It's an assumption, and I don't have data to back it up.  But - there's the ease of killing using a gun rather than other weapons, like knives.  You've said that if you're looking to commit a random act of violence, you'll find a way do it.  But making it more difficult to get the weapons necessary to kill would decrease the amount of people dying.  This kid didn't have a gun.  If he did, he would have tried to use it.  Knives kill less than guns do.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 9:36:00 AM (view original):
I would guess that if you asked any of those 20 people if they would trade them being stabbed for someone else in their school dying, they wouldn't do that.  

I think you may be exaggerating the overall emotional distress of those who were hurt.

We also don't know what would have happened had this kid had a gun.  Maybe the guy who tackles him doesn't, and is shot instead.  Maybe it's 30 people dead.  To argue what's essentially "knives, guns, whatever" is silly.  One weapon is obviously worse to be using than the other.

I wouldn't even venture a guess as to what those 20 kids would trade.

My first place was a ****** trailer in a bad neighborhood.   Not surprisingly, I was the victim of a B&E.   They didn't get much because I didn't have much but the feeling I had when I walked in has never left me.   I imagine being a victim of a stabbing while chatting with your friends is a school is much more emotionally distressing.  

Maybe the kid blows his brains out before he goes to school.  Maybe a cop sees him carrying a gun to school and shoots him on the spot.   So, yeah, we don't know what would have happened.    Maybe that's the silly argument.

Kid walks to school with a gun.

Kid walks to school with a knife.

What scenario is more likely to cause death? That's my argument here.  Is it possible that less people are hurt and nobody dies on that particular day if he brought a gun? Yes. The possibility of more people hurt is more likely.

If bazookas were legal and easy to get, there's a pretty good chance he would have acquired one and used that to kill dozens.  But we make it difficult to acquire bazookas. 

I agree that the root of the problem, mental illness, needs to be better addressed.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 10:02:00 AM (view original):
It's an assumption, and I don't have data to back it up.  But - there's the ease of killing using a gun rather than other weapons, like knives.  You've said that if you're looking to commit a random act of violence, you'll find a way do it.  But making it more difficult to get the weapons necessary to kill would decrease the amount of people dying.  This kid didn't have a gun.  If he did, he would have tried to use it.  Knives kill less than guns do.

It's a poor assumption.    The guns used in the recent mass shootings were legally purchased.  There's no reason to believe that tougher restrictions on gun ownership would have changed who had the firearms.   I have no idea if this kid had access to firearms or if he would have used them if he did.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 10:06:00 AM (view original):
If bazookas were legal and easy to get, there's a pretty good chance he would have acquired one and used that to kill dozens.  But we make it difficult to acquire bazookas. 

And this is where it turns silly.    WHAT IF NUCLEAR WEAPONS COULD BE BOUGHT AT WAL-MART?!?!?!?   DO YOU THINK HE WOULD HAVE BOUGHT A NUCLEAR WEAPON?!?!?!!?

The guns that were legally purchased in the mass shootings - should they have purchased legally? If there were restrictions on purchasing the gun, for instance - there are members of your family who live with you that are mentally unstable, so you can't purchase the gun.  Would that have helped?  Wasn't Lanza known to have issues before the shooting? I could be wrong.

And yes, that's the point.  Make it more difficult for deadly weapons to be acquired, and less people die in these random acts of violence.  

Pretty sure he was known to have mental problems.   But, IMO, restricting gun ownership in the manner you suggested might lead people to conceal mental issues from the powers that be.   Assuming Lanza's mother was a gun enthusiast prior to his birth, do you think it's possible that she could have rationalized "Well, he's a little odd but we've got it under control" in order to maintain her gun ownership rights?   That's not good.

Life is complicated.   For every action, there is a reaction.

If you're found to have withheld information regarding your son's mental illness, in order to get a gun, make it so that you're never allowed to legally get a gun moving forward.  And improve how we deal with mental illness, so that we encourage people to get help for themselves and loved ones.  

I understand there are no easy answers here.  I just wanted to say something when you argued that it really didn't matter much whether this kid had a gun or not.  If gun laws prevented him from having a gun that day, that's a good thing, because there's a higher probability that someone/many people would have died that day if he had one.

I miss swamp right now...he'd have something to say about this.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/11/2014 10:34:00 AM (view original):
If you're found to have withheld information regarding your son's mental illness, in order to get a gun, make it so that you're never allowed to legally get a gun moving forward.  And improve how we deal with mental illness, so that we encourage people to get help for themselves and loved ones.  

I understand there are no easy answers here.  I just wanted to say something when you argued that it really didn't matter much whether this kid had a gun or not.  If gun laws prevented him from having a gun that day, that's a good thing, because there's a higher probability that someone/many people would have died that day if he had one.

I think you missed the point.    She already had guns before his mental issues were discovered.   Would she have to surrender her guns?   If so, and she hides her son's problems, doesn't he still access the guns and do what he did?   Again, tying gun ownership to people who might have a way to access them, but not own them, is complicated.

I don't think one can argue that if he had a gun that the outcome would have been much worse.    Maybe it would have been, maybe it wouldn't have.   That's a dumb argument to make.

Is that more or less dumb than arguing that it's impossible to make a reasonable guess about whether a gun would cause more harm than a knife by a deranged person in a crowd?

Do knives misfire or jam?   Perhaps the kid pulls the trigger, the gun jams and he simply takes an assbeating from the wrestling team.

It's dumb to say "Yeah, he stabbed 20 but, with a gun, he'd have killed three!!!" with any certainty.   The kid wasn't ex-Seal Team Six. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):
Do knives misfire or jam?   Perhaps the kid pulls the trigger, the gun jams and he simply takes an assbeating from the wrestling team.

It's dumb to say "Yeah, he stabbed 20 but, with a gun, he'd have killed three!!!" with any certainty.   The kid wasn't ex-Seal Team Six. 

Which would you rather face, an attacker with a gun or an attacker with a knife?

May as well guess how much damage he'd have done with a nuclear warhead from Wal-Mart or a Costco tank.