GD Genius you are.

Just don't try to regulate it! :)

Two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. We're not sure about the universe.

For "It is believed they were accidentally shot when they walked up a ridge and into the man's path as he was firing on an animal"
please read
"It is believed they were accidentally shot when the man fired on an animal too close to the ridge line without sufficient backstop. Dumbarse."

I have never owned a gun or gun license, and never fired anything bigger than an air rifle, but even I know this rule.

Were they wearing hoodies that might have made them look like trophy rabbits?

^^^FTW^^^

Seven more + three wounded by one gunman.

GO, go, go NRA

Fox News
April 03, 2012

Students hid as gunman opened fire small Christian school in California; 7 dead

About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States
GO, go, go UAW!

Lamp: would tighter gun laws have prevented that? How MUCH tighter? Assuming that a British style no-guns proposal would be unconstitutional, and barring repealing the second amendment... What do you propose as a solution?

To be honest, while most pro-gun arguments that assume "more people with guns means less crime!" don't quite check out 100% to me, mass shootings like this are one of the few cases where I definitely think that MORE gun ownership would limit the casualties in massacre situations.

Gun crime is tied to gun culture, not number of guns. In some areas, more guns means more deaths. In some areas, more guns means less deaths.

My short answer is: Yes, tighter gun laws could prevent that sort of massacre.
What do I propose as a solution ? That's a longer discussion.

I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
They know this sort of thing is happening, but choose to do/say nothing about it.

That's not surprising because right now the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is to their favor.
The NRA is running with it, and lobbying feverishly to pass their manly "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Just the name of that law makes the weak feel strong. :rolleyes:

Personally, and contrary to what Lookout123 has assumed, I have no problem with guns, per se,
I have owned them since high school, and still have one.

As policy, I have no problem with guns used for hunting, either for meat or trophy
--- so long as the hunt is "fair chase".
As policy, I have no problem with guns (or CCL's) issued when the individual's job or
career presents a need for one, i.e., as an agent in busines that needs protection.
(e.g., as an agent for a bank or $-guard, body guard, criminal attorney, etc.)

I do have a problem with every Joe Blow citizen, like my next door neighbor, having a gun
just because he lives in fear that someone somewhere might do something he doesn't like.

I put the blame where the fault lies... with the ATA and the NRA.
It is my belief about the way things are going due to the current interpretation
of the 2nd Amendment, that society will eventually recognize that the argument
about "self defense" is fallacious, and the fact that guns are doing unjustifiable harm to individuals and to society, itself.

When that happens, the judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will change,
and guns be allowed in specific light of maintaining a well-regulated militia (e.g., National Guard)
only as necessary for the security of the free state, and not to feed the politics of the NRA.
.

Once again, fuzzy logic.

Do away with the UAW, and cars would still be made, and accidents would still happen at the same rates.
Do away with the NRA, and gun control laws would be passed, and the rate of killings would decrease,
... maybe even down to that of auto accidents.

:lol2:

My short answer is: Yes, tighter gun laws could prevent that sort of massacre.
What do I propose as a solution ? That's a longer discussion.

I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
They know this sort of thing is happening, but choose to do/say nothing about it.

Lamplighter, to me there are two glaring reasons why the matters you're presenting haven't gotten the response you'd like:

1. First and foremost, we're 270 posts into this thread and YOU DIDN'T BRING ANY SNACKS!

2. Similar issues have been raised and done to death here before, prior to you joining the community (e.g. Will the Second Amendment survive?, 12-02-2007 to 01-06-2008, 22 pages, 326 posts). Many of the previous participants are still here. Some have chimed in this time around for various reasons including probing just to see where the newer members stand on the issues. Many are not getting involved to the same degree as before, if at all, and why should they? They're under no obligation to rehash their perspectives just to appease more recent members. Unless you've read through all of the previous topically related posts in all of the previous topically related threads, I believe the part of your quote I've put in bold does the membership an injustice.