During his tearful address to the nation today, President Obama said we need to take "meaningful action to prevent tragedies" like the one that left 20 children and 7 adults dead in a Connecticut elementary school this morning. And on Twitter, the public's grief-mingled outrage is being directed largely @NRA. Sadly, this is something we're getting used to as a nation--everyone expects to hear a few calls for more gun control laws right after somebody goes on a rampage and shoots lots of our fellow Americans. But then what? How do those events affect the way Americans, in general, feel about gun laws? According to this story at Quartz, they don't.
This isn't science news.
Popular Science seems to have become strikingly political and reaching for notoriety at any means. You aren't helping the situation that has been tragic for so many in Conn. You're using their blood to write an article about gun control. A "scientific" website such as yourself should also do their homework, and have more respect for the dead instead of pushing for an agenda.
Banning guns does not prevent senseless violence:
Connecticut had bans in place that didn't work:
Lastly, how do you prevent people from illegally obtaining firearms when there are plenty of books to show you how to make them? Plenty of people that will sell to you?
I think we need to figure out how to identify troubled individuals...it's the brain that went wrong...not the guns.
Answer - Poorly, if this article and website are any indication.
It's interesting that gun control laws have a positive correlation with gun violence, and CO2 has a positive correlation with temperature increase, over the past 30 years.
Which ones does popsci consider irrefutable evidence worthy of trillions of dollars of policy change, and which one does popsci consider irrelevant? Hmm...
Oh, and gun factory stock holders didn't cheer on Obama because he was pro-gun rights. They cheered him on because of the massive sales produced out of fear that Obama will "take meaningful action". Their fears seem warranted.
Opinions do not change, because the question of gun control is a philosophical question, not a statistical one.
If giving up your first amendment freedom of speech could potentially save hundreds of lives, would you do it? What about your sixth amendment rights to a trial? Where would you stop? Would you take those rights from others against their will? How many lives are our freedoms worth?
238 years ago, American Colonists overwhelmingly believed these freedoms were worth dying for. Our freedoms are paid for with blood, would you trade our rights for the illusion of safety?
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
@Fummfur. Guns can evolve quicker than people, figure out how to identify "troubled individuals" seems more controversial than banning people from the right to protect themselves, your scarily sounding a lot like Tony Blair or Hitler both of whom are and were hypocrites. No, the way we use arms should change not the way we look at people. People thought Einstein was "troubled", some of the brightest often are. Perhaps each home should have a designated firearm, like an ip adress, you see what I did there? This is a science magazine, now B off!
..DO YOU CONFORM..
"Connecticut had bans in place that didn't work:
Check those bans with what is still legal here in CT. Not to mention pre-ban rights of ownership. This could have been done with a plethora of legal weapons.
I don't feel that more gun restrictions will help either. I don't blame the NRA, they don't build the guns or sell them to people who ain't quite right in the head. If someone is going to pop and go on a killing spree, they'll find a way to do the best they can.
Like most of the slaughters lately, they all seem pre-planned and there's the few who say "I knew something wasn't right with him lately".
In fact, just a couple/few months ago, some dude's mom got that feeling and managed to get him derailed before he could go on his spree.
My genuine condolence to the victims families, however
Every time there is an occurrence like the event in Conneticut, this cabal emerges, jumping up and down preaching how evil guns are. In this scenario they never talk about victims rights. For example, the right to self defense.
No matter how many guns are taken away, the violence will not disappear.
Nothing in more horrible, than to be such a victim, and be able to do NOTHING in self defense.
The gun control cabal believes that such victims are acceptable. It is okay for victims of violent crime to have NOTHING to defend themselves. NOTHING to defend themselves.
This article should have nothing to do with gun control and more about dealing with mental illness. Lately you have been printing many articles that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with pushing a liberal left wing agenda. I have been a subscriber to your publication since I was a child, but if you keep taking sides on political issues I would rather start finding my technical/scientific information from other sources. Please don't allow this to happen.
The knee jerk emotional decision of 9/11 laws was to remove more rights and freedoms of the American citizen out of fear with the newly built NSA.
Now NSA is listening to every conversation in the world in real time, if they are guilty of of a crime or not.
The same knee jerk law policies maybe put upon people now with gun control, exploiting people current emotional vulnerability.
@ Robot Robot you have no right. Emotional vulnerability? Why don't you just think of the people who lost their lives and remember them.
Nazi's liked gun control @Metamorphosis because they liked control...and all politicians are hypocrites...just look at Obama and his crocodile tears when he heard about this news only to dance on the families yet to be dug graves to bolster gun control when every day he authorizes drone strikes that have, in his administration, killed more children in Pakistan than that man in Connecticut ever could. And Einstein never tried to kill anyone mass slaying style when gun control was not a big thing in the states yet.
And @Trooper Brian I think the identified gun was a .223 semi-auto caliber rifle...besides the pistols being legit to own in Conn...it doesn't mean this guy being 20 could of obtained any weapons pre-ban seeing he would of been two years old during the ratification of the ban. I don't think he could of gotten a retroactive permit at that age. I think it's safe to say it was all obtained illegally...and when people find ways not to follow rules, well, how good are they?
So when people do things illegally...making laws doesn't do anything if they can avoid them. Being proactive and enforcing laws does.
China, like in the article I posted, had a man stab 22 children...they aren't allowed to have guns over there...but these crazy things still happen because of disturbed individuals not getting the love or attention they needed to feel like they belong. So identifying such people would be useful unless you want this to snowball to what China has now with laws where there are knife control laws...you have to use your issued ID card there and register yourself if you are buying big knives...you know the ones which everyone has in their kitchen. Laws don't do anything to stop an unloved individual taking it out on other people to share their misery. Identify the individuals...help them. My love goes out to the families, and my pity goes to those who jump on bandwagons, like we have here, and don't read and formulate opinions for themselves.
I believe in the right to bear arms and I understand the necessity to manage and regulate weapons with laws voted from calm rational minds.
How about instead of banning guns we work around them? It's our right to have possession of guns. Let's instead focus on safety measures such as increased security at the front of entrances of buildings where there is going to be a dense amount of people. This will also increase security job availability; both additional safety to the people and a better chance to get a job all in one package.
First, I agree that this is an article that should not be featured in any publication with "science" in the title.
Second, the 2nd amendment has run its course. If we were still in jeopardy of being infiltrated by foreign troops, then I could agree. But, in this day and age, sending platoons to conquer the U.S. is laughable. We don't need guns in every household anymore.
Third, it's unavoidable that every now and then, someone is going to go ballistic. Whether of not they have access to weapons decides how many fatalities there will be. Notice in the story on China, it says 20+ people were WOUNDED by a knife, not killed. If the Chinese psycho had a gun, you can bet those kids would be dead and not merely wounded.
The fact that this Conn. man was able to acquire a gun is due to the fact that guns have been legal for so long. Since they're so readily available, it's easy to get one when you want to go ballistic. If guns were not legal, yes there would still be guns on the street, but in perpetually diminishing numbers. Thus, the odds that any psycho could get one to murder a schoolhouse would decrease. That outweighs any rednecks feeling of gun entitlement.
Home printed guns are available now too....
Sure, it failed after eight shots.
However, the fact is, it shot eight shots!
We don't need safety labels on everything
If some idiot kills themselves, then the worlds sort 1 less idiot
Does this mean we will finally be free of your incessant whining?
Is anyone calling for pharmaceutical control? Even a ban on all antidepressants that have now been proven ineffective? Isn't the real killer here the ill monitored list of psychological drugs that play an even bigger roll in creating these horrific tragedies?
Philosophically; the control of guns would work but only in certain hypothetical situations moreover, statistically the control of guns do not, have not, will not & could never save lives. Think about it; what would you get if you placed a 'Gun free Zone' sign in your front yard? more that likely you will meet a criminal that knows you are unarmed, intends to rape & shoot your wife then shoot you because gun control does not, will not ever keep guns out of that killer's hands. Are we to stay in a perpetual ban-fest until all weapons are banned? Even then, guess where they would all manage to migrate to...that's right! the criminals! I say we hold the psychotic drug maker responsible for creating a killer. Be aware of the false media being spoon fed to millions and break away to reality!
First off, killing a person with a knife is much harder, and much essayer to disarm. Second, killing a person with a knife is much harder on the psyche, you can feel the knife going in, you have to see the victim up close, and there is the danger of a retaliatory strike from the victim.
But, a gun, all you need to see is the Silhouette of the victim. Ask any soldier, most of the killing happens without true recognition of the enemy. I would know I was one. A gun is about pulling a trigger, almost like pressing a button. A knife is very different, you cannot compare the two, and to do so is VERY stupid.
As for pop sci posting such articles as they have in the past 6 months, I get it. Look at the "articles" with the most coverage. Look how much we Comment, and when people comment they have to come back and check, to see if other people answered. Therefore a better chance for people to click on ad's and for them to make money off posting these "free" articles. They have to pay the rent too.
AS for gun control I don't know, nor is this the place to discus such, but i just wanted to add truth behind this knife debate.
Less Money On War more Money on Science
How does the school shooting affect my views on gun control? Simply put it makes me despise gun control all the more. These mass shootings could never become bloodbaths at all if someone in all areas had access to a weapon to defend against the attack. All mass shootings occur within unarmed victim zones such as schools. They do not take place in areas of the country where people are expected to be packing heat. Crime in general doesn't occur with the same frequency in areas with high citizen gun ownership and lax gun control laws.
We as a nation need to get over the irrational fear of guns. People who open carry need not be harassed by those misguided people who feel uncomfortable around them. There is estimated to be almost as many guns in the US as there are people, if not more considering estimates of illegal weaponry are essentially baseless. They cannot be banned outright and will never be removed from existence, much like illicit drugs. The best thing for all involved is better education about gun use to eliminate fear and promote ownership to have an armed society to combat such attacks.
I wonder if anyone actually read the quartz article this author was referencing. This is hardly a political statement. It could be Interpreted that way, but the tone is mild and inconclusive. As for the analysis I think the rest I country agrees with all of you (just click the link and check out the data).
Condescending Wonka's words of wisdom on the gun control issue: http://i.qkme.me/3qbgrj.jpg
Maybe it should result in a rethinking of the concept of schools where large groups of children and teachers congregate. In the age of computers, internet and online education it is long past time to think outside the old box. Smaller schools, home schooling and alternative education concepts. I expect the main opposition would be from unionized teachers and the politicians they've bought.
After every tragedy there's an outcry of rage. I understand it. How can we justify the loss of life? At that moment people start to think that restrictions will prevent the next tragedy, and that we as a society need to embrace this for the greater good. The simple truth is, society will never stop law breakers, from breaking laws, by passing more laws. It's been tried, statistics have been kept, and many very smart people have spent years absolutely pouring over those statistics and have come to the conclusion that laws just don't work. Personally, I think the constant noise coming from the media is in no small part, responsible for making these tragedies turn into the same old pedantic "gun control" debate. They turn a problem into a two-sided debate that never ends, which limits peoples ability to think about the problem in pragmatic ways. We should be thinking creatively and collaboratively instead of pointing fingers. So, in the spirit of opening up a productive dialog, I'll start by suggesting that maybe we should consider employing full-time L.E.O officers at our school. Officers specially trained to not just neutralize a threat, but to recognize signs of abuse, bullying as well as potential dangers.
Those who don't want guys available need to be LOUDER than those who do. It is that simple.
We said "simple," not "easy."
"We Entertain When It Rains"
Those who don't want guns available need to be LOUDER than those who do. It is that simple.
We said "simple," not "easy."
"We Entertain When It Rains"
Popular Science has degenerated into repeating talking points of the ideological left. If they're not beating the drum for global warming (the biggest hoax in history), they're subverting the 2nd Amendment by pressing for more gun control laws.
This used to be a decent magazine, but I won't renew my subscription as long as nutty, regressive politics fill the pages of this magazine instead of science.
Lol good. Take your ignorance and quixotic thoughts elsewhere. It'll save you some scrutiny from the scientific community and subsequent embarrassment.
I served in the British Army for eight years and know how to handle various firearms, I enjoy shooting but I am very glad that our gun control is quite rigorous. I can walk down the road without the fear that some Toe Rag is going to pull a gun on me. My girlfriend's father was the inventor of the de Lisle Carbine, and as much as I would like to fire one, I am truly grateful that I can't. Sometimes these horrendous acts happen here, but they are very rare (even taking into consideration the population difference). I believe this is due to gun control. I'm not too sure that there can be any reform in the USA with the number of weapons in circulation.
I think that this article was posted to provoke a debate, not the first time it has been done and won't be the last!
My heart goes out to all those affected by this tragedy and I hope you guys over there find some solution.
P.S. @ Robot; You have often made me smile (in a good way!) over this last year. Be well.
My heart and prayers go out to all those who suffer!
yeah!! it is not a tech news but can lead to one. Related to Guns, i believe one of the best technology is the fingerprint matching and voice control. In both, the machine understands only its owners and no other one can use it.
Although the law must be stricter and do not allow guns to person below 25.