Jesus. Not again.

Children among 27 dead in Connecticut school shooting

Twenty children and six adults have been killed in a shooting attack at a primary school in the US state of Connecticut, police say.

Lt. Paul Vance said the gunman was also dead, but did not identify him.

However, officials told US media the killer at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, was a 20-year-old son of a teacher at the school.

… Lt. Vance said 18 children were pronounced dead at the school, and two died after they were taken to hospital. Six adults were also killed. The gunman died at the scene.

According to US reports, the gunman’s mother was a teacher found among the dead at the school.

One person was also injured, and police were investigating a “secondary” crime scene, where another victim was found dead, Lt. Vance said.

He gave no details, but said New Jersey police were providing assistance.

Transcript: President Obama’s Remarks On Conn. School Shooting

We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. And each time I learn the news, I react not as a president, but as anybody else would as a parent. And that was especially true today. I know there’s not a parent in America who doesn’t feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.

The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful, little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own. Among the fallen were also teachers, men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.

So our hearts are broken today for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the families of the adults who were lost.

Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors, as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early and there are no words that will ease their pain.

As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it is an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children. And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

"Romans 12:9-21 Here is what we are to practice-A-Z-no loopholes for us1. Associate with the ..."

Sunday favorites
"I think part of the problem arises because we tell children to be nice to ..."

Sunday favorites
"OT: with all the talk about incels circulating on the internet lately, I am wondering ..."

Sunday favorites
"It ends with Odysseus taking revenge on the suitors and the consequence of that being ..."

Sunday favorites

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • P J Evans

     I saw a comment at Daily Kos, where it was pointed out that Tunisia had the lowest gun ownership rate in the world, and still overthrew a dictator.

    We need so many guns because why?

  • Darakou

    There was the Port Arthur massacre where Martin Bryant used an AR 15 (the same weapon used at Aurora) to kill 35 people. The difference in our country being that after that tragedy we tightened our gun control laws to prevent it ever happening again. And it hasn’t.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I need a twitter-lenght reply to someone who helpfully informs me that correlation is not causation and therefore I can not conclude that stricter gun laws in the rest of the industrialized world and lower gun violence in the rest of the civilized world are related, and suggests that it could just as easily be because other countries censor violent TV and video games (He’s not for censorship; it’s him pulling a gotcha).

    In medicine when we’ve got a pretty good hypothesis that, if correct, means we could take action to save a vast number of lives we run a randomised control study. We don’t say “hey, correlation doesn’t equal causation so I guess we’ll never know”.

    The “can’t tell anything from the experience of other countries” apologists can support a trial period of gun restrictions to settle the question or stfu. Have a decade where civilans don’t get to own weapons of mass murder and tally things up at the end. Best case scenario: tens of thousands of extra people alive. Worst case scenario: some people need to find a new hobby.

    That’s not twitter length, sorry. But I assume Canadians play violent video games and watch the same movies as Americans.

  • In Switzerland, guns are omnipresent, and there is very little gun violence. But they take the “well-regulated militia” thing seriously: there are rifles all over mostly because every male citizen does military service. They’re trained to use them properly, and the weapons and ammunition are strictly regulated. It’s nothing like the US gun culture.

  • Paul Durant

    The problem in this case is a certain kind of machismo culture which prizes guns as symbols of masculine expression and restricts efforts to keep them out of the hands of people too unhinged to be allowed to have them There are a lot of laws that restrict access to guns for people who are too unhinged to have them. The problem is that state agencies don’t always communicate perfectly, records aren’t always kept updated, there’s many people the screen won’t catch whose unsuitability is only obvious in hindsight, and it’s actually almost impossible to prevent people from giving other people stuff, and similarly difficult to screen someone for not only their suitability for gun access but the suitability of everyone they might give the gun to.
    Yes, which is why we hear of bomb and poison violence in other countries at rates comparable to the rate of gun violence in the US. There is not another First World nation with similar rates of violence of any kind as the US. That’s kind of the point of bringing up other nations with lax gun control laws. Other countries with strict gun control have less gun violence, other countries with lax gun control have less gun violence, this is a strong indicator that our level of gun violence is not directly caused by our level of gun control, and something else is the problem. 

    Personally, I think that if we’re even going to have firearms, it ought to be restricted to bolt-action or pump-action rifles and shotguns an single-action revolvers. Something you gotta mess with with both hands in between shots. In the reasonable scenarios for gun use, you either don’t need to shoot bullets rapidly, or shooting bullets rapidly ain’t gonna help you.  I’m pro-gun-control, or at least pro-more-than-we-have. 

    But in a (terrible) discussion on another site I saw a pretty convincing argument from the pro-gun side. Namely, that regardless of how my “side” feels, a very significant portion of the country feels that ownership of guns is a fundamental right. So any kind of ban or restriction that would stop these shootings, would drastically restrict all of these people’s access to guns, and they would fight it tooth and nail. And any money, effort, or political capital expended to fight this opposition and get these laws passed to end spree killings would be an incredibly inefficient way to spend your effort to save lives. Spree killings stick in the national psyche, but people killed by spree killings is a shitload less than those killed by one-on-one crimes (where a knife really does do just as well), which is a shitload less than people killed in traffic accidents.

    And… weren’t most of us saying the same thing about terrorism back in the Bush years when we were supposed to be shitting our pants every waking second for fear of terrorism, going to insane lengths and efforts to ward off the possibility of terrorist attack? That deaths to terrorism are orders of magnitude less than deaths by traffic, and we don’t declare war on traffic, and don’t flip our shit about it? 

    I can’t really think of a substantive difference to counter the argument with. It can’t be an emotional plead to how unfair and wrong the deaths are, because that’s exactly what they do in respond to deaths from terrorism. I can’t say “guns rights aren’t a right you really need and you’re being selfish to want to hang on to them rather than save lives,” because that’s exactly what they say to me when I say we shouldn’t have a right I consider important strangled in the name of stopping terror. It seems wrong, but I can’t think of any logical reason that this isn’t comparable and thus the argument I used, and still believe in, is equally applicable to my reaction.

  • You’re not alone. My inner decent-person is screaming that I should care about this.

    I felt bad when I accidentally hit a gopher with a car. No stoic badass here.

    Even in that context, this newest mass shooting seems like background noise, and I’m more pleased to be introduced to the word ‘bellwether’.

    This is not okay; somebody stop the ride I want to get off now.

  • hidden_urchin

    Yes, people can have as many smooth-bore, muzzle loading muskets as they want. 

    Just like the Founding Fathers intended.*

    *Funny how, as soon as you say that, some people aren’t so interested in what the Founding Fathers intent was anymore.

  • frazer

    I appreciate your comments, but how would gun awareness and safety have helped in this situation?  Unless the teachers in that room actually had loaded guns in their possession (probably not a great idea in a classroom), once the shooter entered the room with his semiautomatic weapons I don’t see how they would have had a chance.

  • Carstonio

    Mike Huckabee is already bringing out the “kicked God out of our schools” nonsense, as if returning to the days of mandatory sectarian prayer would have prevented the bloodshed. But what’s more disturbing is the secular variant of Huckabee’s claim, the defeatism of labeling society as sick and such shooters as simply evil people. Instead of the straw man of pathologizing evil, this is evilizing pathology. Mental illness is still very much stigmatized, and professionals are scarce in many communities. And any response to the massacre should  include not only responsible gun control but also mental health reform.

  • hidden_urchin

    How did y’all manage to avoid the Myth  of Rugged Individualism?  Good job, guys.

    I also think it has to do with the fact that an “honor culture” never took root in Canada.

    Why do you think that is?  (I’m going to scuttle back to my history books to check up on some information.)

    I’m sorry for pestering you.  I’ve been developing an increasing fascination with the differences between Canadian and US culture.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    There are countries with large numbers of guns where violent crime is minimal, not because they don’t have any guns, but because they don’t have a culture that is geared towards producing emotionally damaged people.

    We have plenty of emotionally damaged people. We have a tragically high suicide rate*, but we don’t have regular mass murders.

    *It’s very hard to compare suicide rates between countries for a whole lot of reasons but where ever it stands in comparison to other countries, there’s no denying that suicide (and mental illness more broadly) are big problems in Australian society.

    In my lifetime I can think of three occasions where children or teenagers were the victims of a mass murder in my country (where “mass” = 3 or more victims). Two of the incidents were parents who killed their children. In the last century there have been 10 massacres–four of them were prior to 1930. Massacres are a more-than-annual event in the US.

    The difference between our societies isn’t that we’re all happy, healthy, stable people who always receive adequate care if we’re showing signs of heading off the rails. The difference is that very few of us have weapons of mass destruction at our fingertips.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Like this: Former Republican Official: You can’t be a Christian if you don’t own a gun.

    Any idea if that applies to those of us in countries without gun “rights” in our constitutions?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Exactly. I have very little time for John Howard but I’ll give him credit where it’s due–he responded to the Port Arthur massacre by restricting access to guns, knowing that it would hurt him politically. So good on him for that.

  • Lori

    We need so many guns because why?  

    AFAICT guns are our national fetish items. I think it’s time we took steps to get into something else instead. Maybe leather.

    I’m not advocating for a total gun ban. I would like to revisit the issue of the reasonable boundaries of the 2nd Amendment though. I would like for the supposed 2nd Amendment absolutists to acknowledge that we didn’t always “know” that the 2nd Amendment “obviously” applied to private ownership of guns, let alone guns and ammunition designed for no purpose other than firing as many rounds as possible.

    I would like it if the NRA and gun manufacturers would stop lining their pockets by making gun owners paranoid past all reason. The profits from their lobbying efforts are literally blood money and we need to stop treating it like it’s respectable cash.

    I would like it if we cared more about being actually safe in the real world than heroes in our  fantasy worlds. I love a good hero fantasy, but deadly weapons really aren’t the right outlet for them.

    I would like it if we stopped making so many people feel so powerless and so invisible that they think having and using a deadly weapon is the best or only way to grab onto a sense of significance. I would also like it if we would permanently forget the names of every mass killer instead of giving them the notoriety that some of them explicitly seek and which reenforces the idea that killer = someone of note.

    I have no expectation of getting any of those things.

  • frazer

    I would say a difference is that I know of no evidence that exercising our right not to, say, have our phones tapped without a warrant results in anything like the number of gun deaths we experience (80 a day).  We lose more people to guns every year than we lost on 9/11.  With regard to traffic deaths, we do try to minimize traffic deaths with licensing and vehicle inspection and seat belt laws.

  •  Don’t be silly, even Helena knows that “Christian” and “American” are the same thing!

  • Akili

    There have been a few women shooters. Hell there was a teenage girl that shot up the grade accross the street from her in the late 70’s (google the name Brenda Ann Spencer). The thing is, women are more likely to kill people that they’re close to, and to use poision to do so. It makes them a lot harder to catch and so a lot of women who murder aren’t caught according to most books on the subject. 

  • stardreamer42

     Today, in China, a man walked into an elementary school and stabbed 22 students and at least one adult.

    Total body count? ZERO.

    Stop whining that if they didn’t have guns they’d just use something else. Those 22 kids in China are alive because the loon didn’t have access to a fucking gun.

  • Akili

    Thing is, I do think guns shouldn’t be in the hands of people who’ve commited crimes, have severe mental problems, ect. But taking away guns from EVERYONE isn’t going to stop people from killing others. There was a man in the 20’s who bombed a school, when the parents and police got to the school his truck blew up and killed more, and when the police got to his house THAT blew up. (Bath school disaster, people can goggle it if they think I’m lying). Humans are humans, they can be kind or horrible, and nothing we do is ever going to change that.

  • Lori

    The guy in Connecticut didn’t just have a gun. Apparently he had this gun

    I don’t want to get too bogged down in how a gun looks, as opposed to what it does (that was one of the great failings of the original (at least semi-) serious attempt to ban assault weapons. Still, I would like to know why anyone not living in someplace like Helmand Province needs that gun in their home. More importantly I would like to know why the perceived need of someone living in the US to have that gun in her home is more important than the need of people in her place of work not to be killed because she and her son have serious problems.

  • FireSpirit

    Cowards.  White, pampered, male cowards.  You don’t see these f_cks storming into police stations or military bases with their body armor looking for a fight.  They attack in darkened theaters and elementary schools.  
    I am lost by this and they are cowards.

  • I’m not totally sure, but I suspect part of it may have been French influences that were stronger in Canada than in the US. Also, while the British Empire did ban slavery prior to Canada’s creation as a self-governing Dominion, there is also something of an accidental bias away from the kind of culture that developed in the Antebellum South with rigid social stratification.

    There was still considerable plutocratic politics, to be sure – the Family Compact, or the equivalent in French Canada, which was the Château Clique, but this had to do more with the corruption in politics rather than a more widespread attempt to restructure society along rigid racial and social lines.

    The Canadian economy of that era was not conducive to that kind of rigid stratification, because you can’t grow cotton worth a damn, and trapping, forestry, fishing and what farming did exist could be done in small groups or even as individuals. In short, mass fixed plantations sprawling over many acres weren’t feasible.

  • Lori

     I can’t help you get it into a tweet, but I suspect this article has some info that would be useful

  • Random_Lurker

     It’s not a mischaracterization.  As a BSA shooting sports instructor, I’ve seen it firsthand more then once.

    Whether it’s common or not you can go ahead and debate, but it does exist, and it’s not all that rate.

  • As frazer pointed out, yeah, we do try to enact various regulations to reduce traffic deaths. While there’s no doubt more that could be done, ultimately the sheer density of vehicle use combined with a myriad of impairing factors (alcohol use, tiredness, animals, emotional issues, wear and tear on roads and vehicles) means we have to cut our losses. The generally agreed-upon benefits of cars are considered great enough that as a society we’ll tolerate a certain amount of risk and loss to keep those benefits. Doing otherwise would require some frankly staggering restructuring of how our society and many people’s day-to-day lives works.

    Also, cars are tools for a specific purpose that kill and injure people because of failure. As a general rule, they’re not purposely designed and used to run people down. Firearms don’t have that excuse. Guns are purposely designed to kill and injure, preferably kill. Traffic deaths are the result of a certain percentage of regrettable failures on the parts of the tools and users. Firearm deaths are (barring misfires and other accidents) the result of them working exactly as intended.

    And the comparison to the US government’s farcical security theatre don’t really hold up, either. It’s not just “oh the government is being ridiculous about this,” it’s “the government is being demonstrably ineffective and ignoring known methods that work.” The Bush regime’s approach wasn’t to actually protect US citizens from terrorism, but to do the (much simpler) job of looking like they were protecting us, and they still screwed that up because they were so pathetically transparent about it.

    There are plenty of warning signs that basic police and intelligence work, done diligently and without egregiously violating citizens’ (or human) rights, can and do catch. Stuff will still slip through, it’s inevitable, but if we put even a tenth of what’s been wasted on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and security theatre into better funding police and intelligence work, the ratio of actual prevention of US citizen deaths to cost would look much better, for domestic as well as foreign terrorism.

  • Random_Lurker

     To be specific: I’d see it 2-3 times per season.  Out of a season of about 8000 campers, that roughly 1 in 4000.  Assuming Boy Scouts are a representative sample, which I’m sure they’re not.  Also, anectdotal evidence.  But there it is.

  • Legally sane and free of mental illness are two VERY different things.

  • Random_Lurker

     Like all things in US government, nothing is done on principle, but on what the politicians believe (or can convince us that) the public wants.  Enacting national gun-control will require a grassroots change in the national culture, it can’t be done from top.

  • Humans are humans, they can be kind or horrible, and nothing we do is ever going to change that.

    That’s pretty much a defeatist attitude that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, guaranteeing there’s nothing that can be done about it because we’re unwilling to try. It reduces us down to some kind of ineffable and intractable “human nature” that can’t be defied, so we may as well be just animals without anything that raises us out of the mire of violence and instinct.

    I may lead with cynicism and misanthropy more often than not, but that’s born of disappointment, not resignation. If we cannot change the balance of horror and altruism in our nature then I literally do not see a point in existing because then the only thing we can accomplish with our cultures and technologies is to increase the immensity of our horrors until we annihilate ourselves with them, as altruism doesn’t scale nearly so well.

  • Earlier on the thread someone linked a story saying the guns he used were legally owned by his mother. If she had stored them responsibly, he wouldn’t have had access to them.

  • It also feeds both ways. The actions at the top do influence the national culture downwards, as the complete fabrication of the Teabaggers demonstrated. They were pretty much created by high-level Republicans, and became a Thing that influenced how people behaved at the grassroots level as well as up top. And it’s not like the NRA and others who have been shaping modern gun culture are exactly “grassroots” either.

    The objection to trying to enact gun control legislation ahead of changing the culture is… kind of empty, to me? It’s a component to changing the culture. And the reasoning that goes into it sounds like someone saying, “Well, you’re not curing the illness, you’re just treating the symptoms” like it’s a bad thing. But you know what? Cold medicine does a brisk sale every winter. There’s no reason not to treat symptoms, especially if the symptoms tax the body in ways that make it harder to recover from or treat the illness anyway.

  • EllieMurasaki

    That sounds like victim-blaming. Stop.

  • Oh, please. That whole “HALP HALP ZOMG A GUN ICKY POO” is a caricature used by right-wing gun owners who love calling anybody who doesn’t favor unrestricted gun ownership as a pansy and a wuss.

    It’s of a piece with Rush Limbaugh’s “imitations” of a squeaky-voiced timid liberal.

  • It is true that had physical access to the weapons been prevented, it would have been that much harder to use them.

    In fact I believe it is recommended that gun owners wanting to keep their guns as protected as possible should store them, unloaded, with bolt-locks, in a lockable cabinet, with the ammo in a separate, locked cabinet. With separate keys.

  • Do we even know the details of how she stored them? I don’t really have the resolve to go looking, beyond what people have mentioned here, and that’s just “she owned them.” Without further information, all we can really do is speculate about how she must have been “irresponsibly” storing them in a manner that is unpleasantly victim-blamey. Even if she was storing them responsibly, that doesn’t automatically prevent him from just, I donno, stealing the dang keys.

  • Paul Durant

    I would say a difference is that I know of no evidence that exercising our right not to, say, have our phones tapped without a warrant results in anything like the number of gun deaths we experience (80 a day). They’d claim that exercising your right to privacy and stopping the government from wiretapping would result in terrorists killing more people. (They’d be really wrong, but then they’d rebut that we don’t actually have a whole lot of proof that increased gun control will lower our crime rate substantially.) While we might lose more people to guns each year than we lost on 9/11, we haven’t lost as many people to spree killers like this in the years since 9/11 (I am like 98% sure of this), and the “this wouldn’t happen if access to guns wasn’t easy” argument is pretty solid for spree killers but way way way way more shaky for most of the rest of gun violence.

    With regard to traffic deaths, we do try to minimize traffic deaths with licensing and vehicle inspection and seat belt laws. Yeah, but we don’t totally lose our shit over the fact that people are still being killed in traffic accidents despite our attempts, the way that conservatives do over terrorism and liberals do over spree killers. Every time someone dies in a traffic accident, nobody says “We have to have stricter traffic laws and traffic enforcement!” or “It’s a grotesque injustice that people are stopping us from passing stricter traffic laws!” In fact, traffic laws are a nuisance and we don’t pay attention to their enforcement, which is why traffic enforcement is ludicrously corrupt but will never be fixed ever. 

    It’s obvious why we FEEL that way. Traffic accidents are steadily-occurring, individual events, where the innocence of the victim is not so inescapably evident, that do not occur out of malice. Terrorism or spree killings are vivid, sporadic, malicious, with victims we can’t ignore. But about half of us think that we should react to spree killings the same way as traffic accidents and about half of us think we should react to terrorism the same way as traffic accidents. The intended purpose of guns doesn’t really address why one of those judgments should be valid and one invalid. 

  • I would think the other armed people in a multi-gun situation are even more at risk: really, a bunch of ad-hoc folks all produce firearms, chances are if you’re shooting someone, you’re gonna go for someone with a firearm. 

    Somehow, I think these gun enthusiasts, who presumably are actually aware of how guns work in real life, still somehow think a person reports their friend-or-foe status when you aim at them, like in Far Cry 3 or something. 

  • I went whole hog and claimed the thing would never had happened if all the grade schoolers were packing heat. Felt I needed to get there before someone said it seriously. 

  • OriginalExtraCrispy

     It’s a hunting rifle. (Seriously). The round is legal for hunting deer in many states.

  • AnonymousSam

    I think it’s so very telling what’s wrong with our culture, that Michigan now wants to pass a concealed gun permit law which would allow people with permits to carry their guns onto school property — because, the supporters say, that could have solved this issue bang-bang good just by giving guns to the teachers.

    The assault rifle was registered in his mother’s name. His mother is a teacher.

    “Gee, that kid stole the teacher’s weapons and used them to shoot up a school. … I bet if other teachers had those weapons, they’d have shot him dead on the spot! Let’s give them all guns!”

  • Akili

    Ack, I didn’t mean it that way. I’m just not a believer that all human evil can ever be wiped away from the world. For all the thousands of wonderful people in the world there is one serial killer rapist who doesn’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

  • guest

    I’m in the UK and although I don’t consume a lot of mass media I don’t notice any less violence in it than in the US (in fact, it seems to be much less censored, at least in terms of swear words and female nudity).  

    Hunting is very big here, and skeet shooting is a thing, so plenty of people actually do own guns.  I happened to be waiting in a police office a while back and picked up the application for a gun permit.  I have no idea what applications for gun permits look like in the US, but this one asked basically why you want it (I think it said ‘self-protection’ wasn’t a permissible answer), where/when/with whom you plan to use it, what security arrangements you’ve made for the gun and ammo.  To me at least it didn’t seem terribly onerous.  IIRC the amount of ammo you can own at any one time is restricted.There are occasionally shootings here: of course there was a massacre in Norway recently.  But yeah, I guess incidents of single-event mass shootings have gone right down to 0 here since guns were banned.

  • Dan Audy

    This is a uniquely and horrifyingly American problem.  Not just the second amendment but the culture that glorifies violence and tragically in many cases the media attention that these incidents receive motivates the rage-filled personalties by offering them the recognition they crave.

    I think the US could do a very solid attempt towards gun control by focusing on the whole ‘well regulated militia’ thing.  If people are willing to invest a weekend a month and risk getting sent off on yet another of the US adventures they can join the National Guard and enjoy be permitted personal ownership of weapons.  That ensures proper training on safe handling and proper use along with some ‘filtering’ and a group that should hopefully notice if someone is becoming a danger.  It also gives a bigger and better response force for the increasingly frequent and increasingly destructive weather.  Beyond all that I suspect a broader population with basic military training with fewer weapons would be far more effective in an insurgency against the rightwings feared government oppression than the current widespread availability of guns in the hands of civilians.

  • Turcano

    I really wish we had Switzerland’s gun culture; that’s what it was supposed to be instead of treating guns as security blankets against Scary Black People.

  • reynard61

    I am seriously, *seriously* considering creating an organization called “The American Right-to-yell-‘FIRE!’-in-a-crowded-theater Society”. It’s primary sole function would be to argue that, as God-fearing, red-blooded Americans, our First Amendment Rights are absolute — even to the point of being able to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater without regard to the havoc that doing such a thing might cause, and that the Supreme Court is dead wrong to say otherwise.

    Then I remember that I’m not some chaos-worshipping cultist who gets his jollies from seeing people suffer for shits-and-giggles. (Unlike those gun-worshipping cultists at the NRA who apparently get *their* jollies from seeing people suffer.)

  • Turcano


    chaos-worshipping cultist

    Sorry, but I had to post it.

  • I’m going to note that I’m in favour of gun control before responding to this, so people don’t think I’m arguing against it. I’m just correcting a couple of factual errors.

    1. If you look at that list you’ll find most of them were related to the troubles and only two of the rest can be defined as “spree killings” – Hungerford and Dunblane.

    2. There was another shooting spree not on that list because only one person died in 1989 however that was before Dunblane.

    3. The list is incomplete there is also in 2010.

    While gun restrictions (which we already had) were tightened after both Hungerford and Dunblane it’s hard to say if it had an effect because we don’t have the gun culture of the US (heck even our police don’t carry except in exceptional circumstances). I’m inclined to say it does have a restrictive effect on gun crime but even without it the general culture would keep the level of gun crime per capita lower than in the US.

  • Matri

    Do these people honestly believe that they’re living in an action movie?

    Nope, they believe they’re living in an FPS game. They’re assuming that the police have HUD and IFF and will recognize them as “friendly” gunmen, and The Others as “hostile” gunmen.

    Seriously, the police are going into a situation looking for a human carrying a gun. Do these idiots honestly think the police won’t consider these fucking gun-carrying idiots just another one of the problem?

  •   But taking away guns from EVERYONE isn’t going to stop people from killing others

    No, but it’s going to make it a DAMN SIGHT HARDER TO KILL TWENTY PEOPLE IN ONE GO.  And if you don’t think making it harder to commit mass-murder is something worthwhile, THEN FUCK YOU.

    Would you apply this to literally any other field?

    “I’ve invented a new AIDS drug”
    “Does it cure AIDS?”
    “Not entirely, but it reduces the number of deaths significantly”
    “Unless it completely solves the problem, I don’t want it!”

    I don’t think that’s a conversation that’s ever happened.