Newtown School Shootings

[Papewaio]

Step off your high horse for one second so that you may see what it is you are arguing.

What you want is to remove the ability of mentally ill people to harm others. But what you don't realize is that guns are simply the most deadly and convenient way of going about killing someone. The point of Sasaki's article is not to make the point that a knife is just as deadly as a gun. The point is that whatever gets into the mind of someone as deranged as the shooter, there will be possible deaths and at least some injuries and you have done nothing, absolutely nothing to treat the root of the problem.

You can look down on Americans all you want by making the proud decision of wrapping everyone in bubble wrap to protect us from each other, but you are committing a more egregious atrocity by acting as if you have done anything more than cure a symptom of a much more serious problem. There is never a single case of a sane human snapping and becoming a mass murderer, there are signs and there are means to help but we as a society refuse to recognize those signs and we refuse to promote such help to those who need it.

Your and other people's willingness to turn this into a blame the gun conversation yet again, just shows that you don't really understand where the americans are coming from and you speak from a place of ignorance. American society refuses to ban guns because we view situations like this under the context of an individual who has made choices, the questions we strive to answer are why did he make these choices and how we can prevent it again.

All you want to do is talk about how he made those choices. And it's the most unproductive conversation to be having time and time again when these tragedies happen.

You are on the high horse when you ignore facts. Show me the modern army armed with swords and shields and then you will be one step further to prove that knives are just as deadly. You have to be a class A idiot to think that if the American was wielding a knife that as many children would be dead. And yes you can call someone an idiot if they ignore physics and stats.

Today we have two tragedies caused most probably by young mentally ill males. One killed twenty children and he second wounded twenty. He first used firearms the second knives.

You also have to step away from this myth that guns increase freedom. How is enabling slaughter of children the sweet smell of freedom? It is collective responsibility when you have laws enabling such a slaughter without the proper infrastructure to minimize its occurence.

Until you either properly enforce gun ownership to the mentally sound it is your collective responsibility. It is called liberty not freedom, it is a form of freedom within the law that carries responsibility. So either step up the regulation of firearms and test the mental state of owners at least as regularly as car licenses or reduce gun ownership across the board.

End of the day it might be an individual killing your children, but is the community that allowed him access to the tools. The choice was his, but as he was mentally ill the responsibility lies on the community around him. So start looking at enforcing regulation that minimizes access to firearms to specifically the mentally ill, if the communities don't have that ability to be that specific either a wider ban or regulation of the firearms is needed for the security of the state. Or you will just have to accept that this is going to be a typical outcome of a non holistic outlook of a poorly supported law.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are on the high horse when you ignore facts. Show me the modern army armed with swords and shields and then you will be one step further to prove that knives are just as deadly. You have to be a class A idiot to think that if the American was wielding a knife that as many children would be dead. And yes you can call someone an idiot if they ignore physics and stats.

Today we have two tragedies caused most probably by young mentally ill males. One killed twenty children and he second wounded twenty. He first used firearms the second knives.

You also have to step away from this myth that guns increase freedom. How is enabling slaughter of children the sweet smell of children? It is collective responsibility when you have laws enabling it.

Until you either properly enforce gun ownership to the mentally sound it is your collective responsibility. It is called liberty not freedom, it is a form of freedom within the law hat carries responsibility. So either step up the regulation of firearms and test the mental state of owners at least as regularly as car licenses or reduce gun ownership across the board.

End of the day it might be an individual killing your children, but is the community that allowed him access to the tools. The choice was his, but as he was mentally ill the responsibility lies on the community around him. So start looking at enforcing regulation that minimizes access to firearms to specifically the mentally ill, if the communities don't have hat ability to be that specific either a wider ban or regulation of the firearms is needed for the security of the state. Or you will just have to accept that this is going to be a typical outcome of a non holistic outlook of a poorly supported law.

Asserting that a gun was used in the killings is a fact of as much relevance as stating the fact that the sky was blue on the day of the shooting. You are living in a world of red herrings!

It is the collective responsibility of Americans to ensure that the mentally ill receive that the treatment they require. This was the failure of the community. The methods of attack are inconsequential, only the festering of instability which provoked an attack in the first place.

This is a healthcare problem not a gun problem. Stop treating it as one.

Shut up about liberty and freedom and the second amendment, because you only serve to deride the conversation away from what needs to be said and you only embolden American pride and compound the problems.

The fact you try to present an ultimatum of either banning guns or having our children die only reveals that you are not here for anything but stomping your obnoxious and ignorant "empathy" into everyone's face.

[Greyblades]

Personally I think all guns should be Illegal to have outside of hunting other than the 2 shot remington derringer. Cant go on an easy killing spree with that and you keep the ability to defend yourself.

[Hooahguy]

Personally I think all guns should be Illegal to have outside of hunting other than the 2 shot remington derringer. Cant go on an easy killing spree with that and you keep the ability to defend yourself.

Fair point, but if you miss those first two shots you are screwed.

[Greyblades]

Fair point, but if you miss those first two shots you are screwed.

True, but the noise will attract others who will likely arrive on the scene with their own derringers. Add to that the derringer's bullets are hard to actually get a killing shot with, it gives those on the receiving end a chance to survive long enough to receive aid.

...Unless the attacker is a criminal able to get a better weapon than a derringer, though really when you are dealing with a guy who is able to get black market weapons you are kinda screwed anyway, even with the current civilian portable weaponry.

Edit: Hrm... a knife would pose a problem too, though really a knife attacker wouldnt really show itself as a threat until its too close for a firearm to be readied in time anyway...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Personally I think all guns should be Illegal to have outside of hunting other than the 2 shot remington derringer. Cant go on an easy killing spree with that and you keep the ability to defend yourself.

I'd disagree there. As far as I am concerned the problem with gun ownership is not with whether or not you can have guns but on the assumption that gun ownership is just like garden shears ownership, or worse somehow "necessary" to defend yourself. I've made the comparison before, but what it says to me is the USA is like Somalia: no functioning state to keep its citizens safe and maintain the rule of law. Sort of "If you don't have guns to defend yourself, why then, you might end up killed/robbed/whatever. This is not hypothetical fantasy out of the realm of implausible coincidence land, no it's apparently actually a likely scenario."

Stand your ground, my foot. Fix your country, how's that for a root cause?

Which is not to detract from the ACIN's point about the healthcare situation. With or without guns, a psychotic individual cannot simply be left to stew in his own misery.

[Hooahguy]

True, but the noise will attract others who will likely arrive on the scene with their own derringers. Add to that the derringer's bullets are hard to actually get a killing shot with, it gives those on the receiving end a chance to survive long enough to receive aid.

...Unless the attacker is a criminal able to get a better weapon than a derringer, though really when you are dealing with a guy who is able to get black market weapons you are kinda screwed anyway, even with the current civilian portable weaponry.

Thats assuming that people around you have them, unless you made everyone carry one. And thats also assuming there are people around you to hear the gunshot. And with the whole black market thing, there are definitely civilian carry weapons that can evenly match black market weapons. Lets assume though that they arent carrying black market assault rifles (which data shows they wouldnt be).

I'd disagree there. As far as I am concerned the problem is not with whether or not you can have guns but on the assumption that gun ownership is just like garden shears ownership, or worse somehow "necessary" to defend yourself. I've made the comparison before, but what it says to me is the USA is like Somalia: no functioning state to keep its citizens safe and maintain the rule of law. If you don't have guns to defend yourself, why then, you might end up killed/robbed/whatever. This is not hypothetical fantasy out of the realm of implausible coincidence land, no it's apparently actually a likely scenario.

Stand your ground, my foot. Fix your country, how's that for a root cause?

The difference between almost all of those countries and the US is that they are not as ethnically diverse as the US is. I studied criminology this semester and if its anything I learned, is that in areas where there the ethnic groups are many and in tight areas, combined with poverty and poor education and societal standards, leads to crime and violence.

Now, the urban centers, with their high population densities and lots of ethnic conflicts, naturally have a high crime rate. Just look at the UK. Overall the population is overwhelmingly white British- well over 80%. Now in London, its much less, I think around 65% last I checked. The crime rate in london is also a lot higher in London than in the rest of the UK. Similarities occur with every European country I looked at.

Because the US is such a melting pot of ethnic groups you are naturally going to have more crime than in places where there is one dominant ethnic group.

[Papewaio]

The difference between almost all of those countries and the US is that they are not as ethnically diverse as the US is. I studied criminology this semester and if its anything I learned, is that in areas where there the ethnic groups are many and in tight areas, combined with poverty and poor education and societal standards, leads to crime and violence.

Now, the urban centers, with their high population densities and lots of ethnic conflicts, naturally have a high crime rate. Just look at the UK. Overall the population is overwhelmingly white British- well over 80%. Now in London, its much less, I think around 65% last I checked. The crime rate in london is also a lot higher in London than in the rest of the UK. Similarities occur with every European country I looked at.

Because the US is such a melting pot of ethnic groups you are naturally going to have more crime than in places where there is one dominant ethnic group.

Australia? New Zealand?, UK aren't melting pots?

[Hooahguy]

Australia? New Zealand?, UK aren't melting pots?

As RVG said, not in the way the US is. Just look at the percentages.

[Papewaio]

Guns are more deadly then knives. No argument. It's up there with drink and drive and you are a bloody idiot.

=][=

Strip the American public of firearms is definitely one option. Another is actually not doing a half arsed job and actually enact constitutional rights. For the security of the state, a well regulated militia.

Well regulated. A reasonable person would assume that we'll regulated would mean not giving firearms to felons and the mentally ill. That it would be regulated much like a car license. You get access to a class of weapon based on your abilities including eyesight and mental health. You also have to pass various tests to show your ability in handling a firearm.

So as a society you can either accept that guns are deadly tools, that they need proper care and training, and that some people are a danger to themselves and/or society and should not gain access to them.

Now it doesn't require removal of the second amendment. It just requires following it through.

Until then it is your collective responsibilty for the outcome of poorly thought out and enforced laws.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So as a society you can either accept that guns are deadly tools, that they need proper care and training, and that some people are a danger to themselves and/or society and should not gain access to them.

Yes, because Americans don't accept that guns are deadly tools and that some people are a danger to themselves and others. Here is me, the american, talking about those who are a danger to themselves and others but I guess I must not know anything because I support gun rights. :/

I mean, these are american children that were just murdered, and you want to take this moment to give Americans a good lecture?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well regulated. A reasonable person would assume that we'll regulated would mean not giving firearms to felons and the mentally ill. That it would be regulated much like a car license. You get access to a class of weapon based on your abilities including eyesight and mental health. You also have to pass various tests to show your ability in handling a firearm.

So as a society you can either accept that guns are deadly tools, that they need proper care and training, and that some people are a danger to themselves and/or society and should not gain access to them.

Now it doesn't require removal of the second amendment. It just requires following it through.

You know what they say about assumptions. You do not know what you are talking about if you think that's the intent of the second amendment.

CR

[quadalpha]

Asserting that a gun was used in the killings is a fact of as much relevance as stating the fact that the sky was blue on the day of the shooting. You are living in a world of red herrings!

It is the collective responsibility of Americans to ensure that the mentally ill receive that the treatment they require. This was the failure of the community. The methods of attack are inconsequential, only the festering of instability which provoked an attack in the first place.

This is a healthcare problem not a gun problem. Stop treating it as one.

Shut up about liberty and freedom and the second amendment, because you only serve to deride the conversation away from what needs to be said and you only embolden American pride and compound the problems.

The fact you try to present an ultimatum of either banning guns or having our children die only reveals that you are not here for anything but stomping your obnoxious and ignorant "empathy" into everyone's face.

Take a step back. You just called guns a 'red herring' in a conversation about a shooting rampage. If you'd like to make the case that the blueness of the sky kills people ...

I don't think anyone denies that there is also a healthcare problem, but denying that guns are a problem is quite unrealistic.

I just really don't understand what people's stake in having guns is. I mean, there's the 'well-ordered militia' argument, but is that it? Is it just because 'we have a right and we want to keep having a right'?

I guess I never understood the 'federal government might go evil' argument either. You elect the federal government. To say people need guns for insurrection is presuming a complete lack of faith in the political system. I mean, I know the Americans have previous here, but the revolution was also a movement that did not represent a large majority of the wishes of the people, led by the wealthy who waved ideals around in pursuit of fewer taxes and less oversight. Hm, a trend.

[a completely inoffensive name]

T
I just really don't understand what people's stake in having guns is.

And this really sums it all up doesn't it? You don't understand, but continue to comment and make judgement anyway?

led by the wealthy who waved ideals around in pursuit of fewer taxes and less oversight. Hm, a trend.

I don't know where you live, but obviously not in the US. It was taxation without representation that riled up the elites. They felt they were proper British citizens (aristocrats even) and deserved to be treated as such. That's why you saw motions such as the Olive Branch Petition to prevent all out war in the first place. No one wanted war, they only wanted a democratic voice and were happy to pay taxes as long as they could redress their concerns.

[quadalpha]

And this really sums it all up doesn't it? You don't understand, but continue to comment and make judgement anyway?




I don't know where you live, but obviously not in the US. It was taxation without representation that riled up the elites. They felt they were proper British citizens (aristocrats even) and deserved to be treated as such. That's why you saw motions such as the Olive Branch Petition to prevent all out war in the first place. No one wanted war, they only wanted a democratic voice and were happy to pay taxes as long as they could redress their concerns.

No, what I don't understand is why people delude themselves into thinking they need guns, and none of you have so far answered. The real reason seem to be quite well known. I quote:

And now it has happened again, bang, like clockwork, one might say: Twenty dead children—babies, really—in a kindergarten in a prosperous town in Connecticut. And a mother screaming. And twenty families told that their grade-schooler had died. After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)
So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.
The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz2FFZiJQ9X

The mental health angle is being used as a smokescreen (which is not the same as saying it is illegitimate). I'm sure some people who use it do it knowingly to divert attention from gun control, but I suspect many are actually self-deluded enough to believe it.

Also, I do live in the US. And while 'taxation without representation' is a very convenient slogan, it does not make any sense when you stop and think about it. When did people gain the god-giving right to representation if they are being taxed? What is so outrageous about taxation without representation? The reason why the declaration of independence says that it is 'self-evident ...' is because they could not find any legal basis for revolution. You can make decent arguments for the fairness of representation if there is taxation, but none of you ever get that far.

The problem with America is that from the very inception, it is a nation founded on commercial interest on the one hand, and popular demagoguery on the other. The perversity is how the phoney ideals of the revolution have been enshrined in the national consciousness as the ultimate good of humanity. The need to indoctrinate the masses in the legitimacy and goodness of the revolution has led to such wonderful things as American exceptionalism and the worship of founding texts like the declaration of independence and the constitution. The former is thankfully coming under increased scrutiny, but the latter still dominates political discourse. It is typical that political discourse on gun control is based on how to interpret the second amendment rather than the good of the nation, that no rational thought examines what is a 'constitutional right' and if something should be a right.

It might be debated whether such textual literalism is fueled by the fundamentalist Christian right, or whether the contradiction at the heart of the idea of America is particularly amenable to fundamentalism (I suspect the latter, personally). The situation is in no way improving with even greater access to the political process by the wealth of corporations (Citizens United, another decision based on constitutional technicalities) and the general fostering of ignorance as a political position (mostly the Tea Party, but also the vapid Occupy movements).

[Hooahguy]

No, what I don't understand is why people delude themselves into thinking they need guns, and none of you have so far answered. The real reason seem to be quite well known. I quote:

Oh look, once again you fail to realize that there are so many more factors going into crime related to guns than just 'OMG GUNS R BAD" rants that I see people just like you always spouting. Look at Switzerland. High gun ownership, yet low gun crime.#Why is that?

If you did a shred of research (which you clearly have not done) you would realize that banning guns wont do much in this country due to demographics and cultural attitudes.

The mental health angle is being used as a smokescreen (which is not the same as saying it is illegitimate). I'm sure some people who use it do it knowingly to divert attention from gun control, but I suspect many are actually self-deluded enough to believe it.

Please read this article. You will notice, as Im sure you have, that the other Western Nations where shootings are not a regular occurrence, their health care is better than what we have here. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. No guns involved, yet 168 people died, including 19 children.

Also, I do live in the US. And while 'taxation without representation' is a very convenient slogan, it does not make any sense when you stop and think about it. When did people gain the god-giving right to representation if they are being taxed? What is so outrageous about taxation without representation? The reason why the declaration of independence says that it is 'self-evident ...' is because they could not find any legal basis for revolution. You can make decent arguments for the fairness of representation if there is taxation, but none of you ever get that far.

What are you smoking? And more importantly, is it legal? Because if it is, you gotta tell me where I can get some.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What are you smoking? And more importantly, is it legal? Because if it is, you gotta tell me where I can get some.

I think he is trolling. Either than or the post is an opaquely constructed ironic argument meant to convey the opposite agenda.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You are on the high horse when you ignore facts. Show me the modern army armed with swords and shields and then you will be one step further to prove that knives are just as deadly. You have to be a class A idiot to think that if the American was wielding a knife that as many children would be dead. And yes you can call someone an idiot if they ignore physics and stats.

Today we have two tragedies caused most probably by young mentally ill males. One killed twenty children and he second wounded twenty. He first used firearms the second knives.

You also have to step away from this myth that guns increase freedom. How is enabling slaughter of children the sweet smell of freedom? It is collective responsibility when you have laws enabling such a slaughter without the proper infrastructure to minimize its occurence.

Until you either properly enforce gun ownership to the mentally sound it is your collective responsibility. It is called liberty not freedom, it is a form of freedom within the law that carries responsibility. So either step up the regulation of firearms and test the mental state of owners at least as regularly as car licenses or reduce gun ownership across the board.

End of the day it might be an individual killing your children, but is the community that allowed him access to the tools. The choice was his, but as he was mentally ill the responsibility lies on the community around him. So start looking at enforcing regulation that minimizes access to firearms to specifically the mentally ill, if the communities don't have that ability to be that specific either a wider ban or regulation of the firearms is needed for the security of the state. Or you will just have to accept that this is going to be a typical outcome of a non holistic outlook of a poorly supported law.

Well you're certainly doing a fine job of destroying those strawmen, Pape.

We live in a country of over 310,000,000 people. In 2009 about 2,500,000 people died. The last statistic I saw was ~11,000 people per year were killed by other people who used firearms.

This is not an epidemic; it is, honestly statistically insignificant to the overall death rates. That doesn't mean it's not a tragedy - but it means there is no basis for arguing that we should make changes to our gun laws.

In fact, making reactionary, knee-jerk changes based on highly emotional, widely publicized, but incredibly rare events, is the recipe for bad and useless laws.

Yes, freedom means some people will abuse that freedom for bad purposes. Just like some criminals get away because of constitutional protections, guns are easier to obtain than some countries - and they can be used for good or evil. Guns don't necessarily increase freedom - but merely being able to acquire guns is freedom in and of itself.

The proper reaction in this case, when it's a very rare event, is not a knee-jerk restriction of freedoms.

CR

[Papewaio]

Well you're certainly doing a fine job of destroying those strawmen, Pape.

We live in a country of over 310,000,000 people. In 2009 about 2,500,000 people died. The last statistic I saw was ~11,000 people per year were killed by other people who used firearms.

This is not an epidemic; it is, honestly statistically insignificant to the overall death rates. That doesn't mean it's not a tragedy - but it means there is no basis for arguing that we should make changes to our gun laws.

In fact, making reactionary, knee-jerk changes based on highly emotional, widely publicized, but incredibly rare events, is the recipe for bad and useless laws.

Yes, freedom means some people will abuse that freedom for bad purposes. Just like some criminals get away because of constitutional protections, guns are easier to obtain than some countries - and they can be used for good or evil. Guns don't necessarily increase freedom - but merely being able to acquire guns is freedom in and of itself.

The proper reaction in this case, when it's a very rare event, is not a knee-jerk restriction of freedoms.

CR

Strawman? Every four months more people die in the US then in the two towers.

Two countries invaded, trillions of dollars spent, torture, airport screening etc over something that in the last 11 years killed 3000 people. But gun deaths in eleven years are thirty times that number.

So which is the straw man, the war on terror or that the US has more gun deaths then any other western nation per capita?

[rvg]

Strawman? Every four months more people die in the US then in the two towers.

Two countries invaded, trillions of dollars spent, torture, airport screening etc over something that in the last 11 years killed 3000 people. But gun deaths in eleven years are thirty times that number.

So which is the straw man, the war on terror or that the US has more gun deaths then any other western nation per capita?

If they spaced those 3000 deaths out over the course of 10 years, we probably wouldn't have invaded. But attacking our city with our planes and killing our people in the thousands kinda pisses us off.

[Papewaio]

If they spaced those 3000 deaths out over the course of 10 years, we probably wouldn't have invaded. But attacking our city with our planes and killing our people in the thousands kinda pisses us off.

It pissed off the rest of the world too. As does massacres of children does too.

[rvg]

It pissed off the rest of the world too. As does massacres of children does too.

If we could bomb or invade someone over this massacre, the bombers would already be on their way.

Australia? New Zealand?, UK aren't melting pots?

Not in the way America is. At least not yet.