8 ms·

Listen, there are two parts to this: 1. The horrible tragedy, and 2. The hopes to prevent this from happening again. If we are going to talk about this, we need

Listen, there are two parts to this: 1. The horrible tragedy, and 2. The hopes to prevent this from happening again. If we are going to talk about this, we need to all fall under the assumption that we agree that this is both a very tragic act perpetrated by someone who is obviously disturbed/mentally ill, and that it is all of our desires to do what we can to make sure senseless acts of violence like this never happen again. So where do we go from here? How do we prevent this from happening again? It seems that there are two schools of thought (generalizing obviously): 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. Regardless of which side you fall in, neither work perfectly unless they are complete (i.e. all weapons are gone thus criminals don't even have access, or everyone is armed and no one has the upper hand). The problem with both absolutes, is a deranged person will always find a means to carry out their ill will, whether that's a gun/knife/driving a car into a crowd. The safest computer is encased in concrete, and buried 6 feet underground. Much in the same way, the safest society would have each of us locked in a room, with no interaction. What we have to figure out is this: How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few?

r00fus 14y ago
> 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. Nice strawmen. There are obviously options in the middle, namely, increasing traceability of weapons and ammo and shutting down channels that where weapons are allowed to change hands anonymously. The proliferation of weapons is one thing, but the fact that these tragedies occur and we don't have a way to follow the chain back to the disreputable dealer who sold these armaments - and shut them down - is just non-sensical. The 2nd amendment fundamentalists who don't even want question how these weapons can get in the wrong hands - often use that same strawman you pose above - which is rediculous - many folks support the 2nd amendment yet find the need for further action to prevent these events from happening.
- dmm 14y ago
  > increasing traceability of weapons and ammo The guns used in shootings are usually legally bought. There are no disreputable dealers here.
- dsl 14y ago
  Disreputable dealer? I absolutely agree, any car used in a drunk driving accident should be traced back to the dealer responsible, and they should be punished. If you can determine in advance who the "wrong hands" are, I'm sure the TSA would love to speak to you and dump buckets of money over your head.
  - gnu8 14y ago
    Or cars used in any accidents. Thousands of people die in car collisions every year, accidental and intentional, whether they were drunk or sober, reckless or diligent, or just an innocent pedestrian or cyclist who happened to have bad luck that day. A few days ago someone posted a web site called http://www.banthecar.com http://www.banthecar.com where they laid out detailed arguments for banning all cars, because of all the problems they cause, including accidental deaths. Obviously banning cars is not reasonable or realistic. We have a process for who is and is not allowed to drive a car, and we are fairly comfortable with it, even though it still fails to prevent thousands of deaths. The process of firearm ownership could use some adjustments, but ultimately we cannot prevent all deaths. The best we can do is prevent those who are obviously unsuitable(1) from owning firearms, and ensuring we have a system to remove the rights of those who abuse them. (1) this is very dangerous due to the history of gun control being used to enable racism and genocide. The criteria must be objective, not subjective.
    - dbaupp 14y ago
      > history of gun control being used to enable racism and genocide Reference? (Genuine question.)
      - gnu8 14y ago
        Here are a few. Racism: http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html Genocide: http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/gun-bans-and-genocide.htm http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/gun-bans-and-genocide.ht... http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I am personally a fan of another a solution along another axis entirely: a complete overhaul of our medical system, notably in this case the way we detect and handle the mentally ill. (A part of that could be mental evaluations for those who want to buy guns.)
  - the_economist 14y ago
    This seems like the right approach, but part of the overhaul needs to be a massive increase in research. We don't have a good way to treat the mentally ill, in most cases.
- marknutter 14y ago
  The guy used basic handguns in this shooting. The problem is his mental health, not his access to guns. If he were motivated enough, and guns weren't available, he could use any manner of other means to kill a bunch of people - bombs, molotov cocktails, home-made flame throwers, samurai sword, vehicles, etc.
  - codegeek 14y ago
    "The problem is his mental health, not his access to guns" The problem is that he had access to guns when he was mentally ill. Thats the problem. You cannot isolate the two.
    - marknutter 14y ago
      What's easier to solve: remove all access to any weapon, or treating mental illness?
      - codegeek 14y ago
        The solution is somewhere in the middle. It is never one or the other. Can you remove access to all weapons ? No. Can you treat all mentally ill ppl ? No. Can you make it harder for ppl to buy weapons especially if they could be mentally ill ? Yes, certainly. Will it always work ? No.
      - nollidge 14y ago
        Or some of both? Because neither is a perfect solution?
    - sallyjo8525 14y ago
      I believe the handguns were his mother's. Making guns harder to obtain for mentally ill people will not stop them from obtaining them illegally.
- baddox 14y ago
  I think you mean false dichotomy, not straw man.
  - r00fus 14y ago
    No, they're strawmen. Extreme positions that a very small percentage of people support - so you can knock them down and look like a reasonable figure as long as you don't support the extreme. Look at example 2.5 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure By reducing the argument to one extreme vs. another extreme, these are strawmen arguments... very few support either extreme, so the commenter can then knock down the arguments and look reasonable saying pretty much anything.
    - baddox 14y ago
      It's not a straw man. Go back and read JoeCortopassi's comment [0]. He didn't propose the argument then knock it down. He genuinely presented the argument as his own. He says neither will work unless implemented completely, then he recognizes that there are problems with either and that some crazy people will always be able to commit heinous crimes. Your argument is that the two absolutes are not the only options, which is pointing out a false dichotomy. Of course, even that's not an appropriate response, since JoeCortopassi had already pointed out the potential problems (like excessive loss of personal liberty) with absolutes. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922651 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922651
- jcromartie 14y ago
  Most mass shootings are done with legally-obtained firearms.
  - codegeek 14y ago
    Probably. But still the point is to make it harder to obtain guns legally since most shooters buy guns legally. Illegally anyway you cannot do much.
king_jester 14y ago
If you believe that the shooter in this case was disturbed or had mental illness (I've seen no reports to conclude this, btw) then the first thing you would demand is 1) better mental health care facilities and treatments for the public at large and 2) universal health care systems to provide the least possible friction in accessing those mental health care services. Also, you don't have to be either for banning guns or having no regulations at all. Instead, a compromise of allowing regulated gun ownership would be better.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Is sanity really a possibility here? Sure, we don't have a diagnosis, at least yet, but I would say by definition this person was not sane. A mass shooting is no crime of passion. It seems to me that there are two problems here. The first is that we suck at finding/handling the mentally ill. These mass shootings are rare, but the connection between crime and mental illness in this country is anything but. The second issue is of course that we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns away from the people they need to be kept away from. Ideally both issues should be tackled.
  - entropy_ 14y ago
    Are serial killers sane? Their crimes are not crimes of passion. Lots of serial killers kill complete strangers to them. Do they get to plead insanity in court? Should they be sent to mental hospitals or prisons? I'm not being facetious, I'm asking seriously, what definition of sanity are we running on here?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I would say there is no way in hell serial killers are sane. Are there those who actually suggest otherwise? I don't care if they are placed in prisons or mental hospitals, so long as they are not set free. People who are interested in revenge will likely prefer they be sent to prisons, and those interested in helping the individual will likely prefer they be sent to mental hospitals. I don't care, so long as there is a lock on the door.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
The problem is that easy availability of guns amplify the destruction that can be perpetuated by mentally unstable individuals. A similar incident happened in China today where 22 kids were stabbed by one perpetrator but not one had life threatening injuries. What if Walmart China sold guns like the US one does? How many innocent kids would be dead today? > How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few? Liberty? What about the liberty not to get randomly shot down and you or your loved ones' life taken away from you and the people who know you? Isn't the gift of life the supreme liberty taking precedence over the need of some to worship guns? The ability to take away someone right and liberty to live at a moment's notice borders on a superpower and should be handed out very sparingly to those who absolutely need it to do their job.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the government to continue broadening its scope of power at our expense is not likely to abate any time soon. I ask you: if this trend continues, where do you think it leads? Our guns are our final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime; they are our assurance that we will never become helpless, that we will always have the capability to fight if fighting ever becomes necessary. Though it is certainly a great tragedy that these children have died today, how much greater were the tragedies throughout human history that resulted from the excessive centralization of power and a populace that was unable to fight against it? You think that human nature has changed in the last half century; you think that something like that cannot happen again, that it won't happen here? People have not changed; sociopaths still seek power, and when they find it, if the masses have no way of fighting back, they will find themselves dealing with problems many orders of magnitude more horrific than the occasional school shooting. I am familiar with all of the arguments for disarming the people of the United States, and they are all fundamentally flawed, because nothing is worse than being at the mercy of tyrants.
eik3_de 14y ago
Some data: In the US, there are about 3.45 homicides with firearms per 100,000 population per year. In Germany (where I live), this figure is 0.19, that is roughly factor 18.
- onetwothreefour 14y ago
  Let's not bring logic and facts into an argument about guns with Americans. The simple fact is that Americans are exceptional, so anything that happens outside the US is irrelevant.
- benjohnson 14y ago
  I would counter that you need to go back 70 years to see how well a disarmed German population.
  - lostlogin 14y ago
    How well what? And why does one have to go back? Compare now to now.
wlll 14y ago
Option 3. Prevent widespread news coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 Though that seems about as likely as "1.Disarm everyone".
- jdlshore 14y ago
  This video needs more attention.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Is it France that has some kid of law like this? Here in New Zealand papers have some kind of thing where suicides aren't usually reported where young people are concerned. I believe this relates to something the Ministry of Health organises.
abstractbill 14y ago
It seems that there are two schools of thought (generalizing obviously): 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. I think these are actually two extreme positions to which almost nobody seriously subscribes.
- baddox 14y ago
  It depends whether "disarm everyone" is meant to include exceptions government law enforcement and legitimate hunters. If so, then I do think most people (in the USA, at least) subscribe to one of those schools of though.
  - abstractbill 14y ago
    Not if you trust the available data: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/gun-control-policies.jpg http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/g... From that, a huge majority supports some new restrictions on gun ownership (background checks, no guns for felons or the mentally ill, require gun registration) but almost nobody supports "no guns, period". (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/n...).
jcromartie 14y ago
We don't need to prevent this from happening again. We need to stop these things from happening again and again and again. It's shocking but it's not surprising, because it's almost a predictable event in the US today. Hardly a year goes by in the US without a shooting spree, at schools and otherwise.
schrototo 14y ago
It is utterly fascinating to me how much discussion there is around this, here on this forum and in other places. In no other country in the world would this even be a debate... Of course you want to disarm everyone! That is the only sensible option! There is absolutely no need why anyone, save members of the executive branch enforcing the government's monopoly on violence, would ever need to carry a firearm. "Self defense" and "liberty" are totally crazy arguments, that are only ever brought up in America and are based purely on historical reasons.
- thetabyte 14y ago
  I'm genuinely interested—is this the consensus opinion of most of the developed world outside of the US? I'm a US citizen, and generally consider myself liberal and progressive. I favor much stricter gun control laws. But I'm not sure I do favor complete disarmament of the citizenship. I do believe that the knowledge—not the use—of citizen's arms does provide a reminder to the government in times of crisis. But am I simply experiencing large cultural bias? Is there any research on this? Any evidence I can look to? I'm very curious.
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    Pretty sure he's being sarcastic.
    - schrototo 14y ago
      Actually I'm not, but reading the post again I see how it could come off that way... (edit: at least to an American...)
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        The problem is with the concept of "need". I think very few people, even in the US, think that citizens should be allowed to have guns because they "need" them. The only possible exception I can think of is people living or hiking in remote areas where safety from wildlife can be a concern. You will find people who think that guns ownership should be permitted because they are needed in that edge case. You are arguing against something few, if any, people believe. Americans think they should be allowed to own guns despite a need to have guns. If that is reasonable or not is frankly irrelevant. Politics and legal realities make the elimination of all guns impossible. You are not being realistic if that is what you propose.
malkia 14y ago
Do you think a gun would help you survive? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s
benkay 14y ago
You're missing the third school of thought: provide mental health services. It distresses me that our cultural fix-it focus is on tools and not causes: neither arming the nation nor banning firearms will address fundamental problems of mental health. Even though you acknowledge that "...a deranged person will always find a means to carry out their ill will...", you're not addressing the derangement. Let's start there. Social services are expensive. Not having them can be...more expensive.

r00fus 14y ago

> 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. Nice strawmen. There are obviously options in the middle, namely, increasing traceability of weapons and ammo and shutting down channels that where weapons are allowed to change hands anonymously. The proliferation of weapons is one thing, but the fact that these tragedies occur and we don't have a way to follow the chain back to the disreputable dealer who sold these armaments - and shut them down - is just non-sensical. The 2nd amendment fundamentalists who don't even want question how these weapons can get in the wrong hands - often use that same strawman you pose above - which is rediculous - many folks support the 2nd amendment yet find the need for further action to prevent these events from happening.

dmm 14y ago
> increasing traceability of weapons and ammo The guns used in shootings are usually legally bought. There are no disreputable dealers here.
dsl 14y ago
Disreputable dealer? I absolutely agree, any car used in a drunk driving accident should be traced back to the dealer responsible, and they should be punished. If you can determine in advance who the "wrong hands" are, I'm sure the TSA would love to speak to you and dump buckets of money over your head.
- gnu8 14y ago
  Or cars used in any accidents. Thousands of people die in car collisions every year, accidental and intentional, whether they were drunk or sober, reckless or diligent, or just an innocent pedestrian or cyclist who happened to have bad luck that day. A few days ago someone posted a web site called http://www.banthecar.com http://www.banthecar.com where they laid out detailed arguments for banning all cars, because of all the problems they cause, including accidental deaths. Obviously banning cars is not reasonable or realistic. We have a process for who is and is not allowed to drive a car, and we are fairly comfortable with it, even though it still fails to prevent thousands of deaths. The process of firearm ownership could use some adjustments, but ultimately we cannot prevent all deaths. The best we can do is prevent those who are obviously unsuitable(1) from owning firearms, and ensuring we have a system to remove the rights of those who abuse them. (1) this is very dangerous due to the history of gun control being used to enable racism and genocide. The criteria must be objective, not subjective.
  - dbaupp 14y ago
    > history of gun control being used to enable racism and genocide Reference? (Genuine question.)
    - gnu8 14y ago
      Here are a few. Racism: http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html Genocide: http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/gun-bans-and-genocide.htm http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/gun-bans-and-genocide.ht... http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
jlgreco 14y ago
I am personally a fan of another a solution along another axis entirely: a complete overhaul of our medical system, notably in this case the way we detect and handle the mentally ill. (A part of that could be mental evaluations for those who want to buy guns.)
- the_economist 14y ago
  This seems like the right approach, but part of the overhaul needs to be a massive increase in research. We don't have a good way to treat the mentally ill, in most cases.
marknutter 14y ago
The guy used basic handguns in this shooting. The problem is his mental health, not his access to guns. If he were motivated enough, and guns weren't available, he could use any manner of other means to kill a bunch of people - bombs, molotov cocktails, home-made flame throwers, samurai sword, vehicles, etc.
- codegeek 14y ago
  "The problem is his mental health, not his access to guns" The problem is that he had access to guns when he was mentally ill. Thats the problem. You cannot isolate the two.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    What's easier to solve: remove all access to any weapon, or treating mental illness?
    - codegeek 14y ago
      The solution is somewhere in the middle. It is never one or the other. Can you remove access to all weapons ? No. Can you treat all mentally ill ppl ? No. Can you make it harder for ppl to buy weapons especially if they could be mentally ill ? Yes, certainly. Will it always work ? No.
    - nollidge 14y ago
      Or some of both? Because neither is a perfect solution?
  - sallyjo8525 14y ago
    I believe the handguns were his mother's. Making guns harder to obtain for mentally ill people will not stop them from obtaining them illegally.
baddox 14y ago
I think you mean false dichotomy, not straw man.
- r00fus 14y ago
  No, they're strawmen. Extreme positions that a very small percentage of people support - so you can knock them down and look like a reasonable figure as long as you don't support the extreme. Look at example 2.5 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure By reducing the argument to one extreme vs. another extreme, these are strawmen arguments... very few support either extreme, so the commenter can then knock down the arguments and look reasonable saying pretty much anything.
  - baddox 14y ago
    It's not a straw man. Go back and read JoeCortopassi's comment [0]. He didn't propose the argument then knock it down. He genuinely presented the argument as his own. He says neither will work unless implemented completely, then he recognizes that there are problems with either and that some crazy people will always be able to commit heinous crimes. Your argument is that the two absolutes are not the only options, which is pointing out a false dichotomy. Of course, even that's not an appropriate response, since JoeCortopassi had already pointed out the potential problems (like excessive loss of personal liberty) with absolutes. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922651 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922651
jcromartie 14y ago
Most mass shootings are done with legally-obtained firearms.
- codegeek 14y ago
  Probably. But still the point is to make it harder to obtain guns legally since most shooters buy guns legally. Illegally anyway you cannot do much.

king_jester 14y ago

If you believe that the shooter in this case was disturbed or had mental illness (I've seen no reports to conclude this, btw) then the first thing you would demand is 1) better mental health care facilities and treatments for the public at large and 2) universal health care systems to provide the least possible friction in accessing those mental health care services. Also, you don't have to be either for banning guns or having no regulations at all. Instead, a compromise of allowing regulated gun ownership would be better.

jlgreco 14y ago
Is sanity really a possibility here? Sure, we don't have a diagnosis, at least yet, but I would say by definition this person was not sane. A mass shooting is no crime of passion. It seems to me that there are two problems here. The first is that we suck at finding/handling the mentally ill. These mass shootings are rare, but the connection between crime and mental illness in this country is anything but. The second issue is of course that we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns away from the people they need to be kept away from. Ideally both issues should be tackled.
- entropy_ 14y ago
  Are serial killers sane? Their crimes are not crimes of passion. Lots of serial killers kill complete strangers to them. Do they get to plead insanity in court? Should they be sent to mental hospitals or prisons? I'm not being facetious, I'm asking seriously, what definition of sanity are we running on here?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I would say there is no way in hell serial killers are sane. Are there those who actually suggest otherwise? I don't care if they are placed in prisons or mental hospitals, so long as they are not set free. People who are interested in revenge will likely prefer they be sent to prisons, and those interested in helping the individual will likely prefer they be sent to mental hospitals. I don't care, so long as there is a lock on the door.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

The problem is that easy availability of guns amplify the destruction that can be perpetuated by mentally unstable individuals. A similar incident happened in China today where 22 kids were stabbed by one perpetrator but not one had life threatening injuries. What if Walmart China sold guns like the US one does? How many innocent kids would be dead today? > How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few? Liberty? What about the liberty not to get randomly shot down and you or your loved ones' life taken away from you and the people who know you? Isn't the gift of life the supreme liberty taking precedence over the need of some to worship guns? The ability to take away someone right and liberty to live at a moment's notice borders on a superpower and should be handed out very sparingly to those who absolutely need it to do their job.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the government to continue broadening its scope of power at our expense is not likely to abate any time soon. I ask you: if this trend continues, where do you think it leads? Our guns are our final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime; they are our assurance that we will never become helpless, that we will always have the capability to fight if fighting ever becomes necessary. Though it is certainly a great tragedy that these children have died today, how much greater were the tragedies throughout human history that resulted from the excessive centralization of power and a populace that was unable to fight against it? You think that human nature has changed in the last half century; you think that something like that cannot happen again, that it won't happen here? People have not changed; sociopaths still seek power, and when they find it, if the masses have no way of fighting back, they will find themselves dealing with problems many orders of magnitude more horrific than the occasional school shooting. I am familiar with all of the arguments for disarming the people of the United States, and they are all fundamentally flawed, because nothing is worse than being at the mercy of tyrants.

eik3_de 14y ago

Some data: In the US, there are about 3.45 homicides with firearms per 100,000 population per year. In Germany (where I live), this figure is 0.19, that is roughly factor 18.

onetwothreefour 14y ago
Let's not bring logic and facts into an argument about guns with Americans. The simple fact is that Americans are exceptional, so anything that happens outside the US is irrelevant.
benjohnson 14y ago
I would counter that you need to go back 70 years to see how well a disarmed German population.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  How well what? And why does one have to go back? Compare now to now.

wlll 14y ago

Option 3. Prevent widespread news coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 Though that seems about as likely as "1.Disarm everyone".

jdlshore 14y ago
This video needs more attention.
lostlogin 14y ago
Is it France that has some kid of law like this? Here in New Zealand papers have some kind of thing where suicides aren't usually reported where young people are concerned. I believe this relates to something the Ministry of Health organises.

abstractbill 14y ago

It seems that there are two schools of thought (generalizing obviously): 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. I think these are actually two extreme positions to which almost nobody seriously subscribes.

baddox 14y ago
It depends whether "disarm everyone" is meant to include exceptions government law enforcement and legitimate hunters. If so, then I do think most people (in the USA, at least) subscribe to one of those schools of though.
- abstractbill 14y ago
  Not if you trust the available data: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/gun-control-policies.jpg http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/g... From that, a huge majority supports some new restrictions on gun ownership (background checks, no guns for felons or the mentally ill, require gun registration) but almost nobody supports "no guns, period". (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/n...).

jcromartie 14y ago

We don't need to prevent this from happening again. We need to stop these things from happening again and again and again. It's shocking but it's not surprising, because it's almost a predictable event in the US today. Hardly a year goes by in the US without a shooting spree, at schools and otherwise.

schrototo 14y ago

It is utterly fascinating to me how much discussion there is around this, here on this forum and in other places. In no other country in the world would this even be a debate... Of course you want to disarm everyone! That is the only sensible option! There is absolutely no need why anyone, save members of the executive branch enforcing the government's monopoly on violence, would ever need to carry a firearm. "Self defense" and "liberty" are totally crazy arguments, that are only ever brought up in America and are based purely on historical reasons.

thetabyte 14y ago
I'm genuinely interested—is this the consensus opinion of most of the developed world outside of the US? I'm a US citizen, and generally consider myself liberal and progressive. I favor much stricter gun control laws. But I'm not sure I do favor complete disarmament of the citizenship. I do believe that the knowledge—not the use—of citizen's arms does provide a reminder to the government in times of crisis. But am I simply experiencing large cultural bias? Is there any research on this? Any evidence I can look to? I'm very curious.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  Pretty sure he's being sarcastic.
  - schrototo 14y ago
    Actually I'm not, but reading the post again I see how it could come off that way... (edit: at least to an American...)
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      The problem is with the concept of "need". I think very few people, even in the US, think that citizens should be allowed to have guns because they "need" them. The only possible exception I can think of is people living or hiking in remote areas where safety from wildlife can be a concern. You will find people who think that guns ownership should be permitted because they are needed in that edge case. You are arguing against something few, if any, people believe. Americans think they should be allowed to own guns despite a need to have guns. If that is reasonable or not is frankly irrelevant. Politics and legal realities make the elimination of all guns impossible. You are not being realistic if that is what you propose.

malkia 14y ago

Do you think a gun would help you survive? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

benkay 14y ago

You're missing the third school of thought: provide mental health services. It distresses me that our cultural fix-it focus is on tools and not causes: neither arming the nation nor banning firearms will address fundamental problems of mental health. Even though you acknowledge that "...a deranged person will always find a means to carry out their ill will...", you're not addressing the derangement. Let's start there. Social services are expensive. Not having them can be...more expensive.