Who the **** knows? He shot 20 five year olds. We're not talking about a rational person here.

Please give some details on your plan to get rid of all guns in the US...

cop inflicted suicide isn't exactly hard, is it? point weapon at officer, toe tag

Yes I have trouble following your arguments. It's certainly one of our faults.

Yes AINEC

tbh i think so. i think the idea of deterrents against people who have had a break from reality is laughable.

i also think if there were armed teachers he would have been shot.

Disinfo agent detected.

It's obvious that this shooting is the result of lack of gun control.

Anyone who knew the shooter knew that he was a ticking time bomb. That he was allowed to purchase guns is a complete failure of the system.

Well, we all know Paul Ryan can run a 1 minute mile, so maybe we send him door to door all across the country...

You think I'm just going to give away my Marxist plans? Think again.

Also "ban" =! "get rid of"

Just gonna say two things:

1. Regardless of whether these depraved psychopaths would have committed violence against children in some other manner if they did not have access to guns, the ease with which they were able to do so with such a tragic body count is the result of easy access to guns (whether illegally or otherwise) and of the "efficiency" - I feel like throwing up - of guns. I cannot think of another implement so deadly and readily available. Maybe a sword could result in the same body count, but carrying a sword is a pretty clear indication that something is about to go down. Also, have fun finding a sword. And wielding it. And concealing it until you wield it. None of that is difficult with a handgun.

2. Until someone demonstrates with some study, or statistic, or set of empirical examples, that higher gun:citizen ratios equate to prevention of violent outbursts, or that regular citizens who are armed with pistols have historically been capable of preventing gun violence around them, or that armed societies are more peaceful than unarmed societies, or that there in fact IS a deterrent effect where it is known that other citizens also have weapons (in particular, where other citizens possess handguns), I'm going to have a hard time resting my trust in the deterrent effect of the proliferation of guns to the citizenry on the theory that more guns equates with effective prevention of gun violence.

If such studies do exist, I am not aware of them. If discrete examples of violence prevention by armed citizens exist, which they surely do (I think I'm aware of exactly one), they seem extremely rare. If the argument really is just a hypothesis that there would be EVEN MORE violent outbursts if only criminals possessed guns, that needs to be acknowledged to be a hypothesis in the back and forth.

Correspondingly, I conclude from the above that the deterrence argument requires evidence. I'm hoping someone can actually provide such evidence, instead of arguing that gun owners deter violent criminality by virtue of owning guns without demonstrating why that's true.

Put differently, I reject the hypothetical. Show me that you're right instead of asking me to participate in a heuristic that requires me to share your hypotheses about criminal incentive, criminal behavior, gun owner aptitude, and what I'll call "natural deterrence."

Note: this post has nothing to do with the Constitution

EDIT: And of course, knowing that the weapon used was apparently an M4A1 or derivative thereof (which are not used for hunting), I'd also be interested in seeing the likelihood of deterrence of assault weapon violence by virtue of owning a glock.

EDIT2: Re: EDIT1, apparently we actually don't know that it was an M4 or derivative rifle, only that it was a .223 caliber rifle. I'm not well versed but that is a stopping-force fragmentation design. Meaning it does not pass through a person (probably). Meaning death, obviously. Meaning the ammunition is surely marketed for armed use and, since that is not applicable to the public, also marketed and sold to the public as a home or self-defense ammunition. There's a gun control argument here, but I'll let someone else make it (it starts with "the ammunition used is designed for protection -> dead kids").

24 tho

I have to say, the Dark Knight shooter was more likeable.

Can we just please give everyone a gun already!

Considering his mom was one of the victims, uh, yes.

Listen, pvn. Just give it up for now .You can advocate your horrible political views with ******ed analogies and terrible logic some other day. Please.

Case Closed: empathizes with those who commit the most abhorrent crimes imaginable, but not law-abiding citizens who want to own guns for protection.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: a liberal.

Can anyone explain why he used a gun and not a knife to kill these children people?

I own guns but jesus christ something needs to be done to make it more difficult to get one. When will this **** end?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

This is an example of what I mean about the "hypothesis."

I don't know, pvn. If you do, tell us why. If you don't know either, this isn't an argument.

So should murder not be illegal, either? Did you think this through at all?

It's so weird how fringe liberals insist on policies that further enable criminals and punish innocents.

When was the last time a US citizen used a gun to defend him or herself against a tyrannical arm of the government?

When was the last time a US citizen used one to commit a brutal, senseless killing of an innocent child?

Time to wake the **** up gun folks.

Note: Colorado shooter was captured alive.

http://www.michronicleonline.com/ind...gh-legislature

May have already been posted ITT, but thought it was interesting that the Michigan legislature has been working on a bill this week that would make it easier to carry in schools, churches, and some otherwise currently verboten areas. It wouldn't allow for complete open carry (people who wanted to carry in those areas would have to get additional training and licenses). I haven't followed too closely, but this article made it sound like it had a decent chance at passage (at least as of yesterday).

So, (a) will/should oday's shooting make the bill more or less likely to pass and (b) should discussion of the bill be delayed to make sure that votes are not being changed based on the emotion of this event and to guarantee that the tragedy is not being politicized, or should the bill move forward as previously scheduled?

That's a random photo of an AR-15. We don't know what kind of guns he had. CNN is saying two handguns, but others say he had a rifle.