along with medicinal [or lack of] hindrance, as you say), have a major are the main causes of such irrational reaction.

China too is having the same problems due to what I mentioned above, IMO.

therefore healthy (including mentally healthy) citizens are all part of their standing army and most importantly c) they don't actually have any ammo, it's all held at special bases

But the problem is that Chief is a f**king muppet. He ets stick because he deserves it.

http://www.awimb.com/images/smiley_icons/smile.gif

Quote:

Prof. Joshua Miller, chair of Social Welfare Policy at Smith College, attributed the attacks to stress caused by "rapid social change, mass migrations, increasing disparities in wealth and weakening of traditions."[23] Some sociologists believe some of these attacks may due to the PRC government's failure to diagnose and treat mental illness.[14] The perpetrators may feel victimized by stress due to the rapid social changes[14] in China during the last 10 years caused by the privatization and decreased social security of China's reform and opening period. During this time, more and more migrant workers from rural areas have moved to cities such as Shanghai to find jobs. However because they do not have social security (because of the hukou system), many of them do not have health insurance. Because of the financial crisis of 2007–2010, some have lost their jobs, which is stigmatized in China, and have had to return to their native villages jobless and unemployed. The choice of schools for most of the attacks means they could be copycat crimes.[14][23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010 %E2%80%932011%29

during the massacre down the road. It got me thinking. Me, a rational anti-gun person, started getting irrational. Like thinking, what would I have done if my kid was out there? I think I would have wanted to have a long range rifle and a fast boat.

who are100% against government spending money on people. It would be Big Government to ensure that all mental health needs are met. Look at their hysteria over Obamacare which merely states that everyone has to have some insurance.

The pro gun people are living in fantasyland and the sooner our country starts ignoring them the sooner we return to sanity.

Yes, we allowed gun ownership in the 50s 60's 70's when the US was the envy of the world - but we also provided health care to most. Reagan closed all the mental health hospitals - creating our homelessness problem, but saving rich people a few bucks.

As with everything, if you don't invest in it, you can't complain if it doesn't work.

sort of lays waste to any reasoned argument you may have. In fact these sort of attacks seem to be all you have.

just that blaming an inanimate object seems rather silly. Almost as delusional as blaming law abiding citizens that own guns for this atrocity.

Your MSNBC provided stereotypes don't fit, son.