I know the in laws are quite strict already however, I agree they should be tightened.. And this has aleady been suggested by Obama. If it wasn't a gun it could have been a knife? I think guns are okay, but on the other hand how can it make America feel safe knowing they need a gun in their own house for protection? Its probably to do with their culture but I believe people take advantage of the access they have to own a gun, and let's face it the media love a new story! At the moment imo America is a capitalist country, and the media don't help that at all.

(click to show/hide)

Answer this simple question.

Who is going to stop the guy with the gun? Good luck on sneaking up behind someone and subduing them without them having time to spin around and putting lead between your eyes. The answer is someone else with a gun. Plain and simple. I don't care if someone has a gun. You're not going to throw a book or a knife at them and disarm them or kill them. This isn't fucking Call of Duty.

If someone is really persistent in WANTING to shoot people or just cause harm to innocent people, they'll do anything they can to get their hands on something to do it with.

The rest of the world doesn't really have that problem. Perhaps I shouldn't speak for the world, but here in Sweden (and judging by other countries' statistics with stricter gun control laws), it is fairly uncommon.

Guns are simply too powerful weapons to be so easily accessible by everyone. Let me depict it with two short stories:

John

It all began in 4th grade. Jacob, the new guy in class, felt a need to prove himself. He was often rough and mean to the smaller guys. John was one of these smaller guys. One day, Jacob pulled John's pants down in the schoolyard, "for fun." Everyone laughed, except for John and his two best friends. John had never felt so humiliated before. "Let's tell the teachers", John's friends encouraged him. Said and done. John's teacher called Jacob to his office. John felt afraid and ashamed as he sat outside the office with his two friends, waiting for the issue to be resolved. After all, Jacob was a fairly big guy and he had already gained some popularity among the tough guys. "What if there will be retribution?", he contemplated. When the door opened and Jacob came out, John knew. There was no mistaking Jacob's look in the eyes. John nearly cried in fear. John ran home from school that day. He cried.

The next couple of days, Jacob and his "gang" were throwing glances at John. It was plain enough what they meant: "When the teachers aren't around to protect you, you are dead, kid." The silent bullying had begun. John's friends were afraid too. They didn't want any trouble. Gradually, they started to avoid John's company, in fear of becoming victims as well. John had never felt more alone. Whenever the teachers would look away, Jacob and his gang would push John into the wall, hit his arm or conduct other quick fouls. John became a loner. A helpless victim. After two years, John despised school more than anything. He had little energy for studying and he was rapidly falling behind. "Everyone hates me and I'm stupid", he thought. If anything changed over the years, it was for the worse. Even his family started to question John's behavior. "Why can't everybody just leave me alone?", he wondered. "I didn't ask to be born into this world" and "I wish I was dead" were recurring thoughts. John hated life, himself and everybody else. One day, John had had enough. He had decided to end this misery they call life. "If I'm going to die, I may as well take as many of those bastards with me", he thought, before he went to carry out his deed.


Mason

Mason loved cars, football and, of course, girls. Despite growing up in a poor neighborhood, he felt pretty content with life. He had the most awesome friends, he was doing all right at school and his part-time job at Burger King brought in the extra needed money for the family. Mason's father had suffered a back injury years ago, leaving him unable to work. More than Mason liked to admit, his father resorted to the bottle. His father was easily angered while drunk and his mother was often away at work. Mason felt responsible for his siblings. Luckily, he had the most amazing friends. They were like a second family and would often look after his younger brothers and sisters. One Saturday, his father was yelling and his mother sobbed. Something about a baby and no money. "Is mom pregnant?", Mason wondered. His youngest brother was 8 and he was certain his parents weren't going to have more kids. The mood had tensed a lot at home. Mason soon found his mother was in fact pregnant, and with the baby coming, she was going to lose her job. Mason was the only one of age to work. With his mom not working and an extra mouth to feed, Mason knew it would be tough. "Social safety nets and welfare don't apply to us", he knew. He had always felt mistreated by authorities. "Don't worry man, we'll get through this", his second family assured him. They weren't tight either, and they had families to feed, but most importantly to Mason, they always did their best to keep the spirit up.

What Mason dreaded eventually became a reality. He had to get more hours at work, on the expense of school and his mood. Rough times passed and rough times laid ahead. The little money he made from his job wasn't enough. "I don't know if I can do it", he told his friends. They discussed ways of making some extra cash. "You can be the modern Robin Hood", one of his friends said, and explained how it wouldn't be so wrong to take from the rich and give to the poor. Mason never wanted to hurt anyone. He hated violence and didn't want any of that. "It's all about intimidation", his friends told him. "You don't actually have to hurt anyone. All you need to is frighten them. You point the gun towards them and they will give you the money, in fear." Mason thought that it sounded reasonable enough. He still didn't like the idea of doing it one bit, though, but he saw no other way, and after all, no one would actually get hurt. He tried to choose his victim with care, since he didn't want an already poor person to suffer. "Give me your money", he screamed at the man. The man, albeit frightened, was at his senses and obviously didn't want to be gunned down by some villain. Instead of taking his wallet out, he drew a gun. Mason pulled the trigger before the stranger's gun was completely out. The man died instantly. When Mason was arrested, the explanation was simple enough: "I didn't want to die."


While these stories are pure fiction, they are probably part reality for a lot of people. If guns weren't easily accessible to these individuals, the outcome would most likely be different. When people feel trapped, be it by material reasons (e.g. being broke) or by mental obstacles (e.g. strong depression), they may act impulsively. Guns are only tools. Tools that are used to act on certain feelings. Assuming you even have the opportunity without risking your own or a victim's life, are you confident that the wisest decision is to gun a mugger down?

2 things:
1. reality of violence not needing a gun and how gun control wouldnt aid anything:

and

2. Morgan Freemans view on issues related to shootings:

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Whether they have a gun or not wont make the difference. If as a society we wish to lower the amount of tragedies like recently happened we need to stop making these tortured minds so infamous.

Recently read this, I thought it was relevant to this debate 





By now, Americans are virtually unshockable. When we hear of the latest workplace shooting, the latest school shooting, the latest loner who snapped and took others with him to his final rest, we are saddened, certainly, but not shocked. It has happened so often that we've long since lost count of the shooters and the victims, long since forgotten which towns bear the indelible marks of random violence. So it is difficult for us to understand the horror to which Americans were introduced by Charles Whitman on August 1, 1966. Until Whitman undertook his shooting spree in Austin, Texas, public space felt safe and most citizens were utterly convinced they were comfortably removed from brutality and terror. After August 1, 1966, things would never be the same.

Whitman's story stands out for many reasons, not the least of which being that it features a co-star-the University of Texas Tower, from which he fired almost unimpeded for 96 minutes. The Tower afforded Whitman a nearly unassailable vantage point from which he could select and dispatch victims. It was as if it had been built for his purpose. In fact, in previous years Charlie had remarked offhandedly to various people that a sniper could do quite a bit of damage from the Tower.

Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was an engineering student and former Marine who killed 13 people and wounded 32 others in a shooting rampage located in and around the Tower of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. Three persons were killed inside the university's tower, with 11 others murdered after Whitman fired at random targets from the 28th-floor observation deck of the Main Building. Whitman was shot and killed by Austin Police Officer, Houston McCoy.

Prior to starting the shootings at the University of Texas, Whitman had murdered both his wife and mother in Austin.

After murdering his mother and his wife, Whitman wrote in his letter:

"I do not quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts."

"I imagine it appears that I brutally killed both of my loved ones. I was only trying to do a quick thorough job [...] If my life insurance policy is valid please pay off my debts [...] donate the rest anonymously to a mental health foundation. Maybe research can prevent further tragedies of this type."

"8-1-66. I never could quite make it. These thoughts are too much for me."

He requested an autopsy, to determine if there was an organic reason for his actions and increasing headaches.

End of the massacre

Stepping outside the south door at approximately 1:24 p.m., [Police Officers] Martinez, McCoy, proceeded north on the east deck, while [Officers] Day, followed by Crum, proceeded west on the south deck, with the intention of encircling Whitman. Several feet before he reached the southwest corner, Crum accidentally discharged the borrowed rifle. As Whitman sat crouched with his back positioned on the north wall, and looking in the northwest corner area of the observation deck where Crum's shot was heard, Martinez jumped around the corner into the northeast area and rapidly fired all six rounds from his .38 police revolver from a distance of approximately 50 feet (15 m) at Whitman - all of which missed. As Martinez fired, McCoy jumped to the right of Martinez and fired two fatal shots of 00-buckshot with his 12-gauge shotgun, hitting Whitman in the head, neck and left side.

Autopsy

An autopsy conducted upon the body of Charles Whitman—approved by his father—was performed at the Cook Funeral Home on August 2. The autopsy discovered a glioblastoma (a highly aggressive and invariably fatal brain tumor) in the hypothalamus (the white matter located above the brain stem). This tumor would have proven fatal by the end of the year in which Whitman died.

Although Whitman had been prescribed drugs, and had Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine) in his possession at his death, the autopsy was unable to establish if he had consumed any drugs prior to the shooting. Whitman's bodily fluids had been removed and his body embalmed prior to the autopsy; therefore, no urine was available to test for traces of amphetamine having been consumed.

Connally Commission

In the days following the shootings, Texas Governor John Connally commissioned a task force of professionals to examine the physical autopsy findings and material related to Whitman's actions and motives.

Their report also said this lesion "conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions." Forensic investigators have theorized that the tumor may have been pressed against the nearby amygdalae regions of his brain. The amygdalae are known to affect fight/flight responses. Some neurologists have since speculated that his medical condition was in some way responsible for the attacks, in addition to his personal and social frames of reference.