Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Dunno, maybe this is the trigger that makes the aliens come down on 12/21?

What I'd like to know is why so many people on FB (my wife has an account) are pontificating about how some broader trend in society ("breakdown of the family," materialism, kids doing too much online gaming, etc.) is the real cause.

The evidence is clear. The kid was mentally ill. There may have been contributing stressors at work, but ultimately, a deranged mind, which none of us could ever hope to understand, pulled the trigger. Why is that an insufficient explanation? Why can't it be what we logically recognize: An unpredictable act of an aberrantly functioning brain? An outlier so unfathomable no amount of vigilance could have prevented it?

I guess people want to feel there's some way they can understand every bit of our world, all the way down to things as disturbing as this. That however unexplainable something is, it can nevertheless be shoehorned into some sort of pattern, or is part of some bigger phenomenon. It can't be. It isn't. There will never be an explanation other than "Madman kills 20 children." And thank God for that. If this were in any way connectable to some broader social or cultural shift, or trend, or neglect, it would be even more horrifying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What I'd like to know is why so many people on FB (my wife has an account) are pontificating about how some broader trend in society ("breakdown of the family," materialism, kids doing too much online gaming, etc.) is the real cause.

The evidence is clear. The kid was mentally ill. There may have been contributing stressors at work, but ultimately, a deranged mind, which none of us could ever hope to understand, pulled the trigger. Why is that an insufficient explanation? Why can't it be what we logically recognize: An unpredictable act of an aberrantly functioning brain? An outlier so unfathomable no amount of vigilance could have prevented it?

I guess people want to feel there's some way they can understand every bit of our world, all the way down to things as disturbing as this. That however unexplainable something is, it can nevertheless be shoehorned into some sort of pattern, or is part of some bigger phenomenon. It can't be. It isn't. There will never be an explanation other than "Madman kills 20 children." And thank God for that. If this were in any way connectable to some broader social or cultural shift, or trend, or neglect, it would be even more horrifying.

We have a society in which an extraordinary number of such people choose to shoot up schools. There is a problem, and it is getting worse. You may not be able to understand one, but what about 20?

The stats on gun violence in America are also pretty damning. Start here for some disturbing correlations. We have an organization of over 4 million Americans that supports the proliferation of automatic weaponry in our society and argues that "armed citizens" are something good in its own right - not hunters, not people shooting competitive, people whose "arming" is part of their "citizenship". That is, to my mind, a terrorist organization more dangerous than any on our various lists. And it owns one of the political parties and half of the other one.

And, think how this looks to the rest of the world.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We have a society in which an extraordinary number of such people choose to shoot up schools. There is a problem, and it is getting worse. You may not be able to understand one, but what about 20?

The stats on gun violence in America are also pretty damning. Start here for some disturbing correlations. We have an organization of over 4 million Americans that supports the proliferation of automatic weaponry in our society and argues that "armed citizens" are something good in its own right - not hunters, not people shooting competitive, people whose "arming" is part of their "citizenship". That is, to my mind, a terrorist organization more dangerous than any on our various lists. And it owns one of the political parties and half of the other one.

And, think how this looks to the rest of the world.

The data Ezra Klein compiled is actually mixed. http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wo...united-states/

It appears violence has recently been decreasing, and mass killings have regularly occurred for decades. It also confirms that gun control does lead to a drop in gun killings.

I don't own guns, and never will, but I am troubled by efforts to excessively control them, and understand why gun people fight them with such determination. If you have defended criminals, you understand the imbalance of power between the individual and the state. I shudder to think of a country where the only people with handguns are law enforcement and government.

I would, however, favor a system in which handguns were barred for both law enforcement and domestic govt agents, and regular citizens. But that's simply fantastic thinking.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What I'd like to know is why so many people on FB (my wife has an account) are pontificating about how some broader trend in society ("breakdown of the family," materialism, kids doing too much online gaming, etc.) is the real cause.

The evidence is clear. The kid was mentally ill. There may have been contributing stressors at work, but ultimately, a deranged mind, which none of us could ever hope to understand, pulled the trigger. Why is that an insufficient explanation? Why can't it be what we logically recognize: An unpredictable act of an aberrantly functioning brain? An outlier so unfathomable no amount of vigilance could have prevented it?

I guess people want to feel there's some way they can understand every bit of our world, all the way down to things as disturbing as this. That however unexplainable something is, it can nevertheless be shoehorned into some sort of pattern, or is part of some bigger phenomenon. It can't be. It isn't. There will never be an explanation other than "Madman kills 20 children." And thank God for that. If this were in any way connectable to some broader social or cultural shift, or trend, or neglect, it would be even more horrifying.

I don't remember any mass murders in schools when I was growing up. My kids heard of several. If nothing else, why are there more deranged now?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I don't remember any mass murders in schools when I was growing up. My kids heard of several. If nothing else, why are there more deranged now?

It's not that there are more deranged people now. It's that, after Columbine, crazy people have an idea--a plan they've seen in action already. And video games, movies and tv expand on, or give color to, that idea. If you can see yourself doing it as you play a game, you can see yourself doing it, period.

But the core or fundamental problem is access to guns. It is way too easy and has become easier to access the types of weapons to carry out a Columbine-style attack. I accept no other argument about why this is happening. Take away these guns and people live. That's all there is to it.

TM

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It's not that there are more deranged people now. It's that, after Columbine, crazy people have an idea--a plan they've seen in action already. And video games, movies and tv expand on, or give color to, that idea. If you can see yourself doing it as you play a game, you can see yourself doing it, period.

But the core or fundamental problem is access to guns. It is way too easy and has become easier to access the types of weapons to carry out a Columbine-style attack. I accept no other argument about why this is happening. Take away these guns and people live. That's all there is to it.

TM

But that ain't America. We'd rather have our "freedom" at the cost of several dozen young lives. From an editorial in the NYT by a guy who's kid was killed in a school shooting:

>>In the wake of Galen’s murder, I wrote a book about the shooting. In it I suggested that we view gun crime as a public health issue, much the same as smoking or pesticides. I spent a number of years attending rallies, signing petitions, writing letters and making speeches, but eventually I gave up. Gun control, such a live issue in the “early” days of school shootings, inexplicably became a third-rail issue for politicians.

I came to realize that, in essence, this is the way we in America want things to be. We want our freedom, and we want our firearms, and if we have to endure the occasional school shooting, so be it.

I will note that to get into the real important places: Congress, Federal Courthouses and planes, you DO have to go through a metal detector.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

But that ain't America. We'd rather have our "freedom" at the cost of several dozen young lives. From an editorial in the NYT by a guy who's kid was killed in a school shooting:

>>In the wake of Galen’s murder, I wrote a book about the shooting. In it I suggested that we view gun crime as a public health issue, much the same as smoking or pesticides. I spent a number of years attending rallies, signing petitions, writing letters and making speeches, but eventually I gave up. Gun control, such a live issue in the “early” days of school shootings, inexplicably became a third-rail issue for politicians.

I came to realize that, in essence, this is the way we in America want things to be. We want our freedom, and we want our firearms, and if we have to endure the occasional school shooting, so be it.

I will note that to get into the real important places: Congress, Federal Courthouses and planes, you DO have to go through a metal detector.

He's right. Horrific as they may be, these killings are statistically insignificant and arguably do not warrant a removal of a constitutional right. But you aren't ever going to hear anyone argue something so icy. We instead wait until the raw emotion abates, then do nothing for exactly the reason this Oped describes.

And when we do do something, as with the Patriot Act response to 9/11, it's brutal overkill and worse than the thing it sought to avoid.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He's right. Horrific as they may be, these killings are statistically insignificant and arguably do not warrant a removal of a constitutional right. But you aren't ever going to hear anyone argue something so icy. We instead wait until the raw emotion abates, then do nothing for exactly the reason this Oped describes.

And when we do do something, as with the Patriot Act response to 9/11, it's brutal overkill and worse than the thing it sought to avoid.

What constitutional right is being removed through gun control? Just as free speech is subject to balancing acts and regulation, so guns are, and the gun regulation proposed to date does squat to any constitutional right. Red herring, and one not worthy of an actual lawyer.

I have been suggesting repeatedly that people read Saul Cornell's "A Well Regulated Militia" and understand some of the actual history of the 2nd amendment. I recommend the book to you.

What was Hank's number? 31 of these since Columbine? Statistically insignificant? Really?

ETA, For, you, Sebby, From the Onion

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What constitutional right is being removed through gun control? Just as free speech is subject to balancing acts and regulation, so guns are, and the gun regulation proposed to date does squat to any constitutional right. Red herring, and one not worthy of an actual lawyer.

I have been suggesting repeatedly that people read Saul Cornell's "A Well Regulated Militia" and understand some of the actual history of the 2nd amendment. I recommend the book to you.

What was Hank's number? 31 of these since Columbine? Statistically insignificant? Really?

ETA, For, you, Sebby, From the Onion

There is no constitutional right being taken away. The argument is excessive regulation may lead to the de facto removal of the right. Excessive being the most important word there.

Did you read Klein's piece? These killings have been going on at a pretty steady pace for decades. And 31 since 2000 is, compared to the number of senseless deaths caused by all sorts of things we could start campaigns to guard more vigilantly against (drunk driving; speeding; medical error, etc.), statistically small.

Re the Onion piece, the NRA should be mocked relentlessly here. They're turning into Big Tobacco on this issue, and if they don't engage, as Adder suggested, they're fucked.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He's right. Horrific as they may be, these killings are statistically insignificant and arguably do not warrant a removal of a constitutional right. But you aren't ever going to hear anyone argue something so icy. We instead wait until the raw emotion abates, then do nothing for exactly the reason this Oped describes.

And when we do do something, as with the Patriot Act response to 9/11, it's brutal overkill and worse than the thing it sought to avoid.

That's the gun lobby talking. This is unavoidable, so do nothing because anything we can do is overkill.

Bullshit. Find some non-overkill measures and do them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's the gun lobby talking. This is unavoidable, so do nothing because anything we can do is overkill.

Bullshit. Find some non-overkill measures and do them.

No. I am actually suggesting the same thing you are. I also understand, however, that this country only moves in broad pendulum swings. When something is finally done, it will be lead by emotional arguments and be an overreaction. It's wise to gird against that now by reminding people not to react like idiots and go too far in the direction of control.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He's right. Horrific as they may be, these killings are statistically insignificant and arguably do not warrant a removal of a constitutional right. But you aren't ever going to hear anyone argue something so icy. We instead wait until the raw emotion abates, then do nothing for exactly the reason this Oped describes.

And when we do do something, as with the Patriot Act response to 9/11, it's brutal overkill and worse than the thing it sought to avoid.

This isn't a basic right. It's a blurry right to own a weapon granted by a fucking amendment. Not all weapons qualify as it is right now. It can be taken away or severely limited without some ridiculous argument of the government destroying something fundamental to a person's existence. The fact that so many lunatics see it that way doesn't mean they are correct.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

"I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

But that ain't America. We'd rather have our "freedom" at the cost of several dozen young lives. From an editorial in the NYT by a guy who's kid was killed in a school shooting:

>>In the wake of Galen’s murder, I wrote a book about the shooting. In it I suggested that we view gun crime as a public health issue, much the same as smoking or pesticides. I spent a number of years attending rallies, signing petitions, writing letters and making speeches, but eventually I gave up. Gun control, such a live issue in the “early” days of school shootings, inexplicably became a third-rail issue for politicians.

I came to realize that, in essence, this is the way we in America want things to be. We want our freedom, and we want our firearms, and if we have to endure the occasional school shooting, so be it.

I will note that to get into the real important places: Congress, Federal Courthouses and planes, you DO have to go through a metal detector.

It's too bad he gave up.

It seems to me that one problem, that there are too any guns, is like public health. We should tax them like we do cigarettes and alcohol. At least 100% on guns and ammo, to reduce the quantity demanded.

Another problem is that it's too easy to get guns. We should have a registration and title system similar to cars. If its registered to you, you can be liable. If its not registered to you, it can be confiscated.

Another problem is the types of weapons available. Self defense and hunting don't require massive clips and high firing rates. Those should be banned.

Another problem is mental health. Perhaps a screening should be required to purchase a gun. Certainly resources should be much more readily available for treatment.

Mandatory liability insurance may also help with the supply and types if guns, if it makes ownership more expensive. It could also create market incentives for safe handling practices.

None of that solves the problem, but taken together I think it is both doable and helps.

But what we need most is the gun lobby to engage instead of obstruct. Tell us what safety protocols you can support instead of saying no to every proposal.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's too bad he gave up.

It seems to me that one problem, that there are too any guns, is like public health. We should tax them like we do cigarettes and alcohol. At least 100% on guns and ammo, to reduce the quantity demanded.

Another problem is that it's too easy to get guns. We should have a registration and title system similar to cars. If its registered to you, you can be liable. If its not registered to you, it can be confiscated.

Another problem is the types of weapons available. Self defense and hunting don't require massive clips and high firing rates. Those should be banned.

Another problem is mental health. Perhaps a screening should be required to purchase a gun. Certainly resources should be much more readily available for treatment.

Mandatory liability insurance may also help with the supply and types if guns, if it makes ownership more expensive. It could also create market incentives for safe handling practices.

None of that solves the problem, but taken together I think it is both doable and helps.

But what we need most is the gun lobby to engage instead of obstruct. Tell us what safety protocols you can support instead of saying no to every proposal.

All very, very sound points.