Let me take this one by one:

"More than half the people that actually owns a gun for protection are more likely to shoot themselves rather than someone against them." Reuters states that gun ownership is at 90 guns per 100 people. That's not 90% of the country owns guns, that just for every 100 people, 90 guns are owned. This makes sense considering that alot of people own multiple guns.

I've seen percentages all over the place, but from what I could tell, about 35% of Americans own a gun. 67% of that group state that they own a gun for protection. That's roughly 70 million people. So half of them are just as likely to shoot themsleves as shoot someone else? Well, that's great. So 35 million people couldn't hurt a fly. I guess we're only left with 35 million people then? Still seems like a large number to me.

"People know how to use other things to kill people. I mean, fuck, a man literally ate a guy's face off, almost killing him. (Sure, drugs were involved, but still)." This is called anectdotal evidence. Definition: Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.

So because ONE GUY went crazy and ate someone's face (not killing them, by the way), you're against restricting something that KILLS over 10,000 people a year in this country? That makes no sense.

"I don't want to sound like an asshole here, but it really had to take someone to break into an elementary school and shoot innocent children for people to wake up about this gun control issue, despite how many schools had shootings within the last two years? Come on."

First off, you're not an asshole. You have an opinion that you're more than entitled to. I'm just respectfully disagrreeing with you. Hopefully we can all keep it civil here.

Second... It didn't take an elementry school shooting to shock people in to action. People have been trying to ban assault weapons or get all guns banned for years. Again, the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in this country and they are very good at their job.

The fact that guns haven't been banned is in no way an indication that they shouldn't.

"What *does* stop an armed attack, then?

1)The introduction of equal or superior firepower
2) The shooter runs runs out of ammunition
3) The shooter runs out of victims"

Yeah, tell that to the people that stopped armed terrorists from crashing flight 93 in to the capital building.

Now, that fallacy aside, you believe that introducing more guns in to a situation would help, especially in a place like an elementary school? Read my post above. There are a million reasons why that's a terrible idea.

As for the rest of what you say... Do you think that his mother would've owned guns if there were illegal? I'm assuming not. Do you think that this person would've killed all of these people if guns weren't so easily obtained in this country? That's debateable, but does it hurt to take the easiest option away? I wouldn't think so.

Over ten thousand people are shot and killed in this country every year. That's WAY more than every other westernized nation in the world. I believe in Italy, the number is 417. In Spain it's less than 300. Same with Germany. Iceland had zero gun related deaths in the most recent years statistics.

You like to hunt? Why can't you use a bow? You need protection? Why can't you protect yourself with something else? Pepper spray? Kinfe? Bat?

Until we stop making guns, until we stop making them so easy for the public to get their hands on them, we will continue to have crimes committed with them ranging from robberies to rapes to murders. They are a token piece in gang wars and the accidental deaths of innocent bystanders that go with them, and the only reason why they exist in such large numbers in this country is because gun advocates think it's okay to chop off half of a sentence of the second amendment.

Again, you're totally entitled to your opinion, but I'll never understand why people love guns or feel that something specifically designed for killing should be such a large part of our culture. But again, that's just me.

People wouldn't be driven to anger if you'd stop angering them.

One line from the vigil that really stood out, was that you should "be child like, not childish".
Again, everything somehow leads back to bullying, ostracisiing, chastising, and criticising people.
Some of these attacks are because bullying causes PTSD like effects.
I appreciate that the psychologists are trying to explain why this happened, and not to judge all mentally ill folks, but their words are still very hurtful.

Isolation is a problem, yes, but people are isolated because they feel like everyone's attacking them. Verbal assaults are like dodging bullets. Stop pointing people out for being odd, different or belonging to a stereotype. It's essentially the same thing as Racial Profiling! Sticks, and stones may break my bones, but words can scar forever.

You can't force people to socialize, it's like being mauled. Stay the fuck outta my personal space. You maul (touch) me, I'll maul (hammer) you!

I choose to be alone, people make me SICK. So disgusting, and vulgar.


Just fuckin be nice to people dammit!!

People are different, get over it.
A Star wont fit in the Square slot, and you Squares can't get crooked, thinking you're Diamonds in the sky...

Yeah, tell that to the people that stopped armed terrorists from crashing flight 93 in to the capital building

Not a particularly fair comparison. By the time the threat aboard Flight 93 was neutralized, the attack had nonetheless reached its inevitable conclusion (crashing the plane). It just so happened to have missed its intended target. The innocent civilians aboard the plane were still just as dead.

That was the spirit of the 2nd amendment. The fact that people basically break off half of the sentence and pretend that it doesn't exist (and that this is allowed to happen) baffles me.

...and the only reason why they exist in such large numbers in this country is because gun advocates think it's okay to chop off half of a sentence of the second amendment.

And what half-sentence might you be referring to?

Over ten thousand people are shot and killed in this country every year. That's WAY more than every other westernized nation in the world...

I'm familiar with the Brady campaign study where this statistic is cited. The problem here? It makes ZERO distinction between differing circumstances. Were the victims shot accidentally? Were they shot during the commission of a crime? Was it a shootout between gang-bangers? Was it a police-involved shooting? No distinctions are made. Any and all "gun deaths" are lumped into one little shortbus-riding category.

To equate the accidental shooting of a seven-year-old with the "neutralization" of an armed robber by a shopkeeper defending his/her property and life is both disingenuous and reprehensible.

I think the only things you need to know related to gun crime in the US are that as a nation, there are more gun deaths than any other developed country, but not that many more guns themselves. Canada has a large amount of firearms (i can't remember the actual figures, and any data is outdated the moment it's released) but far fewer instances of gun crimes. This is true throughout the rest of the developed nations too.

While yes, it's true that there are more ways to commit murder than shooting, you can't deny that it is commonplace and needs to stop. Removing the guns = lowering the likelihood of gun crime happening.

Why is the US so different? It is a combination of factors, impossible to pin down just one reason, and taking a wholistic approach to solving the problem is the only one that will get meaningful results.

I personally know one gun owner out of everyone i know. I wonder how many Americans can say the same?

And i'm fully aware that it isn't just in the US, this year i followed the trial of Anders Breivik in the news, but it doesn't excuse the bizarre attitiude to guns that the legislation and many of the people in the US have.

Not a fair comparison? The original poster said that there were three ways to stop an armed attack. This was an armed attack that was designed to crash in to the capital building, killing who knows how many people. Compare that to what actually happened and yes, I see a distinction, a victory for those that stopped people with guns, without having guns themselves, from killing far more Americans than were killed.

The second half of the sentence that I'm referring to? Well, the 2nd Amendment isn't all that big, so that's an easy one:

"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."

Read that again: A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF THE STATE. The second half of the sentince is explicity implied to serve the purpose of the first half.

It is the first half that is routinely omitted by pro-gun advocates, presumably because the need for a well regulated, armed militia does not and has never meant that anyone that has nothing at all to do with the security of the state can go out and buy a gun.

I have to ask you... Why does differing circumstances matter at all? Gun deaths are gun deaths, regardless of the shooter, the intent, the circumstances, etc. In each situation, the gun was the weapon that executed, whether purposely or on accident, the result that occurred.

Other countries don't get to remove the deaths that are accidents or justifiable homicides or whatever from their totals. It's a straight up and down comparison and the differences are staggering.

Without the gun, that seven year old kid doesn't accidentally kill himself. Without that gun, the shopkeeper looses the money in the register, or defends himself with a different weapon that doesn't kill the attacker.

Or, perhaps without access to a gun, the attacker decides not to rob the store, or perhaps he's foiled in his attack by the shopkeeper who uses a different, non-lethal weapon.

Either way though, other countries have gangs. Other countries have police. Yet most westernized countries in the world have 200 to 400 gun deaths versus 10,000 in the US. Why is that? Do you honestly believe that accidental deaths and justifiable homicides really make up the remaining difference of 9,600 dead people?

Do you think that gun deaths due to gang violence, which absolutely destroys whole neighborhoods in this country, should be discounted simply because of who they are? What about the innocent bystanders that are hit with those semi-automatic bullet sprays?

Who do you take off of the list then? The life-long gang member, the first day gang-member, the guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time? It's a slippery slope.

But back to my point... why would the US have so many more gun deaths than Italy or Spain or Germany or Japan?

To me, countries without the obsession that our country has with guns tend to have lower accidental or intentional gun deaths because there aren't 90 guns per every 100 people. Lot's of guns means lots of shooting which means lots of intended or unintended consequences that simply don't exist in other westernized cultures because the ratio of guns to people in those countries isn't completely insane like it is here.

To take your own argument regarding flight 93... The reason why an accidental shooting of a seven year old can be equated to a shopkeeper killing someone that was trying to rob them (most likely with a gun) is because the end result is the same: Gun death. A scenario that might possibly be avoided had a firearm not been introduced to the situation.

It's not disingenuous. You can't sit here and say that guns are fine because that kid wasn't supposed to find the gun in his parents lockbox and find the slip of paper with the combination on it or guns aren't to blame for mentally ill people getting guns and using them to shoot people.

That's the whole point. With such a ridiculous amount of guns out there, in homes, in stores, at gun shows etc, that kid DOES find the gun, that crazy person DOES get the gun that they should never in a million years be allowed to own.

It's inevitable because gun culture in this country has allowed it to become inevitable. The difference between you and me is that I'd prefer to try and reduce the chances of every kind of gun death and the inevitability of the outliers while you seem to accept them as some sort of strange anomoly that can be explained away by writing off thousands of deaths here that don't seem to happen in other westernized countries. Guns shoot bullets. It's what they do. It's their sole purpose, and when you introduce that many guns in to a culture, you simply get more consequences.

You know who should pass judgment on criminals? Our judicial system. You know what police should use to subdue criminals? Tazers. You know how you defend yourself? Non-lethal force. You know what you can use to hunt? A bow.

There are a multitude of security systems, weapons etc, that could deter criminals without having to bring something in to your house, school or place of business that is designed for doing lethal damage and I respectfully refuse to acknowledge the validity of an argument that seeks to cherrypick data in order to justify the existence of something that shouldn't be constitutionally legal to own this country to begin with, not given what guns and gun culture do to this country every day.

The real problem with these school shootings is that kids are learning to kill from playing video games. They go on their call of duties and halo 4's and think just because they are top of the match, that they can go out into the real world and do it. The fact of the matter is, real life doesn't have aim assist. 600 rounds, 26 confirmed kill shots. That's just shitty shot percentage right there. Next time, go join a clan or something before your killing spree. You're making the rest of us look bad if there was ever a zombie apocalypse.

I really hope that this is nothing more but a sarcastic post. It's comments like these that make Jack Thompson proud. Video games had NOTHING to do what happened at Sandy Hooks. The kid was obviously sick in the head and video games had nothing to do with it, to be honest, we'll never know his reasons. I don't even think Thompson won a case trying to prove that video games were the cause behind the deaths of all the cases he butted in. Just because the person played video games, doesn't mean that's the number one cause behind their crimes.

What an asshole that Jack Thompson is. And the NRA.

I never had any kind of intention to go out and murder people because of the shit that I've seen in games, and I've played games all my life. These are nothing but pathetic claims saying that video games are to blame when they have nothing to do with anything. It's a lazy excuse to throw on people, and it's a pathetic one at the most.

It's like saying that Doom is responsible for the Columbine massacre all because both of the shooters made references to the game every so often. And that people believed that they made simulations through Doom mods that made replicas of the school and test what they were going to do in that.

What happened? Nothing, because video games weren't the cause of anything. The shooters were depressed, bullied, and sick in the head. Video games had nothing to do with them slaughtering schoolmates and teachers.

So yeah, you can obviously tell I'm strongly against this kind of claim, because it's certainly the dumbest thing to put on shooters... This elementary school massacre certainly couldn't have been because some twenty-year-old played a little too much of Call of Duty.

It was, in fact, an amazingly prescient post detailing what the NRA's response to the shooting would be.

Kinda depressing that they would make a claim like that. And if anyone agrees with them, then holy shit do we have a problem.

Parents.

They're the problem. They're not doing their fucking job. They need to stop being so damn lazy, stop trying to blame everyone else for their neglect, and teach their children not to emulate what they see.

Video games are an easy target for politicians. They allow parents to abdicate responsibility, they give the ignorant something to demonize and they allow politicians a chance to look like they're doing something and from what I've heard about Senator Rockefeller, he's the exact kind of politician that would start this type of crusade. He goes with his gut, facts or evidence be damned. Not a sharp guy.

A mentally ill person gets guns and kills people. Yes, let's go after video games. To me, it sounds like "guns are a part of gang violence and the fear and tragedies that result from them leave deep wounds in urban neighborhoods all across the country. Lets go after high gas prices.

I hear a representative from the Order of Light's planning a press conference lamenting the terrible effect the NRA's presence has had on the Tarkatan hordes of Outworld, placing the blame for the massacre after the first tournament squarely upon their shoulders. Somebody tell Wayne LaPierre.

Jack Thompson may've had a noble cause, but he was going about it in such a ridiculously absurd manner.

I've always advocated that kids need to be taught the differences between reality, and fictional worlds. If video games gave people ideas, how come I'm not going around stompin turtles in Mario's name? You don't do these things in real life.

Though some religious folks would argue that any representation, dramatization or reenactment is always bad, even if there is a good message. Graphics are too graphic. Kids think everything is a game, and don't connect that people are being hurt, or they just don't care.

One reason my mom somewhat approved of GTA was because of the cops n wanted system. The game shows there are consequences for your actions.

"You're not thinking 4th dimensionally!" - Doc Brown

Noble cause my rear end, the guy constantly butts into cases thinking that the number one main cause for the shooter/killers' motive is mainly on the video games that they've played. That first person-shooters are murder simulators and even tried going after Midway (before they went out of business) because he found out that you could somewhat design him in create a character mode in Mortal Kombat Armageddon. But this has never once won anything because he had no significant evidence to prove that he's right in all directions.

I hate when people put blame on something rather than the actual truth. The killer in this massacre was mentally ill. You don't just wake up one day and say to yourself, "Oh, I'm going to shoot my parents dead and then go on some murderous rampage on innocent children that has nothing to do with my issues."

And I understand that people have tried to fight all of this gun bannings before, but it's ridiculous how it's rising now because children got tangled into this situation. It's ridiculous how people are now trying to make an excuse that video games are to cause, but I've read cases and studies that show video games hardly do anything. All you really need to do with your children is sit them down and explain certain things with them, such as "don't repeat what you see in these games," and make them understand that it's just a video game. My parents did when I began to play video games without my brother being there with me, and as I said, I've played them all throughout my entire life and I have never had any kind of intention on imitating what I saw in video games.

You can throw out excuses all you want, you can sit here and claim that we need more people armed. The only thing I really don't mind is if we have officers patrolling the school. That I'll actually except.

The nice part at least is that people don't seem to be going for this BS as much now as they did back in the 90's when everyone over the age of 30 seemed to be completely ignorant when it came to video games.

Now at least, I think that people are acknowledging more of a disconnect between what happened and what the NRA asserts as being the cause and I think that it's being viewed by many as being the pathetic PR spin that anyone with half a brain knows it to be.

Not a fair comparison? The original poster said that there were three ways to stop an armed attack. This was an armed attack that was designed to crash in to the capital building, killing who knows how many people. Compare that to what actually happened and yes, I see a distinction, a victory for those that stopped people with guns, without having guns themselves, from killing far more Americans than were killed.

Actually, the flight 93 hijackers were armed with nothing more than box cutters. And I would still argue that calling the extreme loss of innocent lives a "victory" because they crashed in a remote field in PA as opposed to the Capitol akin to calling a cancer patient "cured" because the tumor is only Stage III.

The second half of the sentence that I'm referring to? Well, the 2nd Amendment isn't all that big, so that's an easy one:

"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."

Read that again: A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF THE STATE. The second half of the sentince is explicity implied to serve the purpose of the first half.

I'm not sure what "pro-gun" people you're claiming don't understand that part of the sentence. In my experience, I find the anti-gun crowd to be the ones confused over 27 simple words.

Let's take a quick walk through 18th Century American History, shall we?

Now, in the late 1780′s, as Marconi had not yet invented the radio and we were still waiting for Al Gore to get that internet thing up and running, the only available mechanism to broadcast the proposed Constitution was the printing press. To be sure that the citizens understood what the document meant, it was written in plain, common everyday language for the late 18th century. The federalists wrote a series of articles that collectively were called the Federalist Papers that explained in detail what the framers meant. The Anti-Federalists were very concerned about this federal government, having just finished fighting the most powerful central government in the world, the British monarchy and Parliament. The Anti-Federalists were responsible for the Bill of Rights to ensure redundancy in the preservation of liberty. The Bill of Rights was also written in the common, everyday 18th Century vernacular so as to absolutely clear about intent and meaning. Which brings us to the phrase "well-regulated militia".

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. In the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

And how do we know this? Simple. The Uniform Militia Act: Part I, Chapter 13, Title 10, Section 311: (written in 1792, revised in 1862 and again in 1903)

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

I have to ask you... Why does differing circumstances matter at all?

They matter plenty. Government functionaries and social engineers with agendas deliberately obfuscate facts because they know people have a tendency to react emotionally when confronted with unpleasantness. So when gun violence statistics are posted, people automatically think of victims of robberies, domestic violence, and children. They aren't thinking of the 1.5 million instances of defensive uses of firearms that happen in this country every year (Look up the data compiled by the Cato Institute for more on this).

You see, it's so much easier to repeal inalienable rights when you get people worked up with "The Sky Is Falling" doomsday scenarios, and the Brady campaign has been complicit in this despicable behavior for 30 years.

You know what police should use to subdue criminals? Tazers. You know how you defend yourself? Non-lethal force.

With all due respect, when you grow up, you'll realize that life isn't quite the rose-colored utopia you imagined when you were five years old.

...and I respectfully refuse to acknowledge the validity of an argument that seeks to cherrypick data in order to justify the existence of something that shouldn't be constitutionally legal to own this country to begin with, not given what guns and gun culture do to this country every day

This last part here might be most telling of all. At this point I believe we can dispense with any pretense of an objective debate on this subject.

One last thing; a cursory glance through your profile reveals you to be a graduate student. Might I inquire as to your area of study?

"Actually, the flight 93 hijackers were armed with nothing more than box cutters. And I would still argue that calling the extreme loss of innocent lives a "victory" because they crashed in a remote field in PA as opposed to the Capitol akin to calling a cancer patient "cured" because the tumor is only Stage III."

Are you serious? What if Congress had been in session while Flight 93 crashed in to the capital building? I'm speaking in relative terms here. Of course loss of life on Flight 93 was awful, but compared to how bad it could've been, relatively speaking, those people are heroes and your trivializing their sacrifice (sorry, but you are), betrays whatever age gap you seem to think exists between us.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"

So what are you looking at here that tells you that everyone in the country, regardless of whether you have anything to do with a militia or not, should be allowed to own a gun. No offense, but you haven't made any point here at all. If anything, it reinforced mine. Perhaps I misunderstood. Could you please clarify?

"They matter plenty. Government functionaries and social engineers with agendas deliberately obfuscate facts because they know people have a tendency to react emotionally when confronted with unpleasantness. So when gun violence statistics are posted, people automatically think of victims of robberies, domestic violence, and children. They aren't thinking of the 1.5 million instances of defensive uses of firearms that happen in this country every year (Look up the data compiled by the Cato Institute for more on this)."

Whoa whoa whoa time out. You're going to accuse people that aren't political appointees of having an agenda while quoting the freaking CATO INSTITUTE in the same paragraph? Are you serious? It was founded by one of the KOCH brothers! It's a right wing rubber stamp. Sorry, but your credibility really went out the window on that one.

But regardless, you're basically saying that gun statistics are skewed. So our country doesn't lose about 9,500 more people to gun deaths than most other westernized countries?

Or are you trying to insinuate that defensive uses outweigh the loss of life? Yeah, that would be a terrible argument. Guns and gun culture cause more violence and more death, but it's okay because they also defend people from the very guns that are so prevelent in our culture to begin with. That's ludicrous.

"With all due respect, when you grow up, you'll realize that life isn't quite the rose-colored utopia you imagined when you were five years old."

This actually pretty funny. First off... I am grown up. Really. I finished grad school a while back, a masters in public administration with a concentration in public budgeting and financial management.

But more to your point here... Look, I live in a big city. One of the most violent cities in the world. I've been robbed, I've witnessed violent crimes including gang violence and I watch countless news stories on gun deaths and gun-related crimes in my city, year in and year out. So please don't talk down to me and tell me how the big bad world works.

Maybe you live in a city where guns make you feel more secure. I however live in a city where guns have the opposite effect on large portions of communities.

"This last part here might be most telling of all. At this point I believe we can dispense with any pretense of an objective debate on this subject."

Objective? At no point have you illustrated even a passing desire toward objectivity. Your argument has been completely and utterly pro-gun from the start. I'll acknowledge that having a few armed cops in schools would be helpful. I'd prefer that they have a weapon of non-lethal force, but this is the real world after all...

Still, you seem to search for every technicality to justify gun ownership for Americans not in a militia (which no offense, but I don't think you did at all), while at the same time even mentioning the Cato Institute... I mean, c'mon man... Really?

You clearly like guns. I clearly don't. I don't believe that the framers of our constitution intended for something with so much potential for violence and death to be legal beyond a protective measure for actual militias.

I also don't think that the negative statitistics, especially when compared to other westernized countries as well as the profound runoff of guns and gun culture isn't remotely balanced out by the positive aspects of what guns provide for us. The only reason why we even NEED guns right now is becuase guns exist to begin with (ie the LaPierre argument). Yeah, no thanks, but so far, I'm not buying what either you or Wayne are selling.

My cousin just posted a picture saying how it was faked. They were actors and 18 real children got abducted. I felt sick to my stomach reading that.

Icebaby, I completely agree. It's easier to blame things that have nothing to do with the event, rather than to take a look at the contributing factors that caused the event itself.

It's easier to blame video games than to fix a health care system that leaves severely mentally ill people to fend for themselves. It's easier to blame God/ the devil/ movies/ TV/ the moon/ the victims than it is to take positive action.

Please, for the love of god, learn how to minimize the original post when you reply.

Yeah, sorry about that!