Mass shooting too close to home

[Celery]

I guess we'll just have to execute em then.

 

[Cortb]

I guess we'll just have to execute em then.

LOL. Surprisingly, it's more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. There are a lot more trials/appeals that have to take place before we can execute someone. It's much cheaper if the police kill them on site, or if they commit suicide, but then we never know the motivation, and it makes it harder to find out if there are any other co-conspirators...

 

[Celery]

Trust us to make it complicated. Most other countries solve their problems with a bullet.

A bullet is what? A dollar?

 

[BK_123]

This will probably sound like a very uneducated response but at least in the UK & Australia, we don't have crazed lunatics going into churches and educational institutions killing a room full of people. Why? because we tighten laws surrounding gun control and since 1996 when the Port Arthur Massacre happened and we tighten our guns laws, we haven't had a mass shooting since. None of the big incidents such as the Sydney siege in 2014 count as mass shootings because only 3 people including the gunman died.

What the UK and Australia did differently after mass shootings - CNN

Australia Hasn't Had A Mass Shooting Since 1996 - Gizmodo

 

[Smart_Guy]

In any country criminal laws (if I get the description right) tons of things add up. Simply banning guns won't help. Things (or at least relative parts of them to a specific problem) like corruption, laziness, low manpower, education, awareness, poverty, donuts, etc. should all be looked at cuz they all add up for a conclusion.

ah... something doesn't belong up there!

 

[root]

Simply banning guns won't help. Things (or at least relative parts of them to a specific problem) like corruption, laziness, low manpower, education, awareness, poverty, donuts, etc. should all be looked at cuz they all add up for a conclusion.

Indeed, simply banning guns does not help.

and there is not a lot of inventing a law that cannot be effectively enforced.

 

[Trotter]

Indeed, simply banning guns does not help.

and there is not a lot of inventing a law that cannot be effectively enforced.

Both very true. There are numerous laws about guns already on the books. The real problem is that they are not being followed or enforced properly.

 

[Celery]

Exactly. Some one's not doing his job.

Now I can add to this remark. This shooter was a real sicko as the stories come out about him. A disgusting person and a pedophile who had a 12 year old girlfriend who just broke silence.

Had the authorities known and did something about it he would have been banned from buying guns. Maybe this wouldn't have had happened.

 

[OneMarcilV]

The biggest problem is these shooters get a trial. The peeps that were shot and killed had no trial. The peep that did the shooting and killing should be taken out and hanged like this countries laws used to allow.

 

[cb600fshornet]

If guns were outlawed then only outlaws would have guns.

Criminals do not obey existing gun control laws so adding more won't make a difference to the criminal element but instead will only hinder those who already abide by the laws.

I wish I could disagree with you... but I can't. Here in the UK our gun control laws only work because of how long they've been in place, thus though there are guns in circulation, there are far less. In the US, if gun control laws were made more strict, they'd also have the job of getting rid of the ones which already exist, and I'm in no doubt that criminals simply won't hand theirs back!