Amazon.com Widgets

Did the Sandy Hook shooting prove the need for greater gun control?

  • What else can show a greater need for gun control?

    What else can show a greater need for gun control? The issue is not a total ban on gun ownership. However, assault rifles and side arms that take clips of numerous bullets should not be allowed, nay, are not needed by the general population. These are military and law enforcement weapons.
    The run of the mill owners think they are doing me a favor, nay save me from evil someday. However, I fear them more than I fear the mentally ill or psychopath.

  • We Do Need Better Gun Control

    All shootings, including the one that involved Sandy Hook, prove that this country needs better gun control. It has been needed for some time now. I do not know how many people have to die or be shot before government officials decide to step up and do what is right.

  • Yes it did.

    It also proved the need for gun owners to be more responsible in keeping their weapons and ammunition locked up and out of the reach of anyone besides themselves. I have to prove that I can see and know the rules of the road to get a driver's license. Gun owners should have to prove they won't let others get to their weapons and prove that they have a safe place to keep them out of the hands of others.

  • Yes, every time this happens it proves the issue

    The idea that anyone can get their hands on these types of guns legally points to the need for more gun control. If the shooter didn't have access to these guns, this tragedy would not have happened. Yes, he could have used other means, but he didn't have to. He used legally obtained guns.

  • No more than Bill Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban did anything to stop the Columbine Massacre

    I know I am clinging to the same point over a couple of different debates here but it is a powerful argument. These guys did not care anything of the law -- just like any other of the senseless killings going on. I know there are other points I can try to argue, but this one helps to show that it is a human choice not a tool that acts upon its own.
    I get it, a lot of people don't like guns, I stand by an individuals right to live in peace and without fear. But understand I also stand by an individual's right to possess his firearm. Even though the problem is alarming -- the chance of a peaceful, law-abiding individual meeting his or her death by the barrel of a gun is very slim. Let us examine the heart of people.

  • We Cannot Stop All Crime

    Yes the Sandy Hook shooting was tragic. But even the thought of teachers concealing weapons in ridiculous. What if a student breaks in and obtains the firearm? Teachers do NOT need of responsible. Studies prove that 1/3,000,000 chance of a student being in one of these in their LIFETIME. Nick Lanza (The shooter) obtained these weapons from his MOTHER. Her fault for not securing her firearms. And criminals will find WAYS to find guns regardless. These regulations pertain to law abiding citizens only.

  • It's our right to own guns, people will get them if they want them no matter what

    There have been school shootings before this one, all tragic and all lives lost and taken before their time and no one will ever know why, but no this does not prove or justify a need to press the issue of gun control, owning guns is protected in our amendments and Obama needs to worry about other things like maybe all the debt our country is in instead of worrying about trying to take away American's gun rights, which is just making people go buy more guns and ammo faster in case he tries to pull a fast one. If someone wants to get ahold of a gun they will no matter how legal or illegal guns are just look at drugs and bombs etc. if somebody really wants to get ahold of something they will, either they will make it or find someone who will

  • Sandy Hook Massacre occurred in tightly gun controlled area.

    Gun control is wrong in every way including in the ways you think it would help. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed 100s of studies on gun control and could not document a single gun legislation that reduced violent crime and homicides. Most places where gun control is imposed see an increase in violent crime and areas where gun laws are loosened see a decrease in violence. It doesn't matter if I'm a gun nut redneck, or a hippie liberal. The truth is the truth and the truth is that Gun Control is bad in every way imaginable. Stop being political and use reason.

  • Gun Free Society is a Dream

    The idea that gun control actually working with criminals is a joke. If someone will kill another person, they will not think twice about breaking the law to get a gun. Ridding society of guns is unrealistic. The real issue is parenting. If people were trained to properly deal with anger issues and conflict, many things would be gained far beyond the possibility of gun laws.

  • Its not the guns

    There is no need for better gun control. The guns were licsensed and registered all by law and legally with a lawabiding citizen. There was no way of knowing that Adam Lanza was gonna do this. I agree the mother could have had better locks on her guns but control is not the answer

  • Gun control is people control

    Sorry, but the old adage holds true, guns do not kill people.

    That said, I feel the opinion question is vague. While I generally believe the current laws should be sufficient, but are not enforced well enough COUPLED with a much better mental health system would yield better results than sweeping, draconian gun control such as a ban on semi automatic firearms which are lawfully used and possessed by 30+ million Americans.

    That said, if there was a proposal that I felt would have a real impact on crime/mass shootings even if slightly infringing on 2A rights, I would support it.

    Assault weapon is a fabricated term, there is no class of firearm called assault weapon. The ban would impact semi automatic firearms that are the most popular in the Country. Ban on magazines will be even less effective - anyone that has spent anytime shooting knows that it takes 2-5 seconds to change out a magazine. Not enough time to allow a victim to take action and even over the course of a rampage, would have next to no impact on the damage while responders try to end it.

  • No, it proves that we need less.

    Sandy Hook is the #2 worst school massacre in US history. The #1 was the Bath School Massacre in 1927... and it was explosives (grenades) that did most of the killing, not the handguns that were also used.

    A similar school-shooting occurred shortly after the Columbine shooting in Taber, Alberta, Canada.. a country that has significantly stricter gun-control laws than the US... yet those laws did not stop the gunman from obtaining a gun and killing.

    Speaking of Columbine... the two "shooters" also used an assortment of bombs during their rampage.. CO2 Bombs, Propane Bombs and Molotov Cocktails.

    On the same day that Sandy Hook had their massacre, a similar situation occurred in China.. the attacker did not use a gun, he used a knife.

    Sandy Hook Elementary was a secure school... it's district spent 10 times the time and money required on security, they have emergency plans and drills and practice them on a regular basis, the doors were locked before the shooter arrived and he circumvented the security that was put in place.

    Violent, Deranged people will do violent, deranged things, regardless of the instrument used or the preventative measures in place. Guns are used because they are common and easily available, which is not an argument for gun control because if you removed all guns, a different method of killing would be used... bombs, fire, knives/swords, poison.. etc.

    Look at Israel and Thailand... countries where the threat of a school shooting is significantly higher than the US where jihadists kill children in the name of religious fundamentalism.. and in both cases, they did the opposite of what this topic suggests.. they relaxed gun control and armed their teachers and in both cases, attackers have been repelled and stopped by armed civilians.

    Israel Pilots are now armed... and the rate of hijackings have dropped significantly.

    The US has 9 guns for every 10 homes, even if gun-control became tighter, there's going to be a lot of surplus guns laying around and bad-guys don't register their guns, nor will they voluntarily hand them over... but the innocent, law-abiding citizens will.

    Gun Control takes guns away from law-abiding citizens, making them more of a target for the outlaw. Take guns away from bad-guys and they'll use alternatives, as demonstrated earlier.

    The UK and Australia enacted tougher gun-control laws... and their crimerate increased dramatically, with Australia seeing a dramatic increase in firearm-related homicides.

    Finally, look at Switzerland, which has no standing army since every citizen is required by law to join the militia at the age of majority, trained to use a firearm and provided one for his/her home. Switzerland's crime rate is a fraction of the USA's.. where 2/3 of people in prison and remand are not Swiss, but foreigners.

    The Secret Service in collaboration with the US Department of Education released a 63 page report in 2002 entitled The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the US". The report essentially identifies that threat-assessment is a significant method in order to prevent school attacks. However, it did identify a point significant to this debate: "Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most attacks were stopped by mes other than law enforcement intervention." it goes on further to say, "Most school-based attacks we stopped through intervention by school administrators, educators and students, or by the attacker stopping on his own. In about 1/3 of incidents, the attacker was stopped by school staff or students, 1/5 the attacker stopped on their own, just over 1/4 of incidents were stopped by law-enforcement intervention. It also says, "Close to half of the incidents were known to last 15 minutes or less".

    So, to summarize:

    1) The correlation between gun-ownership and crime rate is such at that in most cases, when the citizenry are armed, the crime rate is lower, even in the case of firearm-related crime.

    2) Similarly, countries that use to have a high level of gun ownership, but which enacted gun-bans saw an increase in crime immediately following the ban... including firearm-related crime.

    3) Some countries have experimented in arming teachers and pilots and experienced a reduction in crime specific to their sphere of influence (schools and planes).

    4) Firearms are simply a means to kill and are often used in conjunction with other means (most notably: bombs). Removing Firearms will mean that alternatives will be use more frequently, but there is no evidence to show that it'll reduce the crime-rate or the incident-rate of mass-killings.

    5) The Secret Service and the US Department of Education released a report which indicates that the most effective method in stopping an attack once the attack has begun are the victims of the attack themselves and that Law Enforcement is not as effective at stopping the attack as the victims are.

    References:

    http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/gun-control-california-stockton-school-shooting_n_2316666.html
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/taber/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
    http://www.examiner.com/article/michigan-governor-delays-signing-bill-to-allow-concealed-carry-schools?CID=obinsite
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.