[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.

[clarky07]

That's all reasonable. I think you have to consider that many of these knife attacks have wounded far more than 8, >20 just last week. If the person doing the wounding were using a knife more suited to the task, and was more competent at using it there could easily be a much higher death to wounded ratio. Now obviously this plays into the fact that a gun is easier to use, but it doesn't mean that it can't be done. If you can wound 20 with a knife, you can kill 20 with a knife. I suspect if they all ran when he came in to the room a few more would have been saved, shooting 20 running targets is non-trivial. The problem is they were probably all paralyzed with fear. I suspect hiding under a desk would be a more likely reaction, one that doesn't help at all.

>Against a gun even such a selfless act is unlikely to cause much delay.

Look at the attack on Rep. Giffords [1] "Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury. The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger, who himself had been shot, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten the gunman."

Gunmen get subdued all the time, but when it's a classroom of 5 year olds and you presumably start with the 1 adult teacher it becomes a lot harder.

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

I think this is key. I wouldn't consider it nearly enough of a benefit to outweigh the pros of gun ownership such as self defense, freedom, and liberty.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting