27 dead in Newtown school shooting

[InExile]

More calculating and cold blooded perps make a general plan. If they can't get weapon "A" they move on to "B", but sooner or later they will carry out their plan.

When it comes to mass shootings; the evidence just does not support that. Mass killings by means not involving firearms remain extremely rare outside countries that are war zones. Even in the US, domestic terror attacks that don't involve firearms are pretty rare; I cannot remember one after the Oklahoma bombings.

[Officer of Engineers]

Oklahoma required a level of knowledge and discipline that is uncommon though not rare outside the military.

[InExile]

McFire, please edit your post as to avoid naming the alternatives. We don't need to give anyone else any ideas.

Like I said, all it takes is one and you will have copy cats in herds.

Cambodia, Rwanda, Xinjiang, Congo, former Yugoslavia and Chechnya (it's called freezing), Somalia (starvation), South Africa (burning, especially the burning tire necklace) ... you want me to go on?

All these are countries that are or were pretty much war zones. I think the comparison should be with other developed countries most like the US that have restrictive gun laws. Think Britain, Canada, Australia etct.

[InExile]

Oklahoma required a level of knowledge and discipline that is uncommon though not rare outside the military.

My point is that without easy access to firearms; especially faster weapons like semi automatics; mass killings would be rare, atleast in developed countries or those not ravaged by war or insurrection.

And the evidence does point to that, mass killings are quite uncommon in developed countries other than the US.

[Officer of Engineers]

Cambodia and Rwanda were not war zones. They were turned into war zones by the oppressors bent on genocide.

[Officer of Engineers]

My point is that without easy access to firearms; especially faster weapons like semi automatics; mass killings would be rare, atleast in developed countries or those not ravaged by war or insurrection.

Compare to what? If you look through out American history, deaths by firearms were not uncommon. In fact, I dare say that mass killings are a lot less today than they were 100 to 200 years ago.

[Officer of Engineers]

Also a quick google on arson indicates it is by no means a rare event.

[bonehead]

My point is that without easy access to firearms; especially faster weapons like semi automatics; mass killings would be rare, atleast in developed countries or those not ravaged by war or insurrection.

And the evidence does point to that, mass killings are quite uncommon in developed countries other than the US.

You are still clinging on to the belief that if guns were magically removed such occurrences would stop. Serial killers actually prefer other weapons vs a gun. As for the others poison, bombs, fire, etc would simply be more prevalently used methods. Lastly, America does not compare well with other developed countries. There are too many variables to reign in.

[InExile]

You are still clinging on to the belief that if guns were magically removed such occurrences would stop. Serial killers actually prefer other weapons vs a gun. As for the others poison, bombs, fire, etc would simply be more prevalently used methods. Lastly, America does not compare well with other developed countries. There are too many variables to reign in.

I agree that access to guns is only a single variable in these occurrences; and there are several others as well. Like for instance Switzerland has a per capita gun ownership almost as high as the US; but a fraction of the gun homicide. Though they have a pretty high suicide rate from guns.

It is possible that if guns were removed other methods like poison, bombs and fire would simply take its place, but I am not convinced. There simply haven't been anywhere near the same number of mass killings using these alternative methods in developed countries; and even in the US.

[Doktor]

I recommend you to study serial killers in UK or Russia. Pretty deadly without fire arms.

And making explosives seems like an easy task these days anyway.

Just saying.

[citanon]

I agree that access to guns is only a single variable in these occurrences; and there are several others as well. Like for instance Switzerland has a per capita gun ownership almost as high as the US; but a fraction of the gun homicide. Though they have a pretty high suicide rate from guns.

It is possible that if guns were removed other methods like poison, bombs and fire would simply take its place, but I am not convinced. There simply haven't been anywhere near the same number of mass killings using these alternative methods in developed countries; and even in the US.

There were two things that could have stopped this tragedy directly:

1. The family recognizing the signs of things not going right and intervening.

2. The staff at the elementary school being equipped with effective means of fighting back.

Unfortunately many all too ready to jump on the feel-good bandwagon of the gun control and unready to tackle the much more effective and far less comfortable questions. Questions like, how do we recognize signs of planned violence or descent into evil in the ones we are close to or the ones we love? How do we equip the people who are taking care of ones we love with the ability to respond when the unthinkable happens?

[InExile]

I recommend you to study serial killers in UK or Russia. Pretty deadly without fire arms.

And making explosives seems like an easy task these days anyway.

Just saying.

Again I am only talking about mass killings; serial killers usually target one or two victims at a time. I have never said that gun control will have any effect on overall homicide rates.

[Officer of Engineers]

11 September, ~3000 dead without the use of a single firearm, Jonestown, Happy Land Fire,

[bonehead]

I agree that access to guns is only a single variable in these occurrences; and there are several others as well. Like for instance Switzerland has a per capita gun ownership almost as high as the US; but a fraction of the gun homicide. Though they have a pretty high suicide rate from guns.

It is possible that if guns were removed other methods like poison, bombs and fire would simply take its place, but I am not convinced. There simply haven't been anywhere near the same number of mass killings using these alternative methods in developed countries; and even in the US.

It all boils back to that for many guns are the first choice. However that does not mean the only choice. America has a whole different culture, history and demographics that does not compare well with other countries. If you want to get at the crux of the problem you have to get your brain beyond the tool in the killer's hand and get inside the psyche of the person holding that tool.

[USSWisconsin]

I think we sort of know why: The killer was a sick bastard who wanted to be famous - he wanted to punish the world by murdering innocents and have his name remembered for doing it.

We know that the media made good on making him famous.
We know it was easy for him to get the tools he used (guns and ammo)
We know that no one stopped him before he did a lot of irreversable damage
We know that our society is bad at identifying and stopping this kind of thing (it does happen - some of these bastards are stopped)
We know that mental health is a critical problem in our society

What can we do? Thats the question we don't have good answers for.

Someone asked me what kind of meds he was taking - I believe it would be useful to have that information. It might be inconclusive or maybe it isn't.