I'm surprised no one had done a topic of this. It's been burned so many times, but with the new Conneticut massacre that happened, I thought it'd be revived much quicker. Guns in the US should NOT be as accesible as they are nowadays. This event, like many many others which can but I won't name, give a hint to it, saying the least. There is no sense in civilians having guns: they're not the army, they're not joining the army, and even though it gives some civilians protection for the streets, it gives other civilians the means to hurt the firsts. Yeah, criminals will get their hands on weapons anyways, but that shouldn't be, and not because of that should we actually make it easier for them and for those who would fail to smuggle weapons in to actually not have to get caught and simply get it for a fraction of what they'd buy it illegally at. These kind of events will continue and WILL get even worse. This is a progressive vermin, in which people get more accostumed to weapons, and to use them indiscriminately. We shouldn't have to wait until a tragedy big enough to touch too many people directly happens. It's already enough with what has happened, and with what is at risk of happening.

I completely agree, if civilians like you and me can get a hold of weapons and guns, then so can criminals.
It's a messed up system.

I live in the UK and we don't really have many civilians with guns over here so its not a problem but as far as I am aware wouldn't it be very difficult to retract the guns currently owned by civilians?

most americans would go out in a firefight before giving up their firearms. gun control is a lost cause here.

plus nobody is even blaming guns, the sheeple are hammering mass effect xD

Alright, first off it occured in Connecticut, a state which has relatively stricter gun laws compared to many other US states. So gun control wise, this situation isnt the best of examples, it still demonstrates that a relaxed gun culture (USA in general) is not without negatives.

That said...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ted_States
Look at Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennesee, Missouri, Alabama, South Carolina, etc. They are winning where you dont want to win in terms of lax gun control and high body counts per capita.

That said, same day, a massacre happened in china, 22 children slashed with a knife, no fatalities. China has extensive gun control and a massacre that would have outdone the US one did not unfold. Yes children were injured, yes it was horrible, but those children get to go back to their homes, to their parents. Same cannot be said by those shot.

Something needs to be done
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_sho ... ted_States
That list is disgustingly long.

Dont like to compare USA to Aust but..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

Ever since 1996 port phillip massacre when guns became effectively toxic, there have been 2 mass murders. 1. a fire that killed 15 in 2000 and 2. a shootout by a foreign student at monash uni (where I go, yay!) that killed 2 people.

Oh and findings from Harvard
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0lFHJGX ... e=youtu.be

As much of a pain as he is, cell sums it up pretty well here

Seth, that argument is wrong. Just flat-out wrong. How many people would not kill if they see they don't have a gun available? How many people will still carry on with their killing, but fail because they had no access to a weapon? How many weapon dealers would be caught after their risk to get caught increased? How many of those weapon dealers caught would be the ones to supply the weapon/s needed for such a killing? If the percentage is any higher than 0, then taking this measure is worth it. Say whatever way you want around the measure, but this number will always be above 0, and will always be invaluable for that fact, and the fact it is invaluable also means it's necessary. The world moves on, they'll find a way, but in time, we will be able to block each and every single one of them, until the inventive to do such a thing is reduced from generation to generation. It might never fade away, but at least decrease from the chances we live with today.

Right now, not enough people listen to education about firearms, and let's face it: we are humans, we get too trusty with things once we know them, so accidents will always happen, and no ammount of education can 100% guarantee that such a tragedy will not happen with that person. However, being more restrictive with weapons, along with several programs to educate the people about it, and campaigns to create conscience about it, would perhaps not create such a huge inmediate impact: it might be as some have said and it getting worse as the populace would violently reject it - but eventually, it will create much more good than evil (and hell, those who would violently reject this could very well be the ones to violently reject something else using the guns they own, and create a tragedy - who's to say not if he's willing to kill cops or innocents for trying to do things right?) so your argument does not defend your case: in fact, it shows how much society must be educated in order to finally get out of the hellhole we're into, towards a future with less misfortunated cases like these.

And to answer your question, no. But, do you not need something to write in order to write? Do you not need something to paint with in order to paint? Do you not need a gun in order to shoot? And is shooting not one of the most accurate ways to kill or severely injure a person? Shooting a person is nowhere near painting. You can paint a wall and then paint it again with the original color, and nothing changed. Shoot a person, but could that person be brought back to life? How would everyone wish that was true.

if they want to kill, they can kill even with bare hand, or maybe a butcher knife that they can easily find inside the kitchen.

The problem with this is that there are just so many places a psychopath can go to kill a large amount of people. Imagine school security in all schools being buffed up so much that there is no way a killer can get in. Aside from the insane cost involved with this, how does it really solve anything? There is a killer with a gun, he can't get into the school. It's not as if there are no other places where a lot of children or people gather. Just for the sake of examples, a shopping mall, a sports club, playgrounds, theme parks.. There are so many places where people and children gather, it is nigh impossible (or at least not if you do not want to spend trillions of dollars) to prevent stuff like this from happening as long as you have crazy psychopaths walking around with weapons.