Bloomberg knocks it out of the park:

With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it’s still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. It has come to that. Not even kindergarteners learning their A,B,Cs are safe.

We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds. President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough.

We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever.

yeah, it has happened, a number of times.

It's almost like this guy doesn't understand how the US government works.

Is this supposed to be poignant or something? Because it's so dumb it's practically drooling, to paraphrase a quote from some smart 2p2er.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but did you really just take the PER CAPITA number of gun deaths in a bunch of different countries (all of which individually had a PER CAPITA rate that was much lower than the US) and add them together to try to prove that they have more gun deaths than the US???

The statistics from that Wiki are all on a per-capita basis. Therefore you can't add all of the other countries rate and compare to the U.S. You would want to take a weighted average of them by population. Which I have not done, but it will obviously come out lower than the US considering every single county I mentioned has a lower rate.

It matters because in this scenario the difference is irrelevant - this is a military weapon designed for war and now marketed as for protection (and to some weird degree hunting; and in a very legitimate way for rifle training and competitive shooting (which is awesome)). It uses fragmenting rounds to increase kill efficiency. The fact that he couldn't spray the classroom and instead had to pull-pull-pull seems to me completely irrelevant to the question of whether this is really just an assault rifle. If you want to define assault rifles as only selective and full auto (like Conn. does), I'm still accurate to say this is basically an M-16 that can't spray. Right?

EDIT: Which is to say, "essentially, the famous M-16."

Wynton's collection of quotes is probably the best post itt.

denmark's numbers were from before 2011

yes and no

LOL

Who the **** wouldn't? I'd rather read "zero killed in mass shooting".

You know what sort of countries get to read that headline like, EVERY DAY?

Maybe Europe has got those SUPER laws, wouldn't work here.

Like two pages ago I asked for these examples, or studies, or something. Show verifiable work.

Not a huge gun fan, but isn't it accurate to say that the AR-15 is essentially a semiautomatic version of an M-16?

Ya and how many times has a family member been accidentally shot instead? Or shot themselves? Probably a little more than "a number of times."

sweet, lets ban all guns

then we can read about how 30 are dead to a suicide bombing in a school

totally better

That's an exceptionally good point wynton.

Yes, that's the source of my frustration. See post above for full details.

It's a nippy way of saying the second amendment is outdated, so yeah, it's a pretty good tweet.

There's pretty much zero chance that someone writing up a constitution today would put a right to bear arms in there, let alone one as liberal as ours is interpreted.

I agree, there needs to be a change and some reaction.

BTW, I do think arming school teachers in the particular case of the US is a bad idea. The US public education system is really ****ed up and most of the people who end up getting jobs in it are probably too damaged both intellectually and emotionally to handle guns responsibly. That's a lot different, however, than saying that an armed population is inherently a bad thing.

I have no data of a(n intended) mass shooting stopped by a civilian with a weapon. I think 99% of the time any of these situations occur and someone does not duck/run away it is someone with police or military background as well. If you can supply some, I'd love it.

Yeah a schizophrenic nutjob can't make pancakes let alone a functional explosive vest.

That's only because some mod got rid of Goofball's post.

leave them to fend for themselves until they hurt someone then pay punish them by putting them in prison for years

I must have missed those headlines from countries with strict gun control?

Also, nobody is saying ban all guns. But when you guys get on your "lol if you make gun ownership a crime only criminals will have guns, checkmate LOL!" high horse, you might want to note that despite the clear logic in that slogan, countries with strict gun control have very little gun crime.

You're basically saying it's a machine gun, except it lacks the key aspect that differentiates a machine gun from a typical semi-automatic hunting rifle (the fully automatic part). Technically, that's true.

Similarly, a Honda Civic is the same as a NASCAR stock car--except it lacks an insanely powerful engine.

Ban guns if the goal is to have a lot less murders in 'murica. If that's not the goal, keep guns.