all 104 comments

[–]RHCPFunk2 18 points19 points ago

West Germany? This ad has to be pre-1989.

[–]Modus_Pwninz[!] 8 points9 points ago

Connecticut has pretty stringent guns laws, and apparently the guns were registered and all laws were followed. I've owned the guns the killer used and I didn't kill anyone with 'em.

The only way this would have not happened is if guns didn't exist. And then, people probably would've got stabbed instead.

People suck.

[–]Astrobrony 11 points12 points ago

Those other countries don't allow people to legally own and carry firearms; that's the point. The fact, if it is a fact, that whatever weapons were used in those killings were able to be legally owned is the whole problem. Also I'm about 99.999% certain that 27 people would not have died today if someone were forced to use a knife to do it.

But yes, people do suck.

[–]Modus_Pwninz[!] 3 points4 points ago

Is it the total number of people killed that matter, or is it the fact that people were killed period that matters?

If you think "Well, 5 dead from stabbing is more acceptable than 27 from a gun..." then you're missing the point entirely. The point is that people are going to die, because people suck. Some asshole will club someone to death with a screwdriver if he needs to, yet people like me could own a full-auto machine gun and all we'd do is shoot zombie targets and have a good time.

You can't bubble wrap the world...And if you did, some asshole would put it over your face to suffocate you with.

[–]iratusamuru -2 points-1 points ago

If you think you can force him to use a knife you are either exceptionally delusional or extremely uninformed.

The only way to prevent the facility of mass killings is for guns not to exist, and outlawing them for civilian use would not achieve this in any way, shape or form. All it would do is prevent law abiding citizens from owning them.

[–]Astrobrony 0 points1 point ago

If Modus is correct, then today's killer was a law abiding citizen. That means that the weaponry used in the crime was procured legally, and you cannot say with any reasonable certainty that the shooter would have been able, or even willing, to find and purchase the same weaponry through a black market. This is being a little dramatic, but one might even go as far as to say that it was the Bill of Rights that killed those people, almost as reasonably as you can blame the guns, or the shooter himself.

[–]iratusamuru -1 points0 points ago

That's an absurd dramatization and you even admit it.

Also the guns were stolen from a family member, and any investigation of the historical outcomes of severe gun control in violent areas should give you a clear explanation of why it isn't an effective measure in a world where the war industry is among the chief economic interests of nearly every weight-carrying nation on our planet.

I could go try to argue my interpretations of the facts, but then you'd have a potential antagonist to use to support your existing opinions, so I'm hoping you'll actually investigate this for yourself and reach your own conclusions, independent of what myself, other people, or anyone on the damn TV says.

[–]WTF_OMG 2 points3 points ago

I don't understand how you can claim that Connecticut's gun laws are stringent if the man owned (or had easy access to) a glock, a sig sauer, and an assault rifle. Maybe compared to the rest of the US they're stringent. Compared to civilized western countries it's fucking retarded.

[–]Modus_Pwninz[!] 0 points1 point ago

Even a felon can own an "assault rifle", even though it's illegal for them to. It's called B&E. Theft. Stealing.

His mom owned some guns, and he took them. Absolutely no law, ever, could stop theft of anything. Even guns.

Do you even know what a Glock or Sig Sauer is? I notice a lot of people pointing out their makes, which is absolutely irrelevant. It's like they don't even know what they are, but those words sound intimidating, so they name-drop. IIRC, it was a couple 9mm's and a 2.23 semi-auto rifle (which immediately makes it NOT an assault rifle - which is a full-auto weapon...MOST rifles are semi-autos...). I'm not even a gun person and even I've owned these (Glock 23C and a DPMS AR-15).

[–]WTF_OMG 0 points1 point ago

why do you own guns? to shoot intruders? to go to the gun range and feel like a man? to pose with them for pics on fb? to kill animals? to feel 'safe'? you're contributing to the culture of violence in the USA, congrats.

[–]Modus_Pwninz[!] -1 points0 points ago

why do you own guns?

I don't currently, but if I did, the answer to this would sufficiently be, "None of your fucking business."

to shoot intruders?

Condescending.

to...feel like a man?

Patronizing. And no, that's why I have sex with your mother. LOLOLOLOLZ!

to pose for pics on fb

Yes, because I am 12.

to feel safe?

Way to make it known that you're a sheltered suburbanite. I live in the cities and there have been plenty of times where I'd have felt a lot safer if I did have a gun. Despite what the media is current;y telling you, most violence happens on a small scale, every single day.

you're contributing to the blah blah blah violence blah blah blah guns, sarcastic congratulations blah.

When I owned guns, they were literally sitting under my bed in cases with trigger locks on them 98% of the time. The rest of the time, they were being cleaned or being used to shoot logs. OMG SO VIOLENT!!!!111one!11

[–]Kid81[S] 0 points1 point ago

In Australia. You simply can't own one. It doesn't happen

[–]JethroWashington 2 points3 points ago

in a town in texas, EVERYONE is required to own one. the crime rate is 0%.

[–]losian 2 points3 points ago

In a town in my butt every third person has one and they have 1.348% crime.

First off, you didn't really cite any sources or even name a town. Furthermore, if more guns = more safety, the US would be safer and things would be constantly prevented by gun-ownership, rather than caused by it, but that isn't what happens. The logic simply doesn't follow, sorry.

[–]Skydiver860 -1 points0 points ago

The problem that you don't seem to get is that a VAST MAJORITY of guns used in crimes were ones that were illegally obtained.

At this point in time, all stricter gun laws would do is prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns which would be used legally. The people who use the guns illegally will still be able to get them and the law abiding citizens will have no protection for themselves against those that break the law.

[–]checkmate1990 2 points3 points ago

The argument that having carry permits allows individuals to stop crime is really just a bunch of crap. Do you ever hear about these mass shooting incidents being stopped from a private citizen who was carrying their own firearm? No you don't

[–]Kid81[S] -4 points-3 points ago

If no one owned guns, they wouldn't be manufactured. No one would be shot

[–]milli521 1 point2 points ago

Ok here even if guns became illegal to own/purchase, I would still have to rub my magic fingers together while hopping on one foot, and count to three so the preexisting guns would disappear.

[–]aus_illak 1 point2 points ago

Ummmm, yes you can. You've just got to prove yourself to be a person of good character and have a legitimate reason for owning a handgun (and do the safety course, and give a copy of your fingerprints to the police, and be over 18 etc etc).

[–]redditmeastory 1 point2 points ago

I find it to be a culture thing. People in the US love guns (this is a generalisation obviously). The problem is when lots of people have guns, because the culture is to have guns. Then mentally unstable people have this access. Sure they may have had a knife, but knives are nowhere near as efficient as guns. Saying that, I don't think strict laws will fix the issue. I think a culture shift would be needed, and I don't think that will happen.

[–]Kbear52 4 points5 points ago

Agreed mate

Why can't they use deadly animals instead like us?

[–]Kevinmham 5 points6 points ago

I believe the problem with guns in America is easy access to guns. Everyone gets angry at someone else at one point. When someone breaks into your car you might say " oh, I would have LOVED to have caught them! I would ...... Blah blah blah". In most countries, where you cannot carry a gun, what would happen ? You might get in a fight, and maybe get an assult charge. But in America, when anger strikes, they have easy access to a gun. Without even thinking, bang. Lives are changed forever. You end up killing some dude for stealing your stereo. That makes you a fucking bigger loser than the thief! As for the people that say " knives and cars kill people, lets ban them as we'll"--- are you fucking retarded? If I drop a tv on you, you might die. Should we ban them too? Of course not. The people that can't understand the difference are the people that probably should not own guns. They are not smart enough for gun ownership. Until America can understand that owning a gun does not make you safe, they will continue to be plagued by insanely high murder by gun numbers. If the states are unwilling to look at EVERY other fucking country, and compare their own laws and ideas about guns, other nations will just sit back and say " I'm not surprised" every time a mass killing occurs. As for the " guns don't kill people, bullets do " and the " ...right to bare arms " morons--- fuck off, you are not helping the problem.

[–]Skydiver860 -1 points0 points ago

As i stated before, law abiding citizens who own guns NEVER use their guns in an illegal manner a VAST MAJORITY of the time. Most crimes committed with guns are done so with guns obtained illegally. So frankly, your point in the beginning is moot because it RARELY happens that way.

[–]Kid81[S] 0 points1 point ago

Nope. The fact that the gun ownership laws exist gives rise to the availability

[–]-Tom- 0 points1 point ago

Criminals will have guns whether theyre legal or not. Criminals would think twice about doing things if they thought the other person might be armed as well. Such as if banks allowed patrons to conceal carry inside.

Having been raised in a family that does hunting (not myself) and a few times a year does target shooting and clays, I really dont see the problem with guns. I dont personally have any but I am not opposed to them in any way.

One honest argument I have never seen the stats on (and I would LOVE to see these stats) are what percentage of gun crimes out there are done with legally procured guns? And someone breaking into your home and stealing your gun then using it in a crime is NOT legally procured. You procured it legally, the criminal did not.

[–]Kid81[S] 1 point2 points ago

Here here!

[–]ndboy 1 point2 points ago

West-Germany? How old 's that ad ?

[–]lozzobear 2 points3 points ago

Dernt terk mer gerns erwerrr.

[–]DogStew4U 2 points3 points ago

It's not the guns. It's the cultural and population difference.

[–]Kid81[S] 0 points1 point ago

Even deaths per capita, those are scary figures.

[–]I_Came_As_A_Roman 0 points1 point ago

It's not the guns that kill people, the person behind the gun is what kills people.

[–]Ihatewhenthathappens 0 points1 point ago

If someone with murder on their mind can't access a gun, they will find a knife, hammer, or whatever works.

[–]losian 2 points3 points ago

It seems far-fetched to think that one guy with a knife wouldn't have, at least, killed many fewer children. Furthermore, maybe someone could have wrestled or stopped him, rather than him getting to rampage with near impunity because he wields almost certain-death in his hand wildly.

How can people seriously argue that if he had a knife or something it'd be "as bad"? Come on. At least make some good, solid points based on fact or something else about gun control, not these lame points.

Edit: One study published in 2011 confirms this finding. The study, published in the Journal of Trauma -- Injury Infection & Critical Care, found that firearm homicide rates were 19.5 times higher in the U.S. than in 23 other "high income" countries studied, using 2003 data. Rates for other types of gun deaths were also higher in the U.S., but by somewhat smaller margins: 5.8 times higher for firearm suicides (even though overall suicide rates were 30 percent lower in the U.S.) and 5.2 times higher for unintentional firearm deaths.

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2011/01000/Homicide,_Suicide,_and_Unintentional_Firearm.35.aspx

[–]Ihatewhenthathappens 2 points3 points ago

Mass murder needs a mass murder tool. My knife comment only applies to small numbers. When people are sleeping, a knife would actually be to the advantage of the killer, they wouldn't wake their next victim with gun shot sounds.

[–]I_Came_As_A_Roman -1 points0 points ago

Exactly, gun control isn't going to stop a murderer, they will find some other way to do it, so don't blame the guns.

[–]checkmate1990 0 points1 point ago

The guns aren't to blame for the incident sure, but they are the only tool which can result in such an enormous amount of deaths in such a short period of time.

[–]redditmeastory 0 points1 point ago

I don't think people are blaming the guns themselves. Just that easy access to guns allows the people who are at fault to be more efficient and kill more people.

Sure they could get a knife, but they would not kill as many people.

[–]Ihatewhenthathappens 0 points1 point ago

In Canada, we have a lot of knife murders and attacks because guns are harder (but not impossible) to access.

[–]Catwatchone 2 points3 points ago

I read and believed in this until I read "Israel" stats. What a fucking pos bs. 58 people dead by guns in Israel who the fuck are you preaching this bull

[–]Kid81[S] -3 points-2 points ago

Pre war stats

[–]georgeo 0 points1 point ago

Well my dick feels bigger when I'm holding a gun and if that isn't worth 10k+ lives what is, right?

[–]cashinc 0 points1 point ago

Per Capita?

[–]InspectorVII 1 point2 points ago

Per Capita the USA still boasts a rate 4-5X the next highest per capital murder rate, which is Canada.

[–]ReasonOVERFaith 0 points1 point ago

As an American I just dont fully understand the rest of us. A lot of Americans make me sad to be called one. Others make me happy to be called one but its usually the negative ones you hear more of.

[–]redditmeastory 0 points1 point ago

Negativity sells, cash and all that.

[–]ReasonOVERFaith 0 points1 point ago

I hear FOX is REALLY good with that

[–]Chinchibeewaffo 0 points1 point ago

As an American, I don't get it either.

[–]ag03 -1 points0 points ago

Well time to get with of soons and forks cause bad cholesterol and plain out obesity kills how many people a year ? And as we all know that's the fault of the spoons and forks !

[–]dshman9 -1 points0 points ago

Its not the legal guns that are the problem. Its the illegally purchased ones used by gangs and criminals.

[–]1mistakecharly 1 point2 points ago

Culture of violence

[–]SaigaExpress -1 points0 points ago

Its not the guns its the people. Understand?

[–]Kid81[S] 0 points1 point ago

20 children died. The majority of you would rather defend your right to a gun whilst offering no solutions than express any concern. I have no words to describe how bad I feel for those families. More so living in America where people are more prepared to defend their gun ownership than a child's life.

[–]Kid81[S] 0 points1 point ago

The following are facts compiled by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post

What follows here isn't a policy agenda. It's simply a set of facts - many of which complicate a search for easy answers - that should inform the discussion that America desperately needs to have.

  1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the US. Mother Jones (Website) has tracked and mapped every shooting spree in the past three decades. ''Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii,'' they found. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally.

  2. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the past 50 years happened in the US. In second place is Finland, with two entries.

  3. Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland. As David Lamp from the Cato Institute writes, ''In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a licence to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel 'have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States'.''

  4. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened since 2006. That doesn't include the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting.

  5. America is an unusually violent country. But it's not as violent as it used to be. Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, in July made a graph of ''deaths due to assault'' in the US and other developed countries. The US is a clear outlier, with rates well above other countries. As Healy writes, ''The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the US is than other OECD countries … and (2) the degree of change - and recently, decline - there has been in the US.''

  6. Gun ownership in the US is declining. ''For all the attention given to America's culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,'' political scientist Patrick Egan, of New York University, wrote in July. ''Long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the US.''

  7. More guns tend to mean more homicide. The Harvard Injury Control Research Centre assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.

  8. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. Last year, economist Richard Florida dived deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

  9. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular in the US. Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don't. ''The percentage in favour of making the laws governing the sale of firearms 'more strict' fell from 78 per cent in 1990 to 62 per cent in 1995, and 51 per cent in 2007,'' Gallup reported after a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, last year. ''In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44 per cent in favour of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.''

  10. But particular policies to control guns often are. An August CNN poll asked Americans whether they favour or oppose a number of specific policies to restrict gun ownership. And when you drill down to that level, many policies, including banning the manufacture and possession of semi-automatic rifles, are popular. About 90 per cent support background checks and no guns for felons or the mentally ill.

  11. Shootings don't tend to substantially affect the views of Americans on gun control. That, at least, is what the Pew Research Centre found in a poll taken after the Colorado movie theatre shooting in July that killed 12.

[–]cmeremoonpi -1 points0 points ago

As an american, I don't get it.

[–]hunnybunn24 -1 points0 points ago

yea and a fork made me fat :(

[–]dont_be_a_buscuit -1 points0 points ago

You are totally right. Guns are absolutely what kill people. Except that even with a first world economy and access to guns, we don't even come close to the intentional homicidal rate of the other areas of the world.

Also, if you are an aussie, why in the world are you commenting on the United States. What we do is of no consequence to you.

Also, 100x more people were killed with two airplanes and a couple of skyscrapers. So no more air travel and multiple story buildings?

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

[–]2tonne21 1 point2 points ago

Assuming you're American, you're treading some dangerous ground saying countries shouldn't get involved in the affairs of others.

[–]SaigaExpress 0 points1 point ago

Because Americans took a vote on if we should get into other countries issues. We do it once a month man its all the peoples fault.

[–]2tonne21 0 points1 point ago

Relax, I'm an American too. Just trying to keep everyone civil.

[–]dont_be_a_buscuit 0 points1 point ago

Other countries should be involved in what laws we set for our sovereign nation?

Edit: i suck at words....

[–]2tonne21 1 point2 points ago

Not trying to say that, I'm just saying we've already got our hands in everyone else's business, trying to tell people to stay out of ours is a little insulting.

[–]dont_be_a_buscuit 1 point2 points ago

I understand what you are saying. I appreciate the idea and agree that hypocrisy is the fast lane to no credibility and ill will.

However, arguing about America's foreign policy is also a waste of time. Our politicians have consistently overstepped their bounds and inserted themselves in places they weren't invited.

With all of that being said, America hands out a ton of foreign aid and military assistance. If anyone has earned the right to influence other nations, it's America.

So speaking as a citizen of the United States, it logical for me to be annoyed at a non citizen criticizing a law that isn't the issue. Blaming guns for shootings is like blaming cars for crashes. Under the logic being used, we should ban of everything that could pose a threat.

[–]2tonne21 1 point2 points ago

You're right, I was oversimplifying the issue. I guess all I'm trying to say is when innocent people are dying nationality shouldn't be a reason to ignore it.

[–]dont_be_a_buscuit 1 point2 points ago

My wife and I just welcomed our first child in to the world. I can tell you that I value life more right now than I ever have.

My heart is broken for that community. I can't imagine what that entire area is feeling. That's the beauty of the United States though, I do feel like most people value life and how precious it is.

Thanks for being a great redditor and carrying on a good conversation. I hope you have a great weekend!

[–]2tonne21 1 point2 points ago

Thanks man, you too :)

[–]Kid81[S] -1 points0 points ago

I'm not comparing death methods. Just wondering why so many people die by guns every year. Americans are very complacent about it. Most of the comments on here are far more interested in comparing themselves to 2nd/3rd world countries and acts of terrorism in order to protect their right to own a gun. It scares me. That's all.

[–]Wehrwolf666 0 points1 point ago

Its not the guns its our society. Banning guns wouldn't help anything to the effect of the amount of violent deaths. The real thing to worry about in the good ole usa is the government.

[–]Ratchet_It 0 points1 point ago

idiots and how many people were killed by knives, clubs, your government, lack of medical care....on and on and on in your shitty little countries...

[–]corpsejelly -1 points0 points ago

Lets look at Mexico! Guns are very restrictive, and there were 11,000 firearm deaths in 2010.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico

[–]2tonne21 1 point2 points ago

That's a really low bar to set.

[–]Kid81[S] -2 points-1 points ago

Typical response. "yay 'Murica. We are better than Mexico!"

[–]corpsejelly 0 points1 point ago

Have I not made a decent argument? I never said we are better, simply stating facts.

[–]aquaxbat 1 point2 points ago

Someone sites a source to counter your belief and that's all you have as a rebuttal??

edit: extra word

[–]corpsejelly -1 points0 points ago

Ok Switzerland then, very lax on gun laws an they only had 40 gun murders.

[–]Kid81[S] -1 points0 points ago

Per head of population, they're right up the list with the USA. So no, you make a terrible point!

[–]milli521 2 points3 points ago

You are the supreme authority, everything you say must be right!!

you have a terrible case of narrow-mindedness

[–]milli521 1 point2 points ago

also the amount of deaths per capita is pretty different between switzerland and the US. The chances of dying from fire arms per se in the US is .003% and .00004% in Switzerland seems to be a pretty big difference

[–]corpsejelly 0 points1 point ago

No, it is not per person in pop. That is total...

[–]Kid81[S] -3 points-2 points ago

Looking at half these comments, I now understand the American psyche. I think I'm gonna skip Vegas and visit monaco.

[–]dont_be_a_buscuit 0 points1 point ago

Awesome! That's a great choice.

[–]michaelte88 -2 points-1 points ago

Guns do not kill people. It's the stupid fucks that do not have a fuckin life or are retarded and don't have any reason to have a gun in the first place, and it is irresponsible adults that allow this shit to happen. Gun control laws will not help this shit because its stupid fucks that give these bastards access to guns in the first place. If every RESPONSIBLE adult had a concealed weapon then this shit would never happen.

[–]darkdutchess04 -2 points-1 points ago

More Obama propaganda

[–]Kid81[S] 0 points1 point ago

Cos he was around in 1980!

[–]Zugwat 1 point2 points ago

Well he is in his 50's.

[–]robdudley -3 points-2 points ago

America will never ever get it. This will only get worse. Charlton Heston will hold a gun rally in that town next week

[–]proggieus 2 points3 points ago

he died in 2008

[–]derpturner 4 points5 points ago

To be fair zombie Charlton Heston in town next week would be a sign of things getting worse.