[bambax]

This discussion about "semi-automatic" versus "automatic" weapons actually strengthens the case FOR regulation; automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings.

How one can conclude from these facts that less regulation is better, I don't know.

All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse.

The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people.

[confusedNRA]

You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon.

Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about, to then make another asinine post.

"automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings."

Could you please extrapolate how semi-automatic weapons are apparently "not regulated". This I'd really love to hear, considering how difficult it is to obtain one. I understand this does indeed differ from state to state, but to make the blanket statement, "semi-automatics are not regulated" is so unbelievably wrong, it shout outs to the reader to not reply to your post because there is a level of understanding you clearly don't have.

"All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." A statement like this could only come from someone who doesn't actually understand a damn thing about guns.

I think you have a lot of reading to do.

[wisty]

There's no real difference between automatic and semi-auto in terms of how dangerous they are. An experience marksman will use both the same way (as spraying full auto greatly reduces accuracy). An inexperienced marksman with a fully automatic weapon will empty their magazine into the ceiling. Burst fire might be a bit better (it's what the US Army uses), but semi-auto is more lethal than fully auto in the hands of most people.

Overall, murder rates won't change a lot. Husbands and wives will still be able to murder each other. Gangsters will fight with knives, or illegal guns. But mass murders will be harder to pull off. It might also make the police more effective, as they will rarely be outgunned.

[clarky07]

Except that police have been outgunned many many times in history, generally by guns that were/are illegal or nearly impossible to get. Tommy gun vs revolver ring a bell?

I do agree that full auto wouldn't help an inexperienced marksman, he'd likely just waste more ammo. However, an experienced marksman could also easily do just as much damage with a bolt action gun. The key is that it's really easy to kill people with guns if the other people don't have guns. If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them.

Fwiw, the military uses select fire guns, i.e. guns that can be both semi auto or full auto. Generally aimed semi is more effective as you waste less (running out of ammo is really really bad) but there are times when full out is good for things like providing cover.

[tsycho]

I think bambax's main point is summed up by - "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people."

Do you have any real points to counter that, rather than just pointing out irrelevant technicalities or calling him names? And no, it doesn't change bambax's real point at all whether its a automatic or a semi-automatic.

[confusedNRA]

When a person makes a statement, "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." They've lost all credibility, and in my opinion aren't really deserving of a well thought out rebuttal due to their obvious lack of experience in this field.

Let's take this statement, "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people."

Right, guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people, hence it's a tool like any other. My guns that I have, have yet to jump themselves out of my house and shoot someone, they require an operator to use. So that statement you seem to have such a problem with, is 100% factually true, guns don't kill people by themselves, they make it easier for people to do so. I don't really see what sort of counter to that is even needed, when obviously it's the operator of the guns that are the problem, not the guns themselves.

[mpweiher]

OK. "Operator" runs amok with a nerf gun.

Slightly different outcome.

How again is the highly efficient killing tool not part of the problem?

[clarky07]

Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and saving their lives and others with the use of a gun.

[dmix]

Not only incidents where they were successful in self-defence but the perception of the potential victim being armed is also highly relevant.

How much crime is deterred from happening in the first place, for example in states where its well-known that gun ownership is popular, is often difficult to track accurately. But there's a ton of statistics that show correlation in crime reduction.

[clarky07]

Exactly. Compare gun crime in DC, which has tons of gun control, to lots of other places without gun control.

[dmix]

Indeed, new numbers come out all the time. This ones from 2011, from two states with some of the worst gun crime:

> Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in...

[tsycho]

That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't a normal revolver suffice?

Furthermore, for places where the population density is high, and the number of police per square mile is reasonable, and the law and order situation is generally good (most US cities would probably fit the above?), then is there any real need for normal civilians to have easy access to guns, at least anything that can be used for mass firing?

[clarky07]

Do you know much about guns? (not trying to be an ass, honest question). The difference between a revolver and a semi-auto is very minimal. This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver.

There is definitely a need for civilians to have guns. First off, this sounds cliche, but when you need a gun seconds count and police are minutes away. You aren't going to stop a home invasion, rape, mugging, etc with police. 0 chance. They might catch them, but they can't stop it from happening. If someone comes into my church and starts shooting people, me being there and armed can save lives. Calling 911 means you probably have at least 5-10 minutes before a response (in the case of this tragedy, I think I read it was 6 minutes before there was even a 911 call made. Wouldn't have been better if the principal or a security officer had a gun in a safe in the office?)

Finally, self defense is really only the practical day to day reason for keeping guns in the hands of civilians. Liberty and freedom are the bigger reasons. Saying it doesn't matter because the govt has bombs and jets is disingenuous. If the govt decides to drop atom bombs all over the country this discussion is irrelevant. It's much more likely a conflict would be with guns. I'll leave you with this quote from Hitler:

”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.” ~Adolph Hitler

[bambax]

> This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver

This is not true. The gun he used (a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle) allows for rapid fire and has magazines. The time it takes to reload a revolver would not have allowed the same number of casualties.

Every victim was hit by more than one bullet (up to eleven bullets for one of the victims). A revolver usually lets you shoot just 6 times before you need to reload.

Interesting animation http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp

[tossacct]

What weapons do you think people will use once all of the guns are gone? Maybe something less deadly, maybe something far far more deadly.

The mass-killers are the issue, not the tools that they use. Effective mental health treatment is a necessary step in reducing the pool of potential mass-killers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Oklahoma_City_b...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

[clarky07]

There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well. If you completely got rid of semi-auto guns, people would use bolt action guns. If you get rid of those, people will use knives. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time.

You clearly have no knowledge of guns, how they work, how they are currently regulated. The reason automatic weapons aren't used in shootings, is that they cost > 10k.

Yes, it is easy to kill a lot of people with a semi auto handgun. It would also be really easy to kill a lot of people with a bolt action gun. Or a pump action shotgun, and yet no one talks about banning those. For some reason we've become fascinated with "scary assault rifles". You should come out to my farm and shoot a few watermelons and you'll see that it's a lot of fun.

The guns aren't the problem. The crazy guy shooting people is the problem. If the principal and the teachers that are sane had guns with them, or there were some security officers or police with guns, this wouldn't have happened. Would you like to take the guns away from the police too?

If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option.

Sorry for the rant, I just get really frustrated when people who haven't done any research into the subject make assertions that are simply not accurate.

If we could go back in time 400 years and ban all guns that might be a good idea, at this point the cat is out of the bag though. Please don't take my guns, I'd like to be able to defend myself against the crazy people that already have them.

[bambax]

> If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option.

This is the option where I live (France). It's not perfect here (very far from it), but I think we have a lot less violence, a lot less people in jail, etc. "Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school.

> If the principal and the teachers that are sane had guns with them, or there were some security officers or police with guns, this wouldn't have happened.

How do you identify "teachers that are sane"? (I would say, teachers that are sane are those that refuse to carry guns.)

And what happens when there are no adults around? Should 6-year-olds be required to carry guns?

This kind of comment makes me happy I don't live in the US. I have three kids (3-4-7); there is no "security officer" at their school, you can come in and out pretty much as you like. The school is small enough that the principal knows every student by name and every parent by sight.

Now, before someone says that I'm stupid because I just generalize from a single data point, and that I probably live in a privileged neighborhood... On weekends my kids go to an American School (so that they can learn some English).

The neighborhood is the same, but in the American school they have "security" officers, big doors, big talkies, and you have to wear a badge at all times.

The "threat" (or lack thereof) is the same, but the perceived threat, and the culture, is very very different.

> Please don't take my guns

It's just that I still can't see how guns aren't related to mass shootings.

But I'm not a US citizen, I don't visit the US often, I'm really not in a position to take anything from you. Do what you think is best.

[thinkling]

This is a big cultural divide. It's a big divide within the U.S.; it's even bigger with people outside the U.S. who haven't experienced the gun culture first hand, much less grown up with it.

Just a factual side-note:

"Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school.

_cough_

Just this past spring: A gunman has shot dead a teacher and three children at a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17426313

[bambax]

He was neither an outlaw nor, stricly speaking «crazy». He was an ideologue, a fanatic and a terrorist. While it's good that there aren't too many guns around, the lack of weapons is not enough to deter terrorists. The only thing that works against terrorism is intelligence. This particular story was a big failure in this regard.

[clarky07]

Ha! Guns are the problem for crazy people in the US, but in places without guns and lots of gun control, it's then a "terrorist" that finds a gun and kills people.

[clarky07]

>This is the option where I live (France). Well if it wasn't for the Americans and our guns you would be ruled by Nazi Germany. It might be a long time ago and off topic, but it really wasn't that long ago and it's not that far off topic.

>It's just that I still can't see how guns aren't related to mass shootings.

That's obvious, they just aren't related to mass killings. This technology has been around for > 100 years. Look up the 1911, still one of the most popular semi-auto handguns on the market. These killings have only happened recently. That tells me something else is going on, it's not just that we have guns.

We've also had the mass knife rampages mentioned, as well as suicide bombers, etc. Almost all of these people end up killing themselves as well. Nothing is going to stop them from strapping a bomb to their chest and killing an entire classroom or gym full of people.

[bambax]

Even if it were true that France would be ruled by Nazi Germany were it not for «american guns» (more likely, soviet Russia), what does this have to do with mass shootings in contemporary US? (And how are your other wars going, BTW? Any General left still wearing his pants?)

Should we go down this road, I could say that I don't care if you guys shoot at each other until there is no one left standing; the incident involving Vice-president Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face was entertaining indeed. But today it's more difficult to be indifferent to the massacre of children.

If it's so easy to perpetuate mass killings with any weapon, why are (semi!) automatic rifles still the weapon of choice amongst perpetrators?

[clarky07]

See my other comment regarding weapon choice - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4934021

http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacre...

fwiw - semi-auto rifles are actually only used in 3% of shootings. but lets not let facts get in the way of anything.

[MartinCron]

There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well

I don't want to be the "citation needed" guy, but this is an outrageous claim.

[clarky07]

read your sibling comment, but here are a few to get you started: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E...

from [1] - Related or similar events

Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who visited the site a week after the massacre to offer prayer to the victims,[70] said that he "is worried that similar cases occur about 10 times a year in Japan."[32][71] According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar random attacks have taken place between 1998 and 2007.

People will undoubtably say that, well, this time 26 people died, but in this examples only 8 died. To that I'd say a few things:

1. Is that somehow acceptable? Most of our school shootings have had far less people die than the 26, closer to the 8 of these stabbings. It's still an outrage and a horrible tragedy, and I'd like to try to find a solution to the problem (though I suspect it's nearly impossible to prevent entirely).

2. Killing 26 5 year olds with a knife would not be that hard. It's likely that most of these others have been overpowered sooner by more able opponents, though I'll concede it's easier to overpower someone with a knife than a gun. On the other hand, it's also easier to overpower someone with a gun, if you have one as well...

[MartinCron]

Thanks for the reasonable response. I took exception to the word "plenty" for knife massacres, as they are exceedingly rare. The truth is, gun massacres are also exceedingly rare, so I guess there's nothing wrong with that parallel, other than the obvious:

1. It's logistically easier to kill more people with a tool that's better at killing a lot of people.

and the less obvious:

2. It may be psychologically easier to commit mass murder with a somewhat detached and abstracted weapon like a gun than something more primal and physical. The same way that many people would become vegetarians if they had to slaughter their own meat.

Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.

[clarky07]

Thanks, I try to be as reasonable as possible, though I have to admit when I came across this thread I had an "Oh noes, somebody is wrong on the internet I can't go to bed" moment.

Back on topic. I'll give you both points, but I'm not sure how they relate to my comment or the parent. I don't believe guns are inherently evil. The are just things. Clearly my parent believes that they are evil and nothing I say will change his mind but that's neither here nor there.

>Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.

I don't think it is. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the cat is out of the bag. There are far too many readily available firearms for there to be any meaningful gun control in this country short of completely outlawing them AND confiscating them with a search.

There are already lots of firearms safeguards, including background checks, waiting periods, etc. Most people who post on boards like these and say we should have tighter gun control have no idea what that means, or what kind of gun control we in place now. Most of it is fine (in places like TN where I live) some of it is absurd and IMO unconstitutional (in places like DC and NYC). DC has some of the toughest gun control in the country and yet also has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Taking guns away from lawful citizens just means the criminals don't have anything to be afraid of.

To get my handgun carry permit I had to go to a class, pass a written test, pass a shooting test, pass a background check, get approval from my local sheriff, and all of this came with a waiting period. (Now, simply buying a gun is easier, but it still requires a background check unless you are purchasing from a private individual). What is it that you (or anyone else) would propose we add to this? You already can't legally buy or own a gun if you are a felon or have any history of mental illness. There are however plenty of guns available for them to buy from private individuals who don't know you are a felon, or alternately they could just steal them.

[MartinCron]

What I would add. Not perfect, but not terrible either.

Require education/tests/checks/mental health screens for all purchases, not just concealed carry.

Close gun show loophole. Regulate private sales. Hold private sellers responsible if they sell to felons.

[josephlord]

> There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well. If you completely got rid of semi-auto guns, people would use bolt action guns. If you get rid of those, people will use knives. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time.

Mass killings (and attempts) with knives happen. China School attacks 21 deaths in about 8 attacks (upto 8 deaths in a single attack), Alaska 2008 killed 4, Korea 2008 (5 dead from stabbing), Akiharbara 2008 killed 4. Osaka 2001 killed 8. Wolverhampton, UK 1996 - injuries but no deaths. The death toll will be far lower in most cases than a similar event with guns. You don't see 26 dead in a single knife attack.

> The guns aren't the problem. The crazy guy shooting people is the problem.

"Crazy people" is a nebulous concept which while sometimes perfectly normal at other times people switch between sane and crazy depending on body chemistry, legal medication, infection, illegal drugs, life events and sometimes we just don't know. Is it conceivable that lower availability of guns immediately available whether directly to the person concerned or in their home or workplace the less likely large numbers of people are to get hurt (including the person themselves)?

> Yes, it is easy to kill a lot of people with a semi auto handgun. It would also be really easy to kill a lot of people with a bolt action gun. Or a pump action shotgun, and yet no one talks about banning those. For some reason we've become fascinated with "scary assault rifles". You should come out to my farm and shoot a few watermelons and you'll see that it's a lot of fun.

Banned in the UK (if the shotgun holds more than 4 shells I think) so it is talked about in some places. I'm sure it is fun shooting the guns at targets, its also fun driving through the town centre at 70mph. Done properly in the right place by the right people it is also potentially safe but overall the risk is too high.

Note that in my view the UK law is probably too strict and I would be in favour of allowing more weapons securely stored at shooting ranges with security requirements based on the weapons kept there.

[clarky07]

>You don't see 26 dead in a single knife attack.

I suspect you could if they attacked 5 year olds in a kindergarten class room.

>"Crazy people" is a nebulous concept which while sometimes perfectly normal at other times people switch between sane and crazy depending on body chemistry, legal medication, infection, illegal drugs, life events and sometimes we just don't know. Is it conceivable that lower availability of guns immediately available whether directly to the person concerned or in their home or workplace the less likely large numbers of people are to get hurt (including the person themselves)?

I'm not referring to this person as crazy beforehand, or as something we could have somehow prevented. I'm suggesting that the behavior of killing 26 5 year olds is indeed crazy, and there is little we could do to stop this from happening. I'd start though, with armed security / principals etc in the schools (i know of schools in my area (rich white suburbs) that have guns in the schools and I think it's a great idea.

That being said, I think this person's access to guns should have been limited, by his mother. She knew he had a problem, she should have at the very least had them in a safe that he didn't have the combination to. I have no idea why people think they should restrict my access to guns because of this incident. This is a personal responsibility problem. There simply no way we (we as in America) could keep him from having a gun without restricting my freedom and liberty. On the other hand, his mom easily could have, and that wouldn't have effected me at all.

>Banned in the UK (if the shotgun holds more than 4 shells I think) so it is talked about in some places. I'm sure it is fun shooting the guns at targets, its also fun driving through the town centre at 70mph. Done properly in the right place by the right people it is also potentially safe but overall the risk is too high.

4 shotgun shells in a crowded area is going to do huge amounts of damage, so I think that's a bit silly. They also aren't terribly difficult to reload. I don't think the town center comparison holds though. Driving 70 through the middle of town very clearly endangers other people, whereas my owning guns does not make you less safe, and very arguably makes you more safe if you happen to be near me while someone tries to harm you. This person having a gun made these people less safe obviously, but he didn't own a gun. He stole them from his mother. He could have also stolen them from someone else, though maybe that's at least a bit less likely. I assume if he's willing to kill 26 people though, he's also willing to break into his neighbors house or the local gun shop.

His mother should have tried harder to prevent him from having access, but there is virtually no law that could have fixed this.

[josephlord]

Several of the cases I mentioned are exactly attacks of 5 or 6 year old school children. They resulted in between zero (Wolverhampton, UK) and 8 deaths (one of the Chinese attacks) it seems (with a greater number of injuries but still typically much less than 26).

Yes, YOU are perfectly safe with guns at the moment. But what if you are taking anti-malarial medicine or something else that throws you off balance? Having a gun might make the difference between you shootings somebody (possibly yourself) and breaking your legs jumping of the roof or wounding someone with a knife. And then we get onto the aggregate impact of those initially less stable than yourself.

4 shotgun shells might do a huge amount of damage in crowded area but in a crowded area someone can jump on you while you stop to reload. In a sparsely populated area with a car to keep mobile in you can still do a lot of damage (Cumbria, UK 2010) but I suspect less than with more capable weapons.

In the UK there isn't anywhere to steal such weapons from apart from the police, army and criminals (but even criminals very rarely use or carry guns because the punishments for getting caught with them are high). Also such theft would need planning and time in which he may have been caught or his state of mind may have changed.

There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK with our laws the death toll in an attack similar to the one last week in the US would have been lower due to the lack of availability of guns. Children and carers/teachers may still have died but not in such numbers. It is more arguable that there imposition of restrictions is too much of a burden on freedom for the benefit but saying there is no benefit is pure denial.

I find the self defence arguments unconvincing in general although it is hard to prove. Transitioning from the US situation to the UK one especially given the geography of the US would be challenging and complicated

Genuine questions

1) In the US is his mother criminally or civilly liable for not preventing his access to the weapons?

2) Do you think that she should be?

[clarky07]

>It is more arguable that there imposition of restrictions is too much of a burden on freedom for the benefit but saying there is no benefit is pure denial.

I'm not saying it isn't possible that there is some benefit, I am saying that any benefit would be pretty small, and that the cons easily outweigh the pros in my opinion. Self-defense is an argument that is more easily understood so I tend towards that, but to me it's secondary to the freedom and liberty you mention.

Is it really that much of a benefit to "only" have 8 kids die in a classroom? I guess if you happen to be one of the 18 it is, but these are both really really awful occurrences and getting rid of guns only maybe makes it a bit harder with other cons we've already mentioned.

I'd like to point out, that this is an anomaly of anomalies. Columbine was the most famous of these school shootings, and "only" 13 died there. Most of the time these crazy people end up killing themselves sooner. I suspect this guy was just a bit more off his rocker, and if all he had was a knife he would have still killed more than 8.

to your questions: > 1) In the US is his mother criminally or civilly liable for not preventing his access to the weapons?

He killed her before this started, so no.

> 2) Do you think that she should be?

Much harder question. I think there is probably a case to be made civilly, but probably not criminally. I do think that she shoulders a lot of the blame as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4930678 - and in your parent I said:

"That being said, I think this person's access to guns should have been limited, by his mother. She knew he had a problem, she should have at the very least had them in a safe that he didn't have the combination to."

I don't it would be too hard to prosecute a civil case against her given his prior behavior.

I don't think taking guns away from everyone makes the country a better place though. I'd prefer more people to be armed than less, but that's just my opinion.

[josephlord]

I think 8 deaths in a knife attack is an outlier as 26 in a gun attack may be. I'm sceptical of the claim that last week's assailant would have killed more than 8 with a knife without somebody stopping him or the vast majority of the children being evacuated. Running away just works better against a knife unless completely cornered and even then some of a cornered group may escape. Evidence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/30883.stm) is that people will put themselves in the way to protect children in their care and with even a child's chair may be able to delay the attack for vital seconds. Against a gun even such a selfless act is unlikely to cause much delay.

Yes halving the number of deaths in each attack is a benefit but not one that necessarily overrides all other factors.