Newtown School Shootings

[Ronin]

Wait, let's read that article. Or just the headline should be enough:

'Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China'

'Injuries.' Not 'kills.' Now imagine the same man with a semi-automatic weapon.

you can´t expect the chinese knock-off to be the exact same as the real deal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You are a class A idiot if you think guns are not more deadly then knives.

For starters the military would just buy k bars, swords, shields and sandals if that was true.

Also the Indians would have bet off the early settlers. As he case was a gun beats an old form tomahawk.

The second amendment would have been the right to bear blades.

=][=

Look at the Chinese attacker using a knife. Two dozen wounded children. The American, kills his parents and then two dozen children.

=][=

Now to some this latest tragedy is the price for freedom. Remarkably this tastes mighty like a fetid zombie feast, twenty plus children dead for a taste of freedom.

Now it's your country, your lifestyle, your laws, your outcomes. With actions come responsibility.

So those advocating this lifestyle are also collectively responsible for the outcome. If you want to crow for every Olympic gold, or your local sports team win, or whatever other part of the nation, you will also have to cop it on the chin when your laws enable such a tragedy.

Strangely enough the rest of the free world is capable of dealing with gun ownership in a much more coherent manner and yet the US ranks below a lot of these countries in measures of freedom, wealth and health.

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 within a day, 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. That is the real core issue.

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.

[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.

[Greyblades]

No, Indians attacking a school or an old may shooting the kids on the playground with rock salt, or the shootings at Kent State are not the same as the utterly senseless shooting we have seen starting with the University of Texas Massacre.

It is the crazy mass killing for no reason other than to kill people. Postal shooting, school shootings, Mc Donald’s shootings. Perhaps all these are just random nut cases who need the meds and shouldn’t have been at large anyway. Who knows? I am sure it is only a coincidence that they all were on SSRIs.



The news I am hearing say the 24 year old from New Jersey, went to his mothers apartment and killed her. Then went to the school and killed many of her students in her kindergarten class.

Death toll; 27, 20 children, 6 adults, and shot himself.

May 18, 1927: Bath, Michigan School treasurer Andrew Kehoe, after killing his wife and destroying his house and farm, blew up the Bath Consolidated School by detonating dynamite in the basement of the school, killing 38 people, mostly children. He then pulled up to the school in his Ford car, then set off a truck bomb, killing himself and four others. Only one shot was fired in order to detonate dynamite in the car. This was deadliest act of mass murder at a school in the United States.

40+ dead, no reason, 50 or so years before these drugs you blame it on. Biggest killing on school premise. A worse thing happened long before the drug in question even existed and the cause you try to put on it's recent increased frequency as flimsy as the ideas that it only happened because of the access to the internet, the increased stress caused by modern life, the urge for psychos to copy the crimes is worsened by now being able to get on the CNN website, or the fact that people are now aware mobile phones smaller than fanny packs exist.

Coincidence is not cause. 1st lesson of How to Argue: Critical Reasoning Logic and Rhetoric's Uni course.

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

Well I doubt that: Pape's point was specifically that guns are a most excellent tool of murder, that is all they do and all they are intended for, far better than most alternatives -- therefore to equate it with a knife (which is a generically useful utensil and not nearly as good for actual killing) means you've got some sanity checking to do on your viewpoints.

If you want to have another healthcare debate that's fine and definitely should be looked at as well, but the gun control debate is a valid point to bring up again. Allowing people to own guns, there's nothing wrong or perhaps even strange about it. Not insisting on basic checks (admittedly varies from state to state), registration etc. ? That's not merely a matter of opinion, that is collectively sticking your heads in the sand/putting your fingers in the ears and going lalala.

And you know it. That is why you insist precisely on that when it comes to cars -- which like guns are an excellent implement of death as well, even if only by accident.

Speaking of tackling the root issue: guns to protect yourself, your loved ones? You make this too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel...

[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.

[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.

[quadalpha]

You think Texas is the only pro-gun state? Clearly you have never been to any of the southern states.

The idea being all the people who want guns will then move to Texas.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you want to have another healthcare debate that's fine and definitely should be looked at as well, but the gun control debate is a valid point to bring up again. Allowing people to own guns, there's nothing wrong or perhaps even strange about it. Not insisting on basic checks (admittedly varies from state to state), registration etc. ? That's not merely a matter of opinion, that is collectively sticking your heads in the sand/putting your fingers in the ears and going lalala.

And you know it. That is why you insist precisely on that when it comes to cars -- which like guns are an excellent implement of death as well, even if only by accident.

Basic checks are meant to throw out those with criminal records and those with a record history of mental illness. But this comes directly back to the healthcare problem, how are mentally ill people getting guns? It is not because the gun laws are too lax, it is because no one knew they had these issues. No one picked up on their problems or maybe they had no one to even notice them. We don't live in a society where it is encouraged that if you feel like you have problems seek help immediately, there are social stigmas associated with these things. How is a student who wants help going to get it? Sure, the counselors office (if there is one) is right there. And as you walk up the steps in view of everyone, you are announcing to the whole school "hey, I have a mental and/or emotional problem!". Then we wonder why the Columbine kids never got the help they needed.

So how can you begin talking about the gun laws when they depend on the ability of our healthcare system to locate and note who the mentally ill are in the first place?

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[rvg]

The idea being all the people who want guns will then move to Texas.

Who gave you that idea?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Hooahguy]

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

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

[Montmorency]

1. Mental illness (cf. ACIN).
2. Most guns used in such crimes are illegally acquired. Regulating legal weapons however stringently will never reduce the supply or ease of access to this market.
3. There are too many guns within the United States to ever have hope of effecting a serious ban of any nature. We might as well try to burn all books - a long ordeal.
4. Legislation spurred by catastrophe is always worse than well-considered and soberly-analysed legislation.

There, I think I've regurgitated Panzerjaeger's points.

Now, perhaps the easy way out would simply be to institute an examination for gun owners, as well as a license, in the style of drivers' licenses and exams. Renewals might be every 5 years. All new guns sold would need to be registered. To undercut the black market, it would be necessary to make the process simple and easy in a way not wholly detrimental to the selective process itself. Otherwise, many would always simply turn to criminality.

I can't imagine a way to accomplish this - the regulations and tests would appear as a joke. What would the effect be Rather than regulating the legal market, it seems to make more sense to go for curtailing the illegal market, and that makes no sense because, well, how the heck could it be done? A War on Guns?!

There aren't easy ways out, and we shouldn't search for them - it's counterproductive in every way. Mental illness aside, bans must be cast aside as an option and any new controls and restrictions considered should be very specific as to ways, means, and ends, in what they intend to accomplish and how. Well-meaning blanket legislation never works, fellows.

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?

The War on Terror is indeed a strawman. It is wasteful and unnecessary. The problem is minimal, though theatrical and dramatic. Islamic terrorists have never seriously endangered the country or even substantially increased the risk of using any means of transportation. The proper response to 9/11 would simply have been to increase funding for the FBI and CIA, and prioritize their function as to monitor for local cells and lone wolves in the country, and to reduce abroad the operational capacity of large and coherent terrorist franchises. At the very most, a black-ops raid in Afghanistan and select other states as a show of power and to eliminate some of the leadership. Otherwise, life should have gone on as normal. Anyway, if the number of gun deaths is empirically small the per-capita rate shouldn't concern anyone overmuch.

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.

The schoolbook variant. Most of the more 'radical' revolutionaries, the ones who fomented in the first place, had a significant financial stake in eliminating British mercantilistic competition.

Finally, articles on the psychology of These People:

http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/stud...CJS%202008.pdf
http://jaapl.org/content/38/1/87.full.pdf+html
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...86.2011.581523

Introversion, narcissism, persecution complexes, and extensive prior criminal records.

[Sir Moody]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...FNTGWv4#t=101s



http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-chi...,5592318.story

honestly you ALL need to take a step back

this is a 3 way problem and surprisingly you all have missed the WORST part which Sasaki brought up and instead got caught up in the whole Knife versus Gun straw man

The youtube link was the most important problem we HAVE to address - the reason these shootings keep cropping up is more to do with how we air them and less the tools used

There is a certain kind of mentally ill individual which these shootings (or rather the media attention) calls to - they feel ignored and failed by the system (and usually their parents and loved ones as well) and if (when...) they snap they want their name to be remembered - they want to go out in a blaze of "glory", they want EVERYONE who failed to notice them or their problems to hear their name - and we do just that

by the end of this weekend only the most hardened hermits wont have heard the news of this shooting - and not just in the states, across the entire western world

Pape is right - gun control would make it harder for these "loner" types to get a gun, but a lack of a gun wont stop these attacks

ACIN is right - this is a Mental Health problem and addressing this problem will limit the number of individuals who could potentially go on to be a spree killer but individuals will always slip through the net

Reining in the Media is the key to reducing the number of these attacks - as long as they publicize them in the most sensational way they are proving encouragement for the next killer

[rvg]

As much as I agree with you and Sasaki, I have to say that "reining in the media" is just not going to happen. It's not even a free speech issue as much as a monetary one: sensationalist coverage == ratings == ad money.

[Visor]

Damn internet deleted my post.

Anyway, this is a tragedy, my condolences to the victims and their families. ACIN is right (not necessarily entirely), that it is an important healthcare issue, that needs fixing urgently. And reining in the media does need to happen, but it won't unfortunately.

Oh and thanks for the laugh Ronin.