Whiskey Tango Foxtrot--Yet ANOTHER School Shooting?!?!?!

[Darth Mandarb]

But I don't believe there is a greatest nation on earth.

Nor do I think of the president as the "leader of the free world".

Sounds to me like an individual problem (the "american exceptionalism" being rubbed in your face) in other countries.  Because, in America, on a daily basis I hear NOTHING of our superiority (or the "rubbing it in" other's faces).  I see the VAST majority lamenting the "failings" of our nation and discussing ways to improve and move forward rather than stagnating as we are.  I hear statistics on how our education system is falling FAR behind the rest of the world.  How our technology is now lagging well behind.  How corporations are dominating and getting away with monopolies.  I see hard working people struggling to get by in an economy that sucks.  I see homeless people begging for handouts on EVERY intersection of EVERY street. 

I don't see anything "exceptional" about that. 

So to lump us all together as touting our greatness, simply because of our geographical location, seems a bit silly and should probably be "backed up with facts".

I'm really not going to get into this [pointless] debate again though. 

It's like trying to convince a religious person the sheer folly of religion.

The majority of Americans are lovely people, I am absolutely sure of it without a doubt. But there is no need for guns. Too many cases where people flip out and use them like this imo.

Problem is, because it's such a heated debate they will never change the laws dramatically. The whole thing is too far gone. Hopefully the democrats will be brave enough come up with some changes. In a perfect world guns wouldn't get in the hands of such people. But as Darth says, it isn't a perfect world.

While I agree wholeheartedly with you in principle, I find the notion of "gun control" as the solution completely laughable.  It's not the solution. 

The blame for this event, and others like it, lies not at the feet of "gun control" it lies at the feet of the disgusting mass media corporations. 

They sensationalize the people that commit these crimes and give them the very spotlight they sought in the first place.

Why just kill yourself and vanish as the nobody you are when you can achieve celebrity by committing (or one-upping) a terrible crime?  They can, because the media gives them this fame.

(There's a "viral" article going around supposedly penned by Morgan Freeman, that nails my sentiments on this topic better than I could ever write it, but I don't want to link to it 'cause I'm not sure, yet, that it was actually written by Mr. Freeman).

We can make guns illegal, sure.  It might stop a few crimes.  But in the end it would be no different than the colossal failure that is the "war on drugs".

[OG]

I actually agree with you, Darth. Though I do find myself being ridiculously optimistic sometimes.

[Atelier]

The blame for this event, and others like it, lies not at the feet of "gun control" it lies at the feet of the disgusting mass media corporations.

As an aside, and at the risk of sounding a bit apathetic, as a Briton I don't see why this massacre warrants days of front page news over here. If I knew the deceased, those involved, or it was in my community, then obviously I would be emotionally invested. So I guess it's hard to react how people expect you to react when hearing this kind of news, from so far away with little human connection.

I haven't seen any American commentary but I can imagine the sort of bad taste and sensationalism you mean, based upon some ways the BBC has reported it. Just look at this page, "How it Happened", which is a regular feature when this sort of thing happens. Anybody else think this is really unnecessary and kind of morbid? I can't imagine anybody but the detectives and maybe parents would need such in-depth analysis. Showing pictures and videos taken at the time is yet another fave of the media's which is really gratuitous. And the blatant acting by newsreaders to add emotional impact to what they're saying... Fiona Bruce is a great example. Just read the prompt without so many intonations and frowns! Basically I hate watching the news because there's so much negativity all the time. It's because reporting about sad stuff is easier. Not because there is more sad stuff than happy stuff (there probably is, but in reality it's less of a ratio than the news makes out). It's easier because I think negative emotions are easier to elicit than positive ones.

So, calling for tighter gun control will not eradicate the motive for psychos to shoot up a school, there's no two ways about that. After all, a crazed gunman has never had the sole motive of just showing how lax gun laws are. People go on rampages like this because they want to, not simply because they can; although they also must be able to. These two parts, wanting to and an ability to, together may lead to a massacre, but I'm not sure whether they are equally weighted in the equation; which is most important is a matter of opinion.

In any case, it is easier to treat the precipitate for massacres, i.e. gun ownership, than the motive, i.e. psychological disorder leading to volition for murder. We all know from accounts of those who knew these guys that in 9/10 cases you can't predict who's capable of this stuff. Which makes successful identification and treatment nigh on impossible. Basically, all the signs point to America's endemic gunphilia, although I do think that the argument about media coverage does hold good water, as it in part explains the motive which must exist for people to massacre.

It's a no-brainer that less guns can only be a good thing. However Calin makes a good point that licensing less guns will do nothing to decrease the amount of illegal guns. But as far as I know most of these events are carried out with legal guns either owned by the perpetrator or a family member anyway. It's also not a problem that would be solved overnight anyway. Eventually though the amount of illegal guns currently in circulation would naturally decline, provided controls are reviewed, as they degrade or are seized etc.

[Ponch]

Guns are fundamentally problematic because they allow one to murder in a very disconnected way. You pull the trigger and they die. It's akin to pressing a button to make the thing you dont like go away. That, in itself, is a reason they shouldn't be given to civilians.

I own several guns. I go to the range a couple of times a month and spend a lot of money putting holes in paper, and I find it to be very enjoyable. For years now, I carry a gun almost every day (unless I'm going into a federal building or something). And I've never gone on a shooting spree. Nor have any of the recreational shooters I know.

There will always be crazy people. The biggest school killing in the US happened back in the 1920s, and it involved explosives, not guns. People get stabbed, hit with cars, poisoned by loved ones, and so on. I don't care if a crazy person does something stupid, I didn't. I certainly don't won't to be punished for the actions of someone else. If someone drives drunk, should we outlaw cars? If someone pirates movies, should we outlaw the interwebs? Did we outlaw air travel after 9/11? Did London close down the tube forever and all time after the bombings?

Heck, gun crime in the UK went up after the gun ban. You can pass as many laws as you like, but only the law-abiding will obey them. Guns are too easy to get and too easy to make from scratch (seriously, google that. It's amazing how many functional, accurate submachine guns have been made in people's basement!) so there's no putting the genie back in the bottle for this one.

The problem isn't guns. It's America's culture. American spirit, price of freedom, yadda yadda. This kid needed a hug and some serious drugs. Instead he had a disinterested mom, an absent father, and a therapist who wasn't putting in the work required. How do you fix such a thing? I don't know. But I don't think yet another impotent law will do much good.

[miguel]

When I commented on this topic there were only 3 posts about it and I honestly thought that this could lead to a "USA hate thing". I was very cautious not to write anything that would bring such feelings on people that would read it.
Why? Because I read and was part of some debates that went nowhere (religion, politics, the kind...) and did not want to start another.
Second, because like I said, I did some research on the behaviour of the murderers and the people studying it and found that the fact that this people had guns at home (not every cases) does not explain shit about it.
If they didn't have the guns at home they would probably work their way to get them some other place. If it wasn't "easy" to buy them at a store they would work out a plan to get them through different channels (black market, stealing, etc...).
These people plan their killings with 100% dedication. Getting the arsenal to do it is just part of the plan. And for a brain scientist its a secondary aspect of it.
All I can say, based on what I've read, is that we need more "mentalist" kind of agents in the various police forces in the world. Those are people trained to see the obvious that sometimes eludes us because we are so trapped in our little societies.
One of the dangers that I find to be really absurd is the "cult" of being depressed. To some people, being a depressive guy with no joy for anything is a trend and they dress and act so that it's almost cool. Almost. It's plain stupid to me.
People depressed must find help and get treated. There's no other way.
Sorry to people reading this that are going through bad times but it all starts with a depression. And I didn't make this out, I read it from people that actually study the phenomenon.

[Khris]

Ponch:
Your line of argument has an important flaw: the only purpose of guns is to kill or maim people, which cannot be said of any of the other things you listed. Of course we don't outlaw cars or the web or even knives, because they all serve a harmless, productive purpose. Guns don't. (I'm aware that people use guns to control animal populations, but unless everybody who went on a killing spree was a hunter and used only their own hunting rifle, this doesn't count.)

Of course outlawing all guns or at least severely restricting access to them doesn't get rid of the problem, let alone the actual cause. Just wanted to point it out.

[bicilotti]

For years now, I carry a gun almost every day (unless I'm going into a federal building or something). And I've never gone on a shooting spree. Nor have any of the recreational shooters I know.

May I ask you what made you decide to 'conceal carry'? Just an OT curiosity.

[Squinky]

I used to be a sheriff deputy, and carried a glock on my hip for over six years. I have the typical assortment of rifles for hunting and plinking. I can conceal carry but I never have, for fear of two things:

I believe most situations are only escalated with guns. If someone robs me they can have my shit. If I have a gun I might start thinking thoughts and get myself in trouble.

Wearing a gun everyday, I fear I would get too comfortable and forget about it. Possibly misfiring it or leaving it laying around.

That said, I am against gun control in general. If you want to conceal carry go for it. I like my guns for hunting (which feeds my family) and I take my children out and we shoot and they learn to respect guns.

People always want to outlaw "assault rifles", and for the most part, those rifles are just hunting rifles with tactical gear on them. If you lower the magazine capacities, people will just pack more ten round

magazines with them when they do these things. If you outlaw guns, folks will just start using explosives....or some other device. And there are so many guns over here I don't think it would really work anyway.

[Anian]

I used to be a sheriff deputy, and carried a glock on my hip for over six years. I have the typical assortment of rifles for hunting and plinking. I can conceal carry but I never have, for fear of two things:
I believe most situations are only escalated with guns. If someone robs me they can have my shit. If I have a gun I might start thinking thoughts and get myself in trouble.
Wearing a gun everyday, I fear I would get too comfortable and forget about it. Possibly misfiring it or leaving it laying around.
That said, I am against gun control in general. If you want to conceal carry go for it. I like my guns for hunting (which feeds my family) and I take my children out and we shoot and they learn to respect guns.
People always want to outlaw "assault rifles", and for the most part, those rifles are just hunting rifles with tactical gear on them. If you lower the magazine capacities, people will just pack more ten round
magazines with them when they do these things. If you outlaw guns, folks will just start using explosives....or some other device. And there are so many guns over here I don't think it would really work anyway.

I really can't understand how you don't realize that you and your attitude is the usual excuse for carrying guns and how small of a percentage of people you fall into.

On one side you are trained to use a gun and you are very careful about educating your children, you do use it for hunting and are aware that you have to be careful when using a gun to defend even when that would mean being robbed for instance. To a certain extent I even get the gun collecting side of it.
But do you really think other people act like that? Not really.

The other thing that gets me annoyed is the concealed part - why, do you need to surprise somebody? Do you have the urge to start a fight then settle it with a gun? That is purely idiotic. And why the foxtrot do you need an assault or an automatic rifle?! I saw a guy carrying a rifle on a rally about health WTH!? I saw people complain about why they can't carry a gun into a bar where they are really likely to get really drunk. Not to mention the street gangs and such. And I'm not even from USA or a cop, so you've probably seen worse. Were not talking people having a gun in the wilderness where an animal might attack you, we're talking about people who go and get drunk with a gun! People who, unlike you, don't really think through what they'd do if somebody comes at them with a gun and in all likeliness would probably get somebody or themselves hurt.
There's no system of control and even worse there's an illusion of control. Even in my country you have to pass a test that trains your IQ and other skills to have a permit and this is a very foxtroted country.

Just so we are on the same page, I would agree with you if the number of people who do stupid stuff with weapons was a small minority and the law was basically controlling everybody cause there's a few idiots around, but that is not the case. I also don't believe that gun control really could've helped out this incident or other shootings, but it wouldn't exactly do damage either.

Oh, lets not get into the public healthcare system, how about guns to anybody but healthcare to anybody as well. That way when you shoot somebody they take it out of your pay check.
For a few years now, USA has all this indications and symptoms of a broken society showing up on the surface, as someone mentioned, it's a first world country with third world problems and the sad thing is that the rest of the world was walking down that path and is not far behind.

[Ponch]

Ponch:
Your line of argument has an important flaw: the only purpose of guns is to kill or maim people, which cannot be said of any of the other things you listed.

I disagree completely. I shoot for recreational reasons. None of my guns have ever killed or maimed anyone -- they have only shredded many, many paper targets. So clearly they have more than one purpose. But you can say the same thing about every inanimate object. Are cars only meant to ferry people around? Can't they also have an aesthetic purpose? Have you ever visited a car museum and looked at an old Duesenberg? They're beautiful machines. The one I'm thinking of isn't out on the road, carrying people back and forth to Walmart or anything. It's just sitting there to be admired. The same can be said of Fonzi's jacket on display at the Smithsonian. Henry Winkler isn't wearing it, which should be the only point of the thing. But it's still there, helping us recall a terrible time in American television history nonetheless. A cautionary example, to be sure.

And why isn't that Supermarine Spitfire out defending the skies of Great Britain from the devious schemes of Ghost, Cat, and Tabata? Why is it just sitting in an air and space museum for me to look at. Aren't air superiority fighters supposed to be in the air shooting down other planes? Isn't that their only purpose? 

I practice Tai Chi sword for fun and exercise. My sword is very sharp, but I've never cut anyone with it. Isn't that the purpose of a sword? Or can it also be used for fun and exercise?

Embarrassingly, I also tend to use kitchen knives to open packages. Is that the intended function of my paring knife? It is if I say it is. 

May I ask you what made you decide to 'conceal carry'? Just an OT curiosity.

About fifteen years ago, while I was still living in San Diego, I was attacked by a crazy guy one evening in parking garage. I got away but he chased me and when he caught up with me, I had to fight him a second time. He hated my blue eyes, as it turned out. In those few seconds before he caught up with me again, all I could think was "if I had my gun... if I had my gun...". Fortunately, I was freshly out of the military and was able to discourage him enough (with repeated blows to the head) that he eventually ran away. I jogged across the plaza to the trolly towers and told the security guy there that I had just been attacked. He called the cops and it took almost twenty minutes for an officer to arrive. And this was downtown, so i can't imagine that an officer was all that far away. I guess they were just busy. 

I'm not that young anymore, and I certainly don't move as quickly as I used to. But I don't ever want to face a crazy, red-headed, rebar weilding hobo ever again. I was covered in bruises for two weeks after that night, and I'm damn lucky I didn't wind up with a cauliflower ear or something. If I'd been carrying my gun, I doubt he would have wanted to chase me down that stairwell if I'd been waiting down there with a drawn pistol.

Ever since then, I've been armed. And I also have a healthy, sensible fear of red-headed people. 

Wearing a gun everyday, I fear I would get too comfortable and forget about it. Possibly misfiring it or leaving it laying around.

Do you treat your car the same way? Do you take naps while driving because you've gotten so comfortable behind the wheel? I never forget I'm wearing it. (How can I? It pokes me in the small of my back all the time.)

[Squinky]

Oh, I meant no offense Ponch. Those are just my personal reasons for not carrying. Also, like you mention the gun always pokes you.

[Ponch]

Oh, I meant no offense Ponch. Those are just my personal reasons for not carrying. Also, like you mention the gun always pokes you.

That constant annoyance is nature's way of telling you "don't do anything stupid". Just like a case of the crabs.

[Khris]

I think we were talking past each other, let me try to put in another way: would you be opposed to giving free nuclear bombs to everybody who wanted one?
What if I wanted to have one because I thought it would look great sitting in my backyard, purely for aesthetic purposes?

[Ponch]

Self Defense = The ability to blow up a city

That's a straw man argument and you know it. Come on, Khris. 

Personally, I'd love to have a belt-fed machine gun and a bazooka. And a Panzer tank. And I would especially love to have a barbeque grill that looked like an old WWII atomic bomb. Classic design, really. Flip open "Fat Man" and throw on some steaks? Yes, please. And we've got chicken and hot dogs over there on "Little Boy." That would be awesome. But we both know that bringing real plutonium into this amazingly awesome backyard grilling fantasy would only make the meat taste funny (and kill all my guests... slowly ). Stay away from fissionables, kids. Khris and I can agree on that.

Owning and carrying a gun responsibly is not the same as declaring my house an independent nation and becoming the world's tiniest nuclear power (suck it, North Korea!!) -- by the way, my flag would be just like the flag of Texas, but with Larry Vales' head in place of the star. 

And apropos of nothing, my avatar is a cute little dancing cow. Yours is a emotionally blank man brandishing a gun. Which one of us is on which side of this debate again?

Anyhoo, this thread is just going in circles now. I'm off to watch Earnest Saves Christmas and then maybe a little Muppets holiday goodness before bedtime. 

[Crimson Wizard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing

[Nikolas]

There is something that's bothering me here...

Somehow US citizens seem to get the impression that the rest of the world is attacking the US (not unjustifiably but anyhow). This is NOT the case here. We are talking about an insane, silly, bullshit part of your constitution that stands since the late 1700s... And since it's there it IS your right to bear arms! Well done on that!

But the point remains if other normal (Darth) countries have less or more problems with heavy restrictions on gun ownership. And my impression is that there are far less problems RIGHT NOW! Of course it will take some time and nobody is arguing that the minute the law passes everyone will leave their guns and the US will be heaven! Of course not! But I'd dare to say that after a few years (no idea on how many) things WILL be better. For everyone.

That and if your news channels STOP portraying every murderer, every thug, every homicide constantly in the news... This is NOT happening over here and it's the ONE thing that's not poisoning our minds. We do get very pessimistic news constantly about the economy and it's killing the very same economy even further... So much so that I've been wondering if we banned news forever things in the economy would be much better (or not?), but still... News are much more influential than a Hollywood movie: Everyone knows that a movie is bullshit, but everyone knows that news are real (except for fox news?).

While I'm not in the US, I've been there a few times and have many many friends from the US: I get a feeling that your love for guns is attached to your DNA somehow. The same way we Greeks have tax evasion in our DNA! But both can change and as is evident with Greece it can be done through sheer force and with dire consequences but it can be done!

[Radiant]

Well for starters, it's never a matter of "allow all guns" vs. "ban all guns"; that's just another straw man. The law is supposed to ensure that responsible people can have guns, and everybody else cannot; that's no different from Europe and Canada. This, then, is a sliding scale where a law can be made more stringent or more lenient, without immediately resorting to "ban everything" (which wouldn't work anyway).

With respect to the school shooting, my first question would be where the murderer got his weapon. Did he have a gun permit and purchase the gun legally? Did he borrow it from someone who should not have borrowed it to him? Did he construct it from spare parts in the basement (a feat which I suspect 99.9% of the population is not capable of)? Did he buy it from the black market? Something else? Find the cause here and you have a target for action to avert future tragedies; otherwise, having politicians take arbitrary measures in moral panic doesn't get you anywhere.

[Stupot]

In this case, I beleive the kid just used his mother's guns that she had in the house.  She was quite within her rights to own those guns.  But how her mentally disturbed son had access to them is a question that might be saved for another day.

Gun crime is always going to be a problem in the States, and criminalizing firearms is probably not going to have much effect, and will just anger most Americans who beleive in the constitution.  But I do think it's about time some people started asking themsleves if they REALLY NEED a gun around the place.  Perhaps some kind of voluntary gun amnesty could be proposed.  It's not going to have much affect on inner city gun-crime, where some people genuinely feel they need a gun to stay alive, but perhaps in the wealthier suburbs and small towns like Newtown, perhaps if people really stepped back, lookd at the scenes and asked themselves 'Do I really need these?' then maybe the next disturbed kid might not have such easy access to the weapons.

[Calin Leafshade]

It's not going to have much affect on inner city gun-crime, where some people genuinely feel they need a gun to stay alive,

See now, I have never felt like i've needed a firearm to stay alive. I think if someone in a wealthy, developed nation is thinking that then there is something very wrong.

[miguel]

My posts must be really boring because I think nobody reads them.
There's some issues here that must be separated first:

One, the fact that the kid had easy access to guns (in this case his mother did) is not influential on planing and committing mass murder; he would have taken more time finding his arsenal and would not stop until he had them; it's a compulsive obsessive behaviour that drives this people to perfect their crazy plan;

Two, the fact that guns are easy to get does have major influence on US homicide statistics, I am talking about some kids robbing a drugstore, man and wife having a argument, things like that; In european countries common crime (non-organized) has a much better chance to end up with people still living.

Three, we should not blame the guns, specially in a country that produces and sells guns, and specially in a country where guns are part of its culture. I don't understand it but also don't want to criticize what I don't know.

Four, we really should be thinking about better ways to understand what the hell is going on on this people's minds, specially teens where there's still time to change their point of view about life.