• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Six Killed, Several Injured in U.S. Shooting in Wisconsin

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Londo_Jowo said:
Why couldn't he have brought a bomb in when he came back with the guns? Or why couldn't he have pulled up next to the theater and set off a car bomb? Based on the way his apartment was rigged he damn sure had the know how to do so.
Click to expand...

People who use bombs tend to do so rationally. By that I mean they calculate risk to themselves in doing this. They often have political motivations.

People who shoot up places do so in large part IMO to fulfill some sort of psychological need, and for the thrill of it.
 
Genx87 said:
So what? Why do you want to curtail the majorities rights based on a fringe extreme minority? And why as a society would we want to do something like that? Why let a few dictate to the many?
Click to expand...

Not the majority's right. Just the gun-toting minority. Most people don't own guns.

And we have multiple, dozens of demonstrated cases where people use these magazine-fed weapons to murder scores of people. Guns make mass murder too easy. These body counts are impossible with say a baseball bat.
 
karmypolitics said:
Not imagine, I can describe. Nidal Hasan. Cho. This guy. Holmes. All the mass shooters use high capacity guns that can be reloaded quickly.
Click to expand...

If it is legal to infringe on guns, in any way, then it would also be legal to ban all guns except muskets. Wouldn't that make you happy? The precedence required to achieve that has likely already been established.

All someone needs is the brains to argue the case.
 
karmypolitics said:
Not imagine, I can describe. Nidal Hasan. Cho. This guy. Holmes. All the mass shooters use high capacity guns that can be reloaded quickly.
Click to expand...

They could have killed just as many with pump-action shotguns and revolvers. The 1966 Texas tower shooter killed 15 with a bolt-action rifle.
 
Hi guys .... this one from a sikh from india. I recently took GRE exam and scored good marks in that. At my score i am quite sure of a call from top US universities because of my research work and strong academic background .. but this incident has really shut me down . I am in complete jeopardy whether i should come to US to pursue MS .... anyways, my condolences to the brave police official who succumbed to his injuries....Rather than banning guns why not people become more tolerant and humanitarian ..
 
Regardless, it's impossible to ban them at this point. Nobody has the political clout to do it and prohibition of anything has never worked.

All it does is force law abiding people underground while doing nothing to keep guns away from people that shouldn't have them.

Look at these recent shootings:

1. Holmes shouldn't have been able to own a gun due to his mental illness. We need better reporting to the FBI from doctors on people that have mental defects.

2. Depending on discharge, if dishonorable, this guy wasn't allowed to own guns either.

So here we have two cases were laws were already around preventing them from owning guns but yet they still got guns. We need to fix the way we prevent those that have lost their 2nd Amendment rights from getting guns, not keeping guns away from those that follow the rules.
 
hsingh said:
Hi guys .... this one from a sikh from india. I recently took GRE exam and scored good marks in that. At my score i am quite sure of a call from top US universities because of my research work and strong academic background .. but this incident has really shut me down . I am in complete jeopardy whether i should come to US to pursue MS .... anyways, my condolences to the brave police official who succumbed to his injuries....Rather than banning guns why not people become more tolerant and humanitarian ..
Click to expand...

You are about 100,000 times more likely to die in a plane crash on your way to the U.S. then you would getting killed by a mass murderer.
 
QuantumPion said:
They could have killed just as many with pump-action shotguns and revolvers. The 1966 Texas tower shooter killed 15 with a bolt-action rifle.
Click to expand...

Circumstances are different each time. A ban on these weapons would be effective. Not perfect in preventing all public shootings. But effective.

Yes, I'd also ban shotguns with shot capacities larger than 2. Reload after each shot. No pump action.
 
Nintendesert said:
Regardless, it's impossible to ban them at this point. Nobody has the political clout to do it and prohibition of anything has never worked.

All it does is force law abiding people underground while doing nothing to keep guns away from people that shouldn't have them.

Look at these recent shootings:

1. Holmes shouldn't have been able to own a gun due to his mental illness. We need better reporting to the FBI from doctors on people that have mental defects.

2. Depending on discharge, if dishonorable, this guy wasn't allowed to own guns either.

So here we have two cases were laws were already around preventing them from owning guns but yet they still got guns. We need to fix the way we prevent those that have lost their 2nd Amendment rights from getting guns, not keeping guns away from those that follow the rules.
Click to expand...

You have to start somewhere.

There will always be flaws in mental health. When that fails, you need a "backup plan"
 
no, i am not afraid of dying .. rather my point was - does an average American citizen hate Sikhs or this can be treated as an isolated incident ??
 
QuantumPion said:
You are about 100,000 times more likely to die in a plane crash on your way to the U.S. then you would getting killed by a mass murderer.
Click to expand...

not really. The aviation industry has improved its safety record over time using technology, while the gun industry has made its weapons mroe deadly over time using tech.
 
hsingh said:
no, i am not afraid of dying .. rather my point was - does an average American citizen hate Sikhs or this can be treated as an isolated incident ??
Click to expand...

The average american does not hate Sikhs.

The issue is that they mistake Sikhs for Muslims.

Many hate Muslims for the terror attacks of 911.
 
karmypolitics said:
Circumstances are different each time. A ban on these weapons would be effective. Not perfect in preventing all public shootings. But effective.

Yes, I'd also ban shotguns with shot capacities larger than 2. Reload after each shot. No pump action.
Click to expand...

Actually it wouldn't. But even if it did, is it worth condemning the 3-6 million people who save their lives and the lives of others every year in defensive handgun use situations in order to prevent the ~1-2 multiple shooting that happen rarely?
 
karmypolitics said:
not really. The aviation industry has improved its safety record over time using technology, while the gun industry has made its weapons mroe deadly over time using tech.
Click to expand...

The chance of dying in a plane crash is quite low, yes. The chance of getting killed by a multiple shooter psycho is thousands of times lower. You are more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by a mass shooter.
 
karmypolitics said:
Not the majority's right. Just the gun-toting minority. Most people don't own guns.

And we have multiple, dozens of demonstrated cases where people use these magazine-fed weapons to murder scores of people. Guns make mass murder too easy. These body counts are impossible with say a baseball bat.
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter whether or not the majority of the population uses a gun. You want to dictate to them their rights based on a criminal minority.
 
QuantumPion said:
Actually it wouldn't. But even if it did, is it worth condemning the 3-6 million people who save their lives and the lives of others every year in defensive handgun use situations in order to prevent the ~1-2 multiple shooting that happen rarely?
Click to expand...

They can just as effectively save their lives using a six shot revolver.

More like 5-6 per year. Even 10.
 
karmypolitics said:
You have to start somewhere.

There will always be flaws in mental health. When that fails, you need a "backup plan"
Click to expand...



We already have started somewhere. We have a class of people that can't own guns but yet find ways to get guns. We need to start with making sure they don't own guns.

Prohibition doesn't work. The drug war and alcohol bans have taught us that. Using a legal means to address illegal activity never works since the people you're targeting have already done multiple illegal things to reach that point. Not even including how illegal it is to attempt to kill and kill people.

With all the internet and databases out there there's no reason we can't have a do not own database for the FBI of all the felons and wife beaters that can't own firearms. Perform random checks on them, whatever, but leave people that live their life by the law a lone.
 
QuantumPion said:
The chance of dying in a plane crash is quite low, yes. The chance of getting killed by a multiple shooter psycho is thousands of times lower. You are more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by a mass shooter.
Click to expand...

my point is that the chance of dying in a plane crash has lessoned greatly over the past 10 years while the chance of dying by shooting has increased greatly.
 
hsingh said:
no, i am not afraid of dying .. rather my point was - does an average American citizen hate Sikhs or this can be treated as an isolated incident ??
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet the majority of Americans dont even know of the Sikhs before this incident, much less have any feeling towards them.
 
hsingh said:
no, i am not afraid of dying .. rather my point was - does an average American citizen hate Sikhs or this can be treated as an isolated incident ??
Click to expand...

We like Sikhs because of their enlightened philosophy and support them with their conflict against Muslims.
 
Nintendesert said:
We already have started somewhere. We have a class of people that can't own guns but yet find ways to get guns. We need to start with making sure they don't own guns.

Prohibition doesn't work. The drug war and alcohol bans have taught us that. Using a legal means to address illegal activity never works since the people you're targeting have already done multiple illegal things to reach that point. Not even including how illegal it is to attempt to kill and kill people.

With all the internet and databases out there there's no reason we can't have a do not own database for the FBI of all the felons and wife beaters that can't own firearms. Perform random checks on them, whatever, but leave people that live their life by the law a lone.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that prohibition did work.

It lowered overall alcohol consumption levels. When something is more expensive, you use less of it.

At the very least I just want to make firearms more expensive to own and acquire. If it cost 10k to buy a gun, you'd see fewer mass shootings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top