world

Gunman kills estranged wife teaching class in Calif, then himself; 8-year-old student also dies

105 Comments
By CHRISTOPHER WEBER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


  • Sort by
  • Oldest
  • Latest
  • Popular

105 Comments
Login to comment

It's not about who should have access to guns, it's about who SHOULD NOT.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

America: Where a Syrian family fleeing chemical weapon attacks is seen as more dangerous than an angry man with a gun going into a public school.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Another sad day and event in the American shooting gallery. 100 times more likely to be killed by gunshot than by a terrorist domestic or foreign.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

Where a Syrian family fleeing chemical weapon attacks is seen as more dangerous than an angry man with a gun going into a public school.

Testament to the effectiveness of creating enemies and constantly reminding people of their existence, real or imagined. Keeping fear alive keeps the war industries rich and does wonders for gun sales.

It's not about who should have access to guns, it's about who SHOULD NOT.

Bang on, but remember Trump and many members of Congress have been bought by the gun industry which wants to sell guns to anyone, even if they are on a terrorist watch list or emotionally unstable. The right-to-profit for the gun industry trumps overall safety.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

America: Where a Syrian family fleeing chemical weapon attacks is seen as more dangerous than an angry man with a gun going into a public school.

That's because the media is guileful and the public is gullible. More often than not, these school shooters, who are usually white, middle class, are cast as lone wolves, mentally disturbed, or coming off a domestic dispute--essentially a good person who diverted to the wrong path. On the other hand, if the perp is middle eastern, then he or she is cast as a terrorist; if they're black, a gangbanger.

Also, it's not so simple that it's just people are more afraid of Syrians; you're kidding yourself if you think middle eastern refugees don't arrive with a whole lot of religious baggage that clashes with countries they're fleeing to. Look up Somalian refugees in Maine and Minnesota, who, on welfare, demand halal food at the local food shelves, a community center for Muslims with separate pools for girls and boys--of course funded by the tax payer; Somalian taxi drivers refusing blind people with seeing eye dogs because dogs are considered filthy. So it's not so simple as you try to put it.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Thanks, NRA

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Another sad day and event in the American shooting gallery. 100 times more likely to be killed by gunshot than by a terrorist domestic or foreign.

I agree that peoples fear of terrorism is irrational and the counter measures are consuming way to much of a limited resource.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Sitting in a high school gym, waiting to see if your name is going to be called to be reunited with your child has got to be a real gut-wrencher.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Just get rid of the guns. How many more people have to die by these psychos before America finally gets it? Ban the poor refugees fleeing horror and yet every single yahoo can get a gun...

6 ( +7 / -1 )

These shooters shouldn't get "lone wolf" or "psycho" status; they need to be called what they are: terrorist. And the U.S. needs to adopt measures to safeguard against this brand of terrorism just like they do the middle eastern kind. That means banning guns. Guns should be banned as part of homeland security. Ban computers on planes, jackets and scarves in lines; why not guns in society?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If you want to live in a country that has easy access to guns, then school shootings will just be a regular part of life. And gun supporters are fine with that.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Don't know if I'd call him a terrorist. Seems like he was "just" trying to kill his wife but had bad aim. Not sure on the details though.

But the argument that these guys would kill whether or not they have a gun cracks me up (saw those comments on other sites already, and surely they will come here shortly). If he had a knife, at the very least an innocent student wouldn't have been killed and another critically injured. Its not even a given that the wife would have been killed since it would take more effort to kill with a knife and he might have had enough when he drew blood.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Thanks, NRA

So the NRA told these people to go on a shooting spree? If you want to live in a country that has easy access to guns, then school shootings will just be a regular part of life.

What a bunch of garbage. You're over generalizing.

And gun supporters are fine with that.

For the 2nd Amendment, without a doubt. Not with the shooting, terrible, terrible! My heart goes out to the families and deepest sympathies to them.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

If gun laws were tighter, you think the 8 year old would still be alive? Maybe the incident wouldn't have happened at a school and without a ballistic weapon.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If gun laws were tighter, you think the 8 year old would still be alive? Maybe the incident wouldn't have happened at a school and without a ballistic weapon.

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/0/10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

My heart goes out to the families and deepest sympathies to them.

But no, you're not willing to stop the next shooting, even if it's at your children's school, because you are too afraid to live without your gun.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Another day in 'Merica. The NRA will be touting this as a reason for nutters to buy even MORE guns.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Just get rid of the guns. How many more people have to die by these psychos before America finally gets it? Ban the poor refugees fleeing horror and yet every single yahoo can get a gun...

What if they do get it and they are OK with saying the human cost is acceptable?

If you want to live in a country that has easy access to guns, then school shootings will just be a regular part of life. And gun supporters are fine with that.

Lets say they are OK with it, then what?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

But no, you're not willing to stop the next shooting,

So I'm supposed to go door to door, check out and evaluate everyone's mental state and also check who has an unregistered firearm? Don't know about you, but I have to work for a living. I don't have that kind of time.

even if it's at your children's school, because you are too afraid to live without your gun.

I don't have to worry about that, my kids go to a private school.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Guns don't kill people....Bullets do. So, please ban the bullets, keep the guns. NRA loves the guns.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This is why gun control does not work. That young 8 year old would be home safe with his family. The second amendment was written around 1776 and does not apply or adapt to modern civilization.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

bass4funk: "check out and evaluate everyone's mental state and also check who has an unregistered firearm?"

WOuldn't need to do either if the US had sane gun laws. But as it is you support the chaos.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

USA, It's possible to live without guns, and still live a prosperous life. Ask other nations.

Unless you're a soldier going to a "real" war to fight for your country, there's no need to carry a gun.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

USA, It's possible to live without guns, and still live a prosperous life. Ask other nations.

That type of argument is not a very persuasive argument for Americans, mainly because a lot of Americans enjoy firearms.

Unless you're a soldier going to a "real" war to fight for your country, there's no need to carry a gun.

Need is irrelevant. Unless you are claiming that people should only be allowed in general to own things if they have a need for it then this really just comes off as an argument of I just don't approve of this therefore you should not be allowed to own it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"That type of argument is not a very persuasive argument for Americans, mainly because a lot of Americans enjoy firearms."

This is a real problem.

It's a very depraved vice which gets people killed.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

My heart goes out to the families and deepest sympathies to them.

We believe you, Donald

4 ( +4 / -0 )

WOuldn't need to do either if the US had sane gun laws. But as it is you support the chaos.

Let's try again, stay with me now, once more. We already do.

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/0/10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html

USA, It's possible to live without guns, and still live a prosperous life. Ask other nations.

It's possible to live without a PlayStation, it's possible to live without coffee, it's possible to live without a car, it's possible to live without eating meat, it's possible to live on 4 hours of sleep every day as well.

Unless you're a soldier going to a "real" war to fight for your country, there's no need to carry a gun.

That's your personal opinion.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

"It's possible to live without a PlayStation, it's possible to live without coffee, it's possible to live without a car, it's possible to live without eating meat, it's possible to live on 4 hours of sleep every day as well."

Bass, can you tell us why you love guns?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

can you tell us why you love guns?

Been hunting with my family since I was 6 years old. I love to hunt, it's a passion of mine, I don't think that's a bad thing, I can't kill a deer with a toothpick, right? I've always been around guns, my father was a collector and I had more than enough experience with them, I taught my kids how to use a rifle, but all in a very responsible manner, all licensed and all legal.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

250 million Americans are over 18 years. 300 million guns. 3% own 50%/150 million guns. The number of households owning guns declined from 50% in the 1970’s to 31% in 2014. According to the PEW Research Center the number of households with guns as increased to 44% in the past two years. The majority of Americans and households don’t own firearms.

“Super owners” 7.7 million Americans own between 8 to 140 guns each, average 17.

1999-2013 there have been about 464,033 gunshot deaths. There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This is why gun control does not work. That young 8 year old would be home safe with his family.

I'm not sure if that is a typo, as it doesn't seem to make sense. Seeing as America doesn't really have gun control (or at least, not what those from civilized countries would call gun control), how is this an argument for it not working?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"I can't kill a deer with a toothpick, right?"

It would be extremely difficult. That's why you use a gun. It's an extremely efficient and effective way to kill things. They were created for that very purpose. That's why police and soldiers carry them as opposed to toothpicks, shards of glass, knives or bows and arrows. If you want to kill things, guns are a very good choice.

Just bear that in mind the next time someone gets killed by one of these devices and ask why the person didn't choose a toothpick.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Thanks, Zichi

So 56% of American households don't have guns, suggesting most are not in favor of them. There's no Electoral College to dismiss this majority.

Of those who do have firearms, how many do so only because there are so many guns in society?

Perhaps @NoLiving (I see the Google Alert is still working a treat) could enlighten us?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

That type of argument is not a very persuasive argument for Americans, mainly because a lot of Americans enjoy firearms.

A lot of people enjoy heroin and cocaine as well - so would you agree they should also be made legal?

(disclaimer - I'm a hypocrite as I think guns shouldn't be legal, but all drugs should. I'm just seeing if there are hypocrites out there in the other direction).

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If only one of the kids had brought a gun (his dad's or granddad's for example) to school on this day, he/she would have taken the dude out (or tried to) before he shot the 2nd or 3rd person, possibly even without accidently killing one of his mates in the process! Bummer! (NRA's reasoning)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

bass's post sent a shiver down my spine, and definitely not in a good way.

I love to hunt, it's a passion of mine, I don't think that's a bad thing, I can't kill a deer with a toothpick, right?

There you have it. A sizable proportion of Americans (not all, but enough to stop sensible laws being passed) are passionate about killing things.

Ugh.

And for the sake of that passion, today a young child lies dead and another child lies seriously injured in hospital. All because a certain kind of American likes killing things.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

"Killing for Sport" is what mass killers are doing.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It would be extremely difficult. That's why you use a gun. It's an extremely efficient and effective way to kill things.

Very efficient. When in doubt, double tap.

They were created for that very purpose. That's why police and soldiers carry them as opposed to toothpicks, shards of glass, knives or bows and arrows. If you want to kill things, guns are a very good choice.

Exactly!

Just bear that in mind the next time someone gets killed by one of these devices and ask why the person didn't choose a toothpick.

Sad, but I'm not going to blame the gun itself.

There you have it. A sizable proportion of Americans (not all, but enough to stop sensible laws being passed) are passionate about killing things.

Sorry, Cleo if it disturbs you, but as I have always said, I don't hunt and leave the animal, what I hunt, I consume and in regards to certain animals, it's better to control their numbers, especially deer Wild boar, we have too many. I have a passion for eating good meat. I love meat, grilled, BBQ, Sauteed, any possible way of serving it up!

And for the sake of that passion, today a young child lies dead and another child lies seriously injured in hospital. All because a certain kind of American likes killing things.

Very tragic and hearbreaking, but that doesn't have anything to do with me or any other responsible gun owner.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

You can put as many laws as you want in place but criminals will always find ways to get guns

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

bass4funk: "Sad, but I'm not going to blame the gun itself."

True. You need to blame the stupidity of Americans, and the greed of the gun companies.

Anyway, wasn't there just another shooting in a sports gym today?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Just another average day in America... sad

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You can put as many laws as you want in place but criminals will always find ways to get guns

Not if the guns are removed too. How many were killed by gunshot last year in Japan? In many years in Japan its zero. Being killed by gunshot in Japan would be the same risk as being killed by lightning.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It's possible to live without a PlayStation, it's possible to live without coffee,

It's also possible to live without explosives, setting fire to things, and mixing dangerous chemicals. These things are criminalized and/or heavily regulated because they are dangerous, and those who have a "passion" for that kind of thing are considered insane.

But bass, given your passion, would you accept a ban on handguns, and a greater vetting process for those who want a rifle for hunting?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Gun laws are ridiculously tight in the UK, how many shootings or murders did we have last year? non. so its ok to have legally owned guns so long as it is tightly regulated. but as for the USA, we yet another shooting in a school, and they say it does not need regulating, wow how crass is that statement? but trying now to enforce things it is like trying to cure terminal cancer, you can't its ingrained in this case, society. unless the president envokes new laws to regulate, slow down the sale of guns or rifles sales, I am sorry but you will read every week on the news about innocent children and adults being murdered.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Very tragic and hearbreaking, but that doesn't have anything to do with me

Of course it does. If it weren't for the Americans with a passion for killing who demand their Secun'menment raights to own an arsenal, the nutters who go around shooting at people wouldn't find it so easy to get their crazy hands on lethal weapons.

It has everything to do with you and others like you.

deer Wild boar, we have too many

In a country as big and empty as the US, that's sheer nonsense. If there is a population imbalance it's because the nutters who enjoy killing for killing's sake have already shot all the wolves and other natural predators. Leave nature alone, and it will find its own balance.

those who have a "passion" for that kind of thing are considered insane.

Yes. And of course, the insane usually don't realise that they are insane.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What if they do get it and they are OK with saying the human cost is acceptable?

Try saying that to the parents who lost children to shootings

3 ( +3 / -0 )

True. You need to blame the stupidity of Americans, and the greed of the gun companies.

Naw, bruh! I blame the ignorance on mostly the looney left that get emotional and are completely devoid or rational thought when it comes to guns.

Gun laws are ridiculously tight in the UK, how many shootings or murders did we have last year? non.

Great, but that's the UK, we like our guns here in the US.

Of course it does. If it weren't for the Americans with a passion for killing who demand their Secun'menment raights to own an arsenal, the nutters who go around shooting at people wouldn't find it so easy to get their crazy hands on lethal weapons.

Sorry, but that's a lame argument with all due respect.

It has everything to do with you and others like you.

No, because I am not responsible for another sick person and his twisted murderous deeds.

In a country as big and empty as the US, that's sheer nonsense.

Empty? Wyoming is really the only empty place in the US.

If there is a population imbalance it's because the nutters who enjoy killing for killing's sake have already shot all the wolves and other natural predators.

If I had a wolf on my ranch eating my chickens or killing my livestock, I wouldn't hesitate, NOT for one second!

Leave nature alone, and it will find its own balance.

I leave nature alone, but I will continue to hunt as it is my passion and I do my part when it comes to conservation.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

that's the UK, we like our guns here in the US.

The US has 10.54 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people annually. The UK has 0.23.

America's love of guns and the NRA's protection of the industry that makes them sure has a high price.

I am not responsible for another sick person and his twisted murderous deeds.

Yes you are. Because your opposition to stricter gun control facilitates his crime.

And in case you didn't realize it, the NRA is not standing up for the Constitution. That's a cover. They're standing up for gun manufacturers, pure and simple.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

bass4funk: "Naw, bruh! I blame the ignorance on mostly the looney left that get emotional and are completely devoid or rational thought when it comes to guns."

Yeah... so it is the fault of people who want stricter gun control or the weapons to be gone that are to blame for the ease at which gun nutters can get their hands on them and murder people, like this woman and the 8-year-old child. Sure, we get emotional about kids being killed so nutters can brag about their guns and talk about how they need more (only an insane person needs a gun, let alone a lunatic "needing" more!).

But go ahead and tell us how this has "nothing to do with you", but is the fault of people who would like stricter gun laws.

"No, because I am not responsible for another sick person and his twisted murderous deeds."

Yes, you are -- 100% -- when he/she got a gun so easily because you claim it is their right. You are absolutely at fault.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"Great, but that's the UK, we like our guns here in the US."

There you have it. Logic doesn't work on someone in love. Logic is useless here.

"I leave nature alone, but I will continue to hunt as it is my passion and I do my part when it comes to conservation."

See what I mean?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@cleo

Once again you're using a tragedy to air your embedded anti Americanism. Yes... the U.S. has a gun problem, but killing isn't something found only amongst Americans, and most Americans are not "passionate" about killing anything. Senseless violence plagues many other countries too.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@bass, although I completely respect your right to hunt (I actually think your posts do make some sense), don't you think it (hunting) has nothing to do with the right to bear arms pretty much anywhere at any time (for everyone)?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The second amendment was written around 1776 and does not apply or adapt to modern civilization

It's all about the money!!!! One can never understand this backwards culture. The spin placed on the use of these weapons I this century by civilians is simply pathetic and attrociously disgusting!!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yes... the U.S. has a gun problem

Yes, it does. Obviously. Wishing it didn't isn't 'anti-Americanism'. Quite the opposite.

killing isn't something found only amongst Americans

Did someone say it was?

most Americans are not "passionate" about killing anything.

Like I said, not all, but enough to stop sensible laws being passed. Bass has stated more than once just on this thread, that he as an American has a passion for killing.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Noidall

Senseless violence plagues many other countries too. I'd feel safer in the streets of America than i would at football stadia amongst English hooligans.

Guess you have been to an English football stadium or game or at least not for many years. Football hooligans are now gone mostly but still in some countries like Russia or with strong right wing groups. Football hooligans don't carry guns and are searched when entering the stadium.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"but killing isn't something found only amongst Americans"

That's true. You can find countries with higher rates of gun violence than the US but they don't tend to be developed countries. You can also find countries where many people own guns but they don't have anything like the gun violence of the US.

I don't think the US as a whole is a country which can be trusted with guns. As someone from the UK, I've often thought of the chaos 2-hour all you can drink deals would cause if introduced to British pubs - the Brits can't be trusted as a whole with alcohol.

Some things don't mix well.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes you are.

This is the exactly the reason why liberals never learn, they hate accountability and would rather shove the responsibility away from them, deflect smear others that are NOT directly involved as in this situation in order to pacify their own selfish inadequacies, just astounding!

Because your opposition to stricter gun control facilitates his crime.

Yes, I do, but I have no control if some idiot puts a gun in his mouth and blows out his brains, believe, I'll be able to sleep well. Every person is responsible for his/her own action and with you guys, it's always the perpetrator who's not at fault, it's the fault of the person that made the gun, supports gun rights, but the person who pulled the trigger...well, they got caught up in all the mess, but they are not to blame for anything, even if they kill 100 people, damn the NRA. YOu guys are too, too funny. Like I said, I don't feel a thing because I had nothing to do with these loons, they made the decision to commit carnage and mayhem, not me.

And in case you didn't realize it, the NRA is not standing up for the Constitution. That's a cover. They're standing up for gun manufacturers, pure and simple.

Well, that's your personal belief.

Yeah... so it is the fault of people who want stricter gun control or the weapons to be gone that are to blame for the ease at which gun nutters can get their hands on them and murder people, like this woman and the 8-year-old child.

Doesn't apply to me, I'm just a hunter and love going to gun shows, shooting range or to the desert and shot stuff.

Sure, we get emotional about kids being killed so nutters can brag about their guns and talk about how they need more (only an insane person needs a gun, let alone a lunatic "needing" more!).

That's your personal belief. My belief is the looney left and their fascist policies are a direct threat to my personal beliefs and I believe they're a bigger danger to the country.

But go ahead and tell us how this has "nothing to do with you", but is the fault of people who would like stricter gun laws.

Yup.

Yes, you are -- 100% -- when he/she got a gun so easily because you claim it is their right. You are absolutely at fault.

Ok, thats your take, I believe I'm not. I didn't sell them the gun and I didn't tell them to go out and kill those people. Again, I sleep good at night.

There you have it. Logic doesn't work on someone in love. Logic is useless here.

It depends on what you deem as logic. I think the way liberals, at least most of them could give a fig about how others think or feel, it's all about them and what they want. Logic is, you respect another persons opinion, if you libs hate guns, I'm fine with that, guns are not for everyone, but at the same time, it's also my right to own, shot and use guns for hunting, if I so choose. I'm not asking for ya'lls blessing, I'm asking respect goes both ways.

"I leave nature alone, but I will continue to hunt as it is my passion and I do my part when it comes to conservation."

Exactly and proud of it.

See what I mean?

I thought that liberals were supposed to be the people of love and tolerance....boy, it seems more like the party of hate and intolerance. No, I'm sorry, they are only tolerant if the situation fits within their skewed worldview.

don't you think it (hunting) has nothing to do with the right to bear arms pretty much anywhere at any time (for everyone)?

Well, if we didn't have the rights to bear arms then many of us couldn't go out and hunt, whether it's for food or for conservation. The right to bear arms gives us this right, if you live on a farm, if you have livestock you need to protect or yourself living in the wilderness like Alaska, then you would be very stupid not to have a gun. I understand the argument and I respect others that don't like guns, but we all have to respect each other's rights and I've noticed liberals are the biggest hypocrites and are THE most intolerant bunch around. That's my objective. They feel, they have some moral high ground where they can dictate or even demand by force people to think the way they do and to me, that's just unacceptable.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

if we didn't have the rights to bear arms

You understand you are in Japan, right?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'm not "Steve O"

Right, more Stephen Seagal

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fascism is actually filthier

Yeah man, because gun control is fascist. Cuz every developed country other than the US is fascist. What a joke!

Go read a book, your angry, orange mango god is the closest thing to Fascism any American has seen in their lifetime. But you love, love, LOVE him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Bass

Why was it a stupid question? You said you carry a gun, bat and knife wherever you go. You didn't mention you kept them in the car. Do you go everywhere by car? What use are they in the car if someone pulls a knife on you in the supermarket? Thankfully, cases of people pulling a gun are extremely rare in Japan thanks to sane gun laws.

Fascism is filthy, I agree. Do you think countries with strict gun laws are fascistic?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, if we didn't have the rights to bear arms then many of us couldn't go out and hunt, whether it's for food or for conservation.

Bare, not bear, and the "right to bare arms" has nothing to do with the constitution. To conflate the two is ridiculous.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This is a real problem. It's a very depraved vice which gets people killed.

Alcohol is a vice, gets more people killed in developed countries than firearms do in the USA on a per capita basis. Would you advocate that recreational consumption of Alcohol should be even more tightly controlled than firearms? Or do you think the human cost that Alcohol causes is acceptable?

A lot of people enjoy heroin and cocaine as well - so would you agree they should also be made legal?

Absolutely yes, there is really no evidence that decriminalizing drugs causes drug use to increase, not to mention the fact that those drugs kill less than Alcohol and Tobacco. Heck those drugs combined kill less people than HIV alone each year in the USA. Should casual sex be made illegal?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

This person was already prohibited from accessing or possessing firearms. He pretty obviously didn't give a rip about any laws: a violent criminal history.

"the gunman, who authorities said had a criminal history that included weapons charges and domestic violence that predated his brief marriage to the slain teacher."

The blame is squarely on HIS head, not on any law-abiding citizens.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Been hunting with my family since I was 6 years old. I love to hunt, it's a passion of mine, I don't think that's a bad thing, I can't kill a deer with a toothpick, right?

bass4funk: But do you really need a semi-automatic to kill a deer? Do tell the usefulness in owning a semi-automatic?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

But do you really need a semi-automatic to kill a deer? Do tell the usefulness in owning a semi-automatic?

I never said I use a semi-automatic.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

What a violent country America is. And what a bunch of enraged savages its people are.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

When used correctly, guns kill. When used correctly, alcohol doesn't.

Where does it say that people should only use products "correctly"? If I was to use GPS correctly then it would only be used in nuclear weapons. As for Alcohol doesn't kill people when used correctly, IE: getting intoxicated/reduced impulse control, unfortunately isn't a true statement, people die all the time when Alcohol is used correctly. From drunk driving to being impaired and walking in front of traffic to just simply passing out and choking on your own vomit to getting into physical fights due to your intoxicated state.

Death is a side effect of incorrect usage of alcohol. Death is the effect of correct usage of guns.

Death is a side effect of correct usage of Alcohol, don't be so naive. Quite frankly if the goal here is to save lives then it is irrelevant if the death is caused by something that was correctly used or incorrectly used or if the death was malicious or non-malicous because a premature death is a premature death.

As always, the gun nuts try to equate apples to oranges.

Apples and Oranges are both fruit. Both products are overwhelmingly used for recreational purposes by their owners, both products when used for recreational purposes result in tens of thousands of people being killed(homicide, suicide, accident) and hundreds of thousands being wounded. In that sense both products are equivalent based off of how they are primarily used by society and end result of death and wounds.

Just admit you love guns.

I don't own a single firearm and neither does anyone in my family, I do enjoy target shooting but loving firearms I think is too strong of word.

Don't play the rest of us for stupid with ridiculous arguments.

What is the ridiculous argument? All I'm pointing out is that we have precedent in Alcohol that says tens of thousands of dead people is acceptable cost to enjoy a hobby/recreation on an annual basis, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people it doesn't kill but sends to the hospital. Alcohol costs society more than firearms do not only in humans costs but also in non-human costs like monetary costs. The only counter argument is that guns are designed to kill and Alcohol isn't. Which of course then begs the question, what is the goal here? Is the goal to save lives or to get rid of something you don't approve of? If the goal is to save lives then it is irrelevant if the cause of death is homicide, suicide, or accident because a premature death is a premature death.

Plus the argument that Alcohol isn't designed to kill but guns are doesn't provide any practical benefits, why? Because if I was to ask you when Alcohol will begin to kill less people simply because it isn't designed to kill you wouldn't be able to give me an answer. There is no evidence that simply claiming a product isn't designed to kill people will cause it to kill less people over time because of that reason in and of itself. Not to mention the fact that claiming something isn't designed to kill but yet results in killing more people than something that is is ironic to say the least.

So I disagree that my argument is ridiculous. Look if you can say that the human cost is acceptable for recreational consumption of Alcohol then you can say the same for recreational usage for firearms. If you can't say the same for firearms then why should I say the death toll caused by Alcohol is acceptable? Quite frankly the argument that because Alcohol isn't designed to kill but guns are is nothing more than a rationalization/cognitive dissonance.

I'm saying that the cost of Alcohol is acceptable so that I can enjoy Alcohol, and in order to be fair I'm also saying that all recreational activities that have a similar cost or less should be legalized.

Just say it, the reason why you want guns more tightly controlled isn't to say lives it's to just get rid of something you don't approve of.

It is.

Really? How is Alcohol more tightly regulated than firearms?

And does your logic mean we should have no gun control and make buying them as easy as buying a pair of socks?

Nope. My point is that if you can say the death toll from Alcohol is acceptable so that you can have fun with Alcohol then why can't people say the same about recreational usage of firearms? Are you in favor of regulating Alcohol like firearms? That is to say that purchases of Alcohol would be registered to the purchaser, you would have to take a class on the side effects and "correct" intake amounts of Alcohol and you would have to pass a written test. Then you would get a permit/license to be able to purchase Alcohol. Oh and put a restriction on the amount of Alcohol that can be purchased by any one person during a given time frame. How about one Alcohol beverage every two hours limit?

Or would you say that the resulting lives that could have been saved by such regulations would be an acceptable cost?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SuperLib: If you want to live in a country that has easy access to guns, then school shootings will just be a regular part of life. And gun supporters are fine with that.

Noliving: Lets say they are OK with it, then what?

We continue to do what we do, read about school shootings and shrug.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I never said I use a semi-automatic.

But what if two people are coming at you with regular guns? You need a semi auto.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We continue to do what we do, read about school shootings and shrug.

Excellent point. Unfortunately in the U.S., life seems to be dictated by the NRA and its gun nuts. While car safety if forever increasing, regulations for driving a car is made stricter, and punishments for drinking and driving and reckless driving are made stricter, gun regulations are not. The current administration has even made it easier for anyone, even mentally unstable people, to purchase a gun, even though more and more people die from one. All gun nutters want to do is for us to live with the increasing number of gun deaths and massacres, and treat it as a simple way of life in the U.S.A.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But what if two people are coming at you with regular guns? You need a semi auto.

In the States, I'm well prepared, in Japan, usually when people see me, my size alone is a deterrent.

Excellent point. Unfortunately in the U.S., life seems to be dictated by the NRA and its gun nuts.

What about the anti-gun nuts that would do anything and everything to rob us of the 2nd amendment?

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/0/10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html

The current administration has even made it easier for anyone, even mentally unstable people, to purchase a gun,

How?

All gun nutters want to do is for us to live with the increasing number of gun deaths and massacres, and treat it as a simple way of life in the U.S.A.

No, most gun owners are responsible law abiding people are hate gun-haters to dictate and push their personal belief and think they can usurp the 2nd amendment.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

There's always a lot of talk and quoting of the 2nd amendment by the pro gun lobby but that was written in 1791 and I wonder if they knew what kind of society it would create today. would it still have been written in the same way. Guns in 1791 were muskets and rifles not the advanced killing weapons now available.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

gun regulations are not (made stricter).

Yes, they are.

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/0/10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html

Maybe 'strict' has a different meaning in American English. Even in California, the 'state known for the strictest gun laws' has only all firearms sales, transfers, including private transactions and sales at gun shows, must go through a California licensed firearms dealer, in other words you can still buy and sell virtually unhindered.

Anyone can buy a firearm if they have the money and in a few cases, jump through a couple of very large hoops such as waiting a day or so and making only one purchase per month. Pathetic.

The current administration has even made it easier for anyone, even mentally unstable people, to purchase a gun,

How?

In January, congressional Republicans introduced bills that would reduce barriers to purchasing gun silencers and allow concealed weapon holders to cross state lines without having to follow local restrictions. Trump, who’s said he carries a concealed weapon at times, once promised to eliminate gun-free zones and to allow loaded handguns in schools, and said that a “national right to carry” concealed weapons should be legal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gun-control_us_5887c7ede4b0b481c76b9d35

most gun owners are responsible law abiding people

Responsible people don't feel the need to pack heat. Responsible people don't have a passion for killing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

in Japan, usually when people see me, my size alone is a deterrent.

It is not a guarantee. What if they have a sword? Also, old people cannot defend themselves very well- especially against a sword.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone can buy a firearm if they have the money and in a few cases,

Yeah, if they're hot! Legally, on the other hand, is very difficult and the screening more rigorous

jump through a couple of very large hoops such as waiting a day or so and making only one purchase per month. Pathetic.

As a former Californian, I wish it would have been that easy, it would have saved me a lot of trouble.

It is not a guarantee.

For ME it has been.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

But what if two people are coming at you with regular guns? You need a semi auto.

In the States, I'm well prepared, in Japan, usually when people see me, my size alone is a deterrent.

In the States, if those two people are coming at you from behind, you are not well prepared. You're dead.

In Japan, for a start the idea of 'two people coming at you with guns' is basically absurd. It isn't your US giant economy size that's the deterrent, it's the fact that the streets are not awash with guns, the populace are not fed a diet of 'we need guns to protect ourselves' and very, very few people here have a passion for killing.

My size (5'2" in thick socks) wouldn't deter anyone in a bad temper, never mind anyone with a gun. And yet, surprise surprise, I walk around pretty darn sure that I'm not going to get shot at.

As the saying goes, size isn't everything.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yeah, if they're hot! Legally, on the other hand, is very difficult and the screening more rigorous

Someone had to buy the legal guns in order for them to become illegal. As another poster has mentioned, the definition of what is 'difficult' or 'strict' seems to be vastly different than what the rest of the world think they mean. For Americans, having to fill in more than one sheet of paper, showing more than one ID, and having to wait more than a few days for a gun, is 'strict' and 'difficult' for them. For example, to me, it is much more difficult for a foreigner to get dual citizenship in Japan, than it is for an American to purchase a gun.

But I guess gun owners are fine living with the bloodshed and massacres caused by guns. For some reason or another, they seem to think a society filled with guns is much better than one without them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the States, if those two people are coming at you from behind, you are not well prepared. You're dead.

But I'm never in any area where I would be stupid enough to put myself in that position, I'm not stupid. I know L.A.

In Japan, for a start the idea of 'two people coming at you with guns' is basically absurd. It isn't your US giant economy size that's the deterrent, it's the fact that the streets are not awash with guns, the populace are not fed a diet of 'we need guns to protect ourselves' and very, very few people here have a passion for killing.

That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. Both countries have their pros and cons and America is not Japan and Japan is not America, I accept I can't go hunting in Japan, fine. I just go back to the States and do it. I respect both countries laws and rules.

My size (5'2" in thick socks) wouldn't deter anyone in a bad temper, never mind anyone with a gun. And yet, surprise surprise, I walk around pretty darn sure that I'm not going to get shot at.

As do I where I live. Sure, I get what you're saying overall, but at the same time, I can afford to live in a quiet place. I don't have to worry about living in an area where there's violence.

As the saying goes, size isn't everything

I agree.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm never in any area where I would be stupid enough to put myself in that position, I'm not stupid. I know L.A.

And you don't see how dire it is that you have to 'know' where it's safe to walk? That you'd be 'stupid' to walk in some parts of your own town?

That's fine, I don't have a problem with that.

You don't have a problem with Japan not having a gun problem? Big of you.

As do I where I live.

Except where you live you need to know where is safe and where isn't, otherwise you're 'stupid' and asking to get shot. Where I live there are no places anywhere in the whole country where I wouldn't feel safe. You admit you don't even feel safe in your own town (except for the quiet places where nice affluent people live).

Sure, I get what you're saying overall

I don't think you do. At all.

size isn't everything

I agree.

Then why make a point of commenting that it's your size that stops people shooting you in Japan,your size that guarantees your safety?

Do you ever stop to think about what you're writing?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

And you don't see how dire it is that you have to 'know' where it's safe to walk? That you'd be 'stupid' to walk in some parts of your own town?

No, because for me, it's out of sight and out of mind. Remember, the U.S. is a huge country, so I can go to many places where I don't have to worry about safety. My point is, I wouldn't drive to Compton unless I'm buying something illegal and then and only then would I be taking a chance and I don't need to, want to, so I'm good.

Except where you live you need to know where is safe and where isn't, otherwise you're 'stupid' and asking to get shot.

Right and I have no reason to drive an hour west just to visit a city with a large gang population, drugs and violence, I avoid that bubble. There are hundreds of other cities where I don't have to worry about out of control violence whatsoever.

Where I live there are no places anywhere in the whole country where I wouldn't feel safe.

That's fine, Cleo. I don't need to, want to or have the desire to drive every single inch of California, some areas are nice, some areas, not so nice, some have a lot of gangs, some areas there are beautiful beaches or gorgeous mountains, I have a choice and I choose to go to cities where I can enjoy, relax and feel safe and secure. To be honest, the far left progressive liberals are what's terrifying me and the Los Angeles congress and I'm not joking. To me, they represent more of a danger than any gun owner.

You admit you don't even feel safe in your own town (except for the quiet places where nice affluent people live).

And that's good enough for me and the population in my city is 110, 000 so it's good enough for me.

Then why make a point of commenting that it's your size that stops people shooting you in Japan,your size that guarantees your safety?

Because it does, it always has even with my good looks.

Do you ever stop to think about what you're writing?

I wonder more if the people ever think about the questions they ask.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

But I guess gun owners are fine living with the bloodshed and massacres caused by guns. For some reason or another, they seem to think a society filled with guns is much better than one without them.

Having a society filled with guns isn't really that much worse or better. One hundredth of one percent of the US population dies from guns each year from all causes(Homicide, Suicide, and Accident).

And so what if gun owners and non gun owners are fine living with the human cost? If the only acceptable cost to be able to own products, enjoy hobbies/recreations, etc is zero dead and wounded then we are all going to live very boring lives.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I can go to many places where I don't have to worry about safety.

No you can't. The very fact that you are aware of places that are no-go zones for you, that you need to avoid the city an hour to the west because of the out-of-control violence there, means that you worry about safety all the time. Maybe the word you use to yourself isn't 'worry'; you probably tell yourself you're just being 'not stupid'. Semantics. You worry, and therefore make a point of going only to 'safe' places. You tell yourself you have a choice and choose to go only to the 'safe' places, the places where you can 'relax and feel safe and secure'. Of course you do. You'd be stupid to go to a dangerous place.

It's sad that you don't see how you're deluding yourself.

the population in my city is 110, 000 so it's good enough for me.

What does the size of the population have to do wth anything? The town I live in has a population around 25,000, Tokyo has a population of over 13.5 million, I feel equally safe in either and in all parts in between. I have no qualms at all travelling an hour west of my home, or anywhere else.

why make a point of commenting that it's your size that stops people shooting you in Japan,your size that guarantees your safety?

Because it does, it always has even with my good looks.

You're obviously suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance that prevents you from thinking straight. In Japan, neither physical size nor stunning good looks (I'll take your word for that) is what stops people shooting at you. If it were, I'd be dead several times over by now. It isn't even what stops people dragging you into an alley and mugging you. When you're in Japan, you're in a country of 130 million that is safer than your Californian city of 110,000 surrounded by gang-bang havens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No you can't.

Cleo, you can't say that you don't know California the way I do.

The very fact that you are aware of places that are no-go zones for you, that you need to avoid the city an hour to the west because of the out-of-control violence there, means that you worry about safety all the time.

So what? There is nothing there in those cities, gangs, druggies, shootings, filth, I have no need or desire to go there, so it's for me mentally not even a discussion, I don't go, I don't wonder or imagine, it's just normal for me. The same goes when I lived in Germany, there were certain cities I would never go or ever wanted to go. same thing, drugs, filth, bikers, and Neo-Nazis, I just stayed away. Sure, they didn't have for the most part guns (some peopled did) but for me, it's the violence that I tried to avoid, didn't matter if it were guns, knives or bats, I just didn't want to get involved in that mess and either get hurt or to hurt someone else, I'm a peace loving guy.

Maybe the word you use to yourself isn't 'worry'; you probably tell yourself you're just being 'not stupid'. Semantics. You worry,

I do not.

and therefore make a point of going only to 'safe' places.

I don't like carrots, for me, there couldn't be a more disgusting vegetable, but I don't fear it, I just avoid eating it. Now meat on the other hand....

You tell yourself you have a choice and choose to go only to the 'safe' places, the places where you can 'relax and feel safe and secure'. Of course you do. You'd be stupid to go to a dangerous place.

As with anyone else

It's sad that you don't see how you're deluding yourself.

I'm not. I'm fine, really.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

you can't say that you don't know California the way I do.

I'm using only the information you're giving me. You're the one pointing out that there are places (whole cities?) that you'd be stupid to venture into because of the danger. In other words, you'd be afraid to go there.

it's for me mentally not even a discussion, I don't go,....it's just normal for me.

Exactly; the fear and worry is so deeply ingrained, you don't even notice it. You think it's normal. To anyone not living in a place where any loonie can easily get a gun and blow your head off, or shoot down children in school, it's as far from normal as it's possible to get.

I'm a peace loving guy

More self-delusion. You've already admitted on this thread that you have a passion for killing.

And on other threads -

Missiles are good sometimes

I liked that Hillary was a more hawkish person

Obviously 'peace loving' means something else in the bass dictionary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To anyone not living in a place where any loonie can easily get a gun and blow your head off, or shoot down children in school, it's as far from normal as it's possible to get.

And those people would be over estimating the odds that such an event would personally happen to them or witness one.

Exactly; the fear and worry is so deeply ingrained, you don't even notice it. You think it's normal.

I think the words you are saying are too strong here. If I say I just don't go to North Korea or Somalia or Yemen or Afghanistan am I really saying I'm so Terrified of those places that I'm having a nervous breakdown or is it really just that those places don't really offer anything that outweighs the risk and because I have no interest really in the first place in going means it really isn't on my mind at all in the first place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And those people would be over estimating the odds that such an event would personally happen to them or witness one.

I bet everyone who is part of one of those incidents, or who witnesses one thinks the same thing.

The difference between them and the rest of us is that the chance of having it happen is so small, as to be pretty much non-existent. Whereas in gunland, it's a very real possibility that happens to thousands every year.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If I say I just don't go to North Korea or Somalia or Yemen or Afghanistan am I really saying I'm so Terrified of those places that I'm having a nervous breakdown or is it really just that those places don't really offer anything that outweighs the risk

You want to equate some third-world dictatorship or war zone with parts of the richest, supposedly most advanced country in the world, the so-called 'beacon of hope and freedom'?

I've been accused of anti-Americanism for much less. Seems to me I care more about America than some Americans, who are quite happy to arbitrarily write off huge swathes of the country and the poor souls who had the misfortune to be born there and have no chance of getting out because their more affluent countrymen have no interest.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I bet everyone who is part of one of those incidents, or who witnesses one thinks the same thing.

I bet they do Stranger but it doesn't change the odds, they still remain the same. For example winning the lottery, just because you win a lottery like the Power ball that is one in several hundred million odds doesn't mean that the odds are no longer pretty much non existent going forward for you or for anyone else.

The difference between them and the rest of us is that the chance of having it happen is so small, as to be pretty much non-existent. Whereas in gunland, it's a very real possibility that happens to thousands every year.

For the vast vast majority of people in gunland the odds are pretty much non-existent as well, how do we know I this? Because statistically the casualty rate from guns in the USA each year is three hundreds of one percent each year. Means over 99.9% of people living in the USA will not be injured or killed by a gun every year.

I don't know about you but if you told me that I have a 0.01% chance of being shot/killed by a gun for a year I would say that is non-existent

With that being said if you are someone who is in a gang, deals in drugs or in the criminal underworld, are in an abusive relationship/are the abuser or live with or associate with anyone who meets that above criteria then yes chances of being shot then become a realistic possibility. If you don't qualify for any of those then the chances of you being shot and killed once again become pretty much non-existent.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm using only the information you're giving me. You're the one pointing out that there are places (whole cities?) that you'd be stupid to venture into because of the danger. In other words, you'd be afraid to go there.

Not afraid, I fear no man, but that doesn't mean, I want trouble or worse. I'm not a fool neither.

Exactly; the fear and worry is so deeply ingrained, you don't even notice it.

There is nothing ingrained, you don't know me or my background, being cautious is very different from being fearful. If anything, I was fearful of my mother.

You think it's normal. To anyone not living in a place where any loonie can easily get a gun and blow your head off, or shoot down children in school, it's as far from normal as it's possible to get.

I never said it's normal, you make it seem like every child is in danger and that's not even remotely close. More people die in car crashes. I fear cars more than I do guns, but that's me. I had more friends that died from car accidents, illness, and drugs, but never from a gun.

More self-delusion. You've already admitted on this thread that you have a passion for killing.

Hunting, I don't kill for joy. I kill to eat. I'm not a vegan and before I fry some finger lickin' good chicken, I need to....well, kill it.

And on other threads -

Missiles are good sometimes

For self-defense and enemies that would want to obliterate us or any of our allies, you betcha!

I liked that Hillary was a more hawkish person

Obviously 'peace loving' means something else in the bass dictionary.

Sometimes, to achieve peace and to get to that bridge, you have to use a certain amount of violence, if we didn't 70 years ago, the world would have been a very different place. Again, you don't know me, I love peace, but if I have to use violence to protect my country or family, that's what I will do without hesitation. But at the same time, I would never go up to someone and start violence for the sake of it or the pleasure of bashing someone. I have never done that and would never do that. So yes, I do believe in peace, peace through strength and not weakness.

He's also "not partisan"

Exactly!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You want to equate some third-world dictatorship or war zone with parts of the richest, supposedly most advanced country in the world, the so-called 'beacon of hope and freedom'?

Your point Cleo was that if someone refused to travel to a geographic location, whether it be a city, county, state, country, etc. that the very fear had taken such an extreme hold over the person that they don't even notice it. My point is that you are using too strong of a word(s). Obviously if such a fear had taken such hold over someone they would be basically having nervous breakdown, so it would definitely be something they would notice. To put this into further context for you do you travel to Yakuza locations? Do you knowingly walk past Yakuza buildings or operations? I bet you don't, does that mean you are terrified? Nope.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Noliving

Bingo!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

All readers back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know about you but if you told me that I have a 0.01% chance of being shot/killed by a gun for a year I would say that is non-existent

And yet it happens thousands of times per year in America.

You are complacent about guns because you think it can't happen to you, so you support gun ownership by the masses. The result of that is the deaths of thousands of people in America. That's on your shoulders and the shoulders of everyone else who supports it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And yet it happens thousands of times per year in America.

Yes it does happen thousands of times per year, that doesn't change the fact that your odds of being killed by a gun are one hundredth of one percent annually. It doesn't change the fact that schools have a 1 in 10,000 year odds of having a homicide on their school grounds during school hours in the USA

You are complacent about guns because you think it can't happen to you, so you support gun ownership by the masses. The result of that is the deaths of thousands of people in America. That's on your shoulders and the shoulders of everyone else who supports it.

I don't think it can't happen to me just that the odds are extremely in my favor that it will never happen to me in my life time. It is a low enough risk for me that I don't think it is really worth my time to worry about it for any real length of time or dictate how I choose to live.

Yes the result is the deaths of thousands of people in america and yes it is on my shoulders and everyone else who supports it. So what? I support board games being legal in the USA, does that mean I have the deaths of all the people, particularly young children, on my shoulders? Absolutely it does. Do you disagree with that?

I support movies and television shows being made, does that mean I have deaths and injuries of those cast members and crew who were involved in those movies? Yes it does. I support the speed limit in the USA being above 55 MPH, does that mean I have deaths and injuries caused by the speed limit being above 55 MPH on my shoulders? Yes it does.

So what?

If the only acceptable cost for people to own products for recreation, enjoy hobbies, engage in cultural practices, produce and sell mindless entertainment products is zero dead and wounded then we are all going to live very boring lives.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So what?

Well, I think that comment sums up your position. So what if we allow the people to own something that's primary purpose is killing? So what if people die because of that? It probably won't happen to me, so too bad for them.

It's really the perfect argument for your side of the deal, insofar as there is no counter to it. If you don't care that other people will die as a result of the decision to allow people to arm themselves to kill, then there is no appeal to humanity to be made.

It's a very American position. which is why you'll continue to see these killings until the end of time. Or the end of America. Whichever comes first.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@bass4funk

can you tell us why you love guns?

Been hunting with my family since I was 6 years old. I love to hunt, it's a passion of mine, I don't think that's a bad thing, I can't kill a deer with a toothpick, right? I've always been around guns, my father was a collector and I had more than enough experience with them, I taught my kids how to use a rifle, but all in a very responsible manner, all licensed and all legal.

Ah ! At last I understand ! You love killing... This usually starts out with killing small animals and ends up with killing humans... No wonder you're so unpopular on these threads !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And those people would be over estimating the odds that such an event would personally happen to them or witness one.

And yet the odds of one dying in a terrorist attack is even much smaller. Yet, conservatives like you want to discriminate and use every excuse in the book to not allow people who don't look like them to enter the U.S. Go figure.

In any case, you seem to disregard the percentage of you actually knowing anyone personally who will get killed or injured from a gun. Because if you do, then the percentages go higher. I for one have personally known someone who was killed by a gun, and though it wasn't me, it did affect me emotionally. That emotional impact on anyone should not go unnoticed or disregarded by anyone.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I never said it's normal

Yes you did, bass. I copy-pasted your exact words: it's just normal for me. Look back up the thread.

Hunting, I don't kill for joy. I kill to eat. I'm not a vegan and before I fry some finger lickin' good chicken, I need to....well, kill it.

You told us (again, in so many words) that you have a passion for hunting. Not for eating (you can buy stuff in the shops to eat that doesn't involve all that first-hand blood and guts, you keep telling us you're affluent, you do not need to hunt to subsist. If you nonetheless choose to kill, it's because you enjoy the killing, not the eating). And now you're telling us you hunt chickens?? Come on, bass. Get real.

Your point Cleo was that if someone refused to travel to a geographic location, whether it be a city, county, state, country, etc. that the very fear had taken such an extreme hold over the person that they don't even notice it. My point is that you are using too strong of a word(s). Obviously if such a fear had taken such hold over someone they would be basically having nervous breakdown

Please don't presume to tell me what my point is, or try to put words into my mouth. I am not suggesting that anyone is having a nervous breakdown. Anyone choosing to go to a war zone when they don't have to would be foolhardy. My point is that I'm amazed that Americans are quite happy to admit that there are virtual 'war zones' within the affluent, advanced country they are so proud of, that they take it for granted there are no-go zones. And they (one of them, at least) brag that they're smart for knowing where those war zones are, and to stay out of them.

the odds are extremely in my favor that it will never happen to me in my life time. It is a low enough risk for me that I don't think it is really worth my time to worry about it for any real length of time or dictate how I choose to live.

So you would agree that the gun nutters (aka. 'law-abiding gun-owners) who claim they need an arsenal of weapons in their house in leafy suburbia 'for self-protection' are either deluded or liars?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

that doesn't change the fact that your odds of being killed by a gun are one hundredth of one percent annually

Mass shootings are expensive for everyone even though it probably won't happen to you. When you have to through two security check points to enter an amusement park (one bag check and one metal detector- yes, this exists) that creates cost just because rednecks want to be able to carry their non registered ARs around due to their low self esteem. Now schools are practicing gun drills which requires more training at the expense of the tax payer. Fire and tornado drills I understand. But now tax payers need to pay to implement these measures because of stories like this and Sandy Hook (by the way, who here thinks Sandy Hook was a hoax?). If more movie theaters have security checkpoints who pays for that? The US is becoming enslaved by security costs.

This is why I want strict gun registration and restrictions like they do in Japan or Switzerland. And why do we need military style rifles anyway? What are you worried about? They are only good for mass shooting.

Also, it's really funny that people on JT (and living in Japan) think we need to be able to buy guns as easy as shopping for socks at K-mart. Yet, they choose to live in a complete gun free zone.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Well, I think that comment sums up your position. So what if we allow the people to own something that's primary purpose is killing? So what if people die because of that? It probably won't happen to me, so too bad for them.

@Stranger - Yes Stranger so what if we allow people to own products whose primary purpose is for killing when 99.9% of its owners don't use it to kill other people much less themselves on an annual basis. So what?

Like I said Stranger if the only acceptable cost to be able to own products, enjoy products or engage in cultural practices or hobbies or sports or whatever is zero dead and or wounded then we are all going to live very boring lives.

Can you name a single thing that has never ever resulted in someone being killed by it either directly or indirectly because of it? Can you name a single product that has only killed "guilty" people either directly or indirectly?

It's really the perfect argument for your side of the deal, insofar as there is no counter to it. If you don't care that other people will die as a result of the decision to allow people to arm themselves to kill, then there is no appeal to humanity to be made. It's a very American position. which is why you'll continue to see these killings until the end of time. Or the end of America. Whichever comes first.

@Strangerland - Appeals to "humanity" arguments are nothing more than red herrings fallacy appeals to emotions arguments.

You have made repeated calls for restrictions to be put on firearm ownership and use as well as been highly condescending to owners of firearms in several threads. You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in/own throughout society.

Get over yourself. You don't care about these people's lives.

And yet the odds of one dying in a terrorist attack is even much smaller. Yet, conservatives like you want to discriminate and use every excuse in the book to not allow people who don't look like them to enter the U.S. Go figure.

@PeterL - I know, it is stupid. Neither party is willing to repeal the patriot act and it is frustrating that it hasn't been repealed yet. I think the refugee scare is BS. Oh and by the way I'm not a conservative. I believe in a single payer health care system, I believe in a single payer Trade/Vocational/College/University system. I also believe in a single payer food system. If Bernie Sanders would have registered as a write in candidate I would have wrote his name in.

In any case, you seem to disregard the percentage of you actually knowing anyone personally who will get killed or injured from a gun. Because if you do, then the percentages go higher. I for one have personally known someone who was killed by a gun, and though it wasn't me, it did affect me emotionally. That emotional impact on anyone should not go unnoticed or disregarded by anyone.

@PeterL - Would it make you feel any better to know that I'm already in that statistic? I had a classmate in high school who committed suicide with a handgun during our senior year. When we were younger we used to play in the local basketball league, in fact we were on the same team one year and that year our team went undefeated and we won the championship.

So what is the percentage then if we include those who know someone who has been impacted by guns?

In general what is to you an acceptable cost to be able to own things for recreation?

Mass shootings are expensive for everyone even though it probably won't happen to you. When you have to through two security check points to enter an amusement park (one bag check and one metal detector- yes, this exists) that creates cost just because rednecks want to be able to carry their non registered ARs around due to their low self esteem. Now schools are practicing gun drills which requires more training at the expense of the tax payer. Fire and tornado drills I understand. But now tax payers need to pay to implement these measures because of stories like this and Sandy Hook (by the way, who here thinks Sandy Hook was a hoax?). If more movie theaters have security checkpoints who pays for that? The US is becoming enslaved by security costs.

@Nishikat - So then isn't the answer that we are supposed to push back against people's irrational fear? The reason they are expensive is because of societies emotionally based rash decisions that are complete over reactions to the true level of threat that something poses, that is not a strong argument to do the security check points or the gun drills or gun registrations. It is the same thing with pandemics/epidemics and that is over 90% of the cost that society pays in containing them is simply due to societies overreacting to them.

This is why I want strict gun registration and restrictions like they do in Japan or Switzerland. And why do we need military style rifles anyway? What are you worried about? They are only good for mass shooting.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Registrations are a waste of money, there is basically no evidence that a gun registry in and of itself results in less gun homicides, assaults, suicides, and or accidents. There is no evidence that car registrations result in people driving safer or reduce the use of cars to facilitate or cause crimes. There is no evidence sex offender registries reduce sexual assaults, in fact there is some evidence to suggest that sex offender registries actually increase the recidivism rate of sex offenders. Look at the terrorist watch/no fly list, there is no evidence that it works.

I'm assuming you have heard of the amber alert system? If you have then you would know that it is waste of money, there is no evidence to support that it increases the odds of a child being found and returned either dead or alive after being kidnapped.

As for need, needs are not a requirement in order to own products, enjoy hobbies, etc for non-malicious reasons. Can you honestly say that every single product you own is for a need and not a want? If you can't then what is the point of your question? You do realize that with the "need" question you are basically arguing that people should only be allowed to own things that are absolutely needs and that people should not be allowed to own things that are not needs. Plus living your life is so much more than just needs, wouldn't you agree?

Also, it's really funny that people on JT (and living in Japan) think we need to be able to buy guns as easy as shopping for socks at K-mart. Yet, they choose to live in a complete gun free zone.

And yet you have people who complain about the American gun laws but will vacation/holiday there or will move over there for a job and then will go to a gun range to have fun. Do you know how many non-Americans I have come across that are opposed to gun ownership but constantly go to gun ranges and shoot other people's privately owned guns. Do you have any idea how many Japanese employee's of American companies come to the USA and one of the first things they want to do is ask their American co-workers if they have a gun and if they can shoot it at a gun range or on that person's property. My mom used to deal with that request all the time from her Japanese counter-parts all the time when she worked at Medtronic.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Strangerland - Appeals to "humanity" arguments are nothing more than red herrings fallacy appeals to emotions arguments.

Ahh, so we're not supposed to see murder and killing as something emotional. Thanks for further explaining your position on the matter. So what right? Only kids getting killed at school, nothing to get emotional about.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland: Ahh, so we're not supposed to see murder and killing as something emotional. Thanks for further explaining your position on the matter. So what right? Only kids getting killed at school, nothing to get emotional about.

You can be emotional all you want but appeal to emotions arguments are not strong arguments and not only that but making rash decisions, especially policy decisions, based off of emotions does not make good policies/laws.

All you have to do for such examples is the sex offender registry, Afghan war, the patriot act, Iraq war, Libya war, Trump's refugee ban, people begging the Obama administration to ban people from west Africa due to the Ebola scare, etc.

I can't say that a child's life increases in value simply because they were killed on school grounds. Nor can I say a child murdered is worth more than a child that dies from an accident.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You can be emotional all you want but appeal to emotions arguments are not strong arguments"

Only to those who are too cold to care about children getting murdered. To the rest of us, it's an entirely strong argument - as strong as anything.

"making rash decisions, especially policy decisions, based off of emotions does not make good policies/laws."

Children being murdered is more than just an emotional argument. It's entirely valid, and a good basis upon which to base laws and policies.

"I can't say that a child's life increases in value simply because they were killed on school grounds. Nor can I say a child murdered is worth more than a child that dies from an accident."

Of course you won't - you see the right to own guns as more valuable than children's lives. In your own words, "so what", right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stranger: Only to those who are too cold to care about children getting murdered. To the rest of us, it's an entirely strong argument - as strong as anything.

Children being murdered is more than just an emotional argument. It's entirely valid, and a good basis upon which to base laws and policies.

And what if as a result of those policies it resulted in more children dying, not necessarily from homicide, because of the diversion of resources? Counter-Terrorism is a perfect example of how it sucks up resources that could have been used for other purposes that most likely would have resulted in more people being saved. Or should I say that people who die from Terrorists are worth that much more than those who die but not from terrorists?

Stranger: Of course you won't - you see the right to own guns as more valuable than children's lives. In your own words, "so what", right?

So it would be fair to say Stranger that you believe that children who die from homicide are worth more than children who die from disease, accidents, suicides, etc. Correct? I can't say that I agree with that if that is the case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites