Connecticut School Shooting

[Aegypticus]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Well, he may be right to a certain degree. After all, one of the primary functions of religion is control of peoples hearts and minds (and therefore actions). The 10 Commandments, for instance, was a simple rule book on how to live. When you remove rules, control and fear of consequences it may have a negative impact on a small minority of people. The lies of God and his wrath that we are told throughout are childhoods are intended to keep us in control and following a certain set of rules. In the meantime, we are, at least tacitly, taught that without fear of punishment there are no morals. Unfortunately, when you get old enough to peel back the curtain and remove the lies you may end up rudderless. I have no idea if this is the case in this tragedy.

So Huckabee may be right that having religion taught in this school may have avoided this tragedy, but not why he thinks he's right.

We're supposed to live in an enlightened society, where we don't refrain from killing people because we fear eternal damnation, but because it's obviously completely ####ing wrong. We're supposed to be past the point of needing imaginary consequences to keep the huddled masses from descending into anarchy. If we're not then society is in a terrible place.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

All of them? These guys are glory hogs. They want their menacing picture on the page of every paper reading "look into the eyes of evil!" or "massacre!!", "angel of death!!"

This is what these guys are after, this is their motivation. This is what main stream media gives them.

You watch too much Criminal Minds.

You don't kill your mother just to be a glory hog. You've got real mental problems, not some fame-obsession.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Ugh.......guys...I'm not saying there is anything wrong with restricting access. Go ahead, please do. But once done, should we not examine WHY this is happening in the first place? And I"m not talking about murders as a whole, I'm talking about these types of massacres.

Is all you are after reducing massacres? Of course we can't rid the world of all ways to die. Much like we can't rid the world of firearms.

The counterargument might be that there is no way to understand why people do this, but it is possible to restrict the means by which crazies carry out their aggression.

2 nut jobs went crazy today- one 'killed' 28 random civilians with multiple firearms. The other 'injured' 29 civilians with a knife... both heinous acts not doubt, but we can be thankful the culprit in China wasn't able to get his hands on a gun.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by nik-

No one is suggesting that once guns are banned that we should just sweep social issues and mental sickness under the rug. I'm not sure why you're implying we would just cease to treat people.

Where have I implied that?

[PeteLFan]

Maybe take the gun debate elsewhere and discuss the tragedy that happened to little children in here and use it for news.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

You watch too much Criminal Minds.

You don't kill your mother just to be a glory hog. You've got real mental problems, not some fame-obsession.

Are we talking about someone killing their mom or the massacre? I was talking about the massacre and ya, willing to bet that had a whole lot to do with fame.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

Maybe take the gun debate elsewhere and discuss the tragedy that happened to little children in here and use it for news.

They're entwined.

[PIMking]

This is just disgusting, no words can explain how pissed I am right now. This ###### kills his mom in the am then kills all these innocent children? Now the next asshat that feels like his parents didn't hug him enough is going to go out and copy this crap.

I am just so depressed right now, I don't drink and I'm thinking of getting a bottle of rum

god I'm so pissed off right now

[SebC]

Interesting comments from a former Wildrose candidate... https://twitter.com/VoteJarvis

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

It's the lead story on the Chicago Sun-Times website, which it should be as its the most important news event of the day.

http://www.suntimes.com/mobile/index.html

Cowperson

It should be noted that the article is from 2003 so the editor could have changed. I'm not saying (I'm sure Roger isn't, though I won’t speak for him) that these stories should be avoided like suicide cases. But maybe take the glory away from the killer by not referring to him by name to make him 'famous'. Will it come out in court or by other means? Sure. But you don't have to flash his name across CNN, his name doesn't have to be in big print on the front page, etc. They should just be known as the killer, coward, whatever you want but don't give them fame by continually speaking his name or give him a 'cool' nickname for killing a bunch of innocent people while these innocent people are forgotten about by most just days later while the killer lives in fame forever.

Speak of the act and reasons, not the person behind it.

[Brannigans Law]

Fox News already positioning this as simply "evil people" and how to deal with the evil in the world. Bill O talking about the holocaust already, China, Cambodia. Other atrocities. Oslo shooting. I'm deeply disturbed by the right in America's refusal to talk about gun violence and how it's rather unique in America in all the world. It's sad.

Listening to Geraldo talking about how parents were brought into the fire hall and joined by their children. At one point the Governor or someone else of authority came out and said there were no more children coming, and the rest were in the school still. I don't know if it's true but a story is that there was a parent seen taking the child seat out of their car and putting it away in the trunk. 9/11... Columbine.. Virginia Tech.. Oslo.. all of them were terrible. This is the 1st time a new story got me to shed a tear. The mental picture of a young family being told their 4 year old is gone and putting their child seat in their trunk is too much for me to process.

[QuadCityImages]

A lot of the ideas on here sound great, but are just as pie in the sky as talking about flying cars. I'm one of the relatively few Americans that doesn't fall into either side on the gun control battle. It seems like we have a lot of people who hate and fear guns, and a lot of people who pay dues to the (insane) NRA.

Would suddenly making all guns in the US vanish lower the amount of murders in the US? Of course. Guns make killing easier and less personal (push-button) than anything involving physical contact. Somehow the NRA denies this, although I don't understand how.

Is it possible to make all guns in the US vanish?
Of course not! The rabidly anti-gun folks can't seem to get this. Those in this very thread calling for Obama to pass an Executive Order to "put a stop to this" don't seem to get that it wouldn't stop anything with millions of guns already here. Its fantasy to think we could somehow force them to all be turned over to the government, and would probably cause a revolution if it was tried.

Why would taking away people's guns cause a revolution?
Because the very purpose for the 2nd amendment was to prevent the government from gaining too much control over the citizens. It was to prevent Presidents from making themselves Kings. The founding fathers wrote at length of the need for an armed populace to keep the government in check. The government trying to disarm the populace would be an obvious starting point to many people.

Then wtf can we do??
No one knows, and that's why we haven't done it! There's no simple cause, no simple solution. For one, the US has almost 10x the population of Canada, so when comparing numbers of incidents any 1 mass shooting up there is equivalent to 8 or 9 here. So some of the numbers being thrown around about how we just don't care about human life "down here" or whatever compared to Canada are a bit misleading. We do have more problems, but like I said, they have tons of causes. Breakdown of family life, check. Diverse people all living together with the occasional friction that causes, check. A government that says violence can solve quickly problems (Iraq, death penalty), check. A country born out of violent rebellion? Check. Being able to buy a gun without a background check? Check. A culture that glamorizes guns (Scarface, NFL...), check. A complete unwillingness to spend money on mental healthcare? Giant check. Media that makes these shooters into icons? Check. Take all these factors and add them together and here we are. The answer should be to start dealing with all of these problems rather than just try for simplistic solutions like arming everyone or disarming everyone.

[HOOT]

Reporter just said that in the last decade there has been one murder in that city, one!

[nik-]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

Why would taking away people's guns cause a revolution?
Because the very purpose for the 2nd amendment was to prevent the government from gaining too much control over the citizens. It was to prevent Presidents from making themselves Kings. The founding fathers wrote at length of the need for an armed populace to keep the government in check. The government trying to disarm the populace would be an obvious starting point to many people.

.[/B]

This is my favourite part of the pro second amendment argument. Some redneck #######s who think that in the extremely unlikely chance that the government just decides they want to dictators, that they're going to all band together and get all Red Dawn to preserve their "freedom". They think they're going to successfully resist a system where a kid with a joystick can level your house with an unmanned drone.

It's a 230 year old idea from a time when people had to pour their gunpowder into a metal tube to fire a steel ball and it's tragically comical that people still think it's relevant.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

Would suddenly making all guns in the US vanish lower the amount of murders in the US? Of course. Guns make killing easier and less personal (push-button) than anything involving physical contact. Somehow the NRA denies this, although I don't understand how.

Im very interested in understanding though, why the US appears to be leading the pack in gun violence on random civilians. Gun violence occurs everywhere of course, but do mass killings on random people (violence for the sake of violence) occur this often in any other first world country?? This has basically become a monthly occurrence in the US.

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by nik-

They think they're going to successfully resist a system where a kid with a joystick can level your house with an unmanned drone.

It's a 230 year old idea from a time when people had to pour their gunpowder into a metal tube to fire a steel ball and it's tragically comical that people still think it's relevant.

Seems like we should have won the war in Afghanistan by now considering they're 1/8th the population of the US, less educated, and less well-armed. Don't underestimate the fact that quantity has its own quality, as the Soviets used to say. (although they then forgot it and invaded Afghanistan)

Anyway, I don't necessarily disagree with your point. Using the controlling the government argument, you could logically make a case for the 2nd amendment allowing machine guns and anti-air missiles, which almost nobody thinks should be legal. (outside of the NRA) I just think there's probably a balance in there of limiting access to guns from insane people, while still not disarming the country as a whole.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

Then wtf can we do??
For one, the US has almost 10x the population of Canada, so when comparing numbers of incidents any 1 mass shooting up there is equivalent to 8 or 9 here. So some of the numbers being thrown around about how we just don't care about human life "down here" or whatever compared to Canada are a bit misleading

The thing is if you normalize the number of gun related in the US by population and compare those to the next 22 GDP ranked countries combined you still have a rate that is almost 20 times higher in the US than anywhere else. Numbers like this are no longer misleading as they are normalized. Gun deaths on an annual basis in the US is 4/100k vs 0.2/100k as per 2010 numbers. Considering that all the other 22 have gun control laws where the US doesn't, it's a good indicator that of the gun issue in the US.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...te-20-times-h/

For sure it has nothing to do with the US caring less and more to do with the lack of gun control and cost of mental health help in the US. Also the money and lobbying involved in the US political process is also a problem. A survey in 2011 showed 95% of Americans were pro-automatic weapons bans and yet the NRA successfully lobbied to government to keep them legal.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's a 230 year old idea from a time when people had to pour their gunpowder into a metal tube to fire a steel ball and it's tragically comical that people still think it's relevant.

Not to mention the fact that it's also distorted, when drafted the amendment was meant for militias and not private citizens.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

Seems like we should have won the war in Afghanistan by now considering they're 1/8th the population of the US, less educated, and less well-armed. Don't underestimate the fact that quantity has its own quality, as the Soviets used to say. (although they then forgot it and invaded Afghanistan)

Anyway, I don't necessarily disagree with your point. Using the controlling the government argument, you could logically make a case for the 2nd amendment allowing machine guns and anti-air missiles, which almost nobody thinks should be legal. (outside of the NRA) I just think there's probably a balance in there of limiting access to guns from insane people, while still not disarming the country as a whole.

They don't use extreme tactics in Afghanistan because they care about perception. If they decide they're dictators now, why would they care about the citizen's perception. These little bands of freedom fighters would stand no chance. Sure they'd kill soldiers, but overall they'd get stomped.

As far as complete disarming, it's not necessary. Canada has a lot of weapons, but when it comes to handguns and assault weapons there are some serious hoops to jump through to get them.

You might have to go more extreme in the US and outright ban handguns and assault weapons to break the engrained gun culture and then revisit them in a few generations. However, after a few generations, American citizens might have realized that having guns isn't as important as they thought.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

I just think there's probably a balance in there of limiting access to guns from insane people, while still not disarming the country as a whole.

That's the thing though, the NRA type don't want balance they want "freedom"(Note: freedom to do things they approve of, not actual freedom).

IMHO the ban all guns crowd is just as bad because it's not realistic. It's about as realistic as the War on Drugs being successful in anyway. There has to be a happy medium where people who want/need guns can get them but just not at the ease you can right now. You don't need to make laws so tight that people can't get guns to protect their home or family but why does someone need an assault rifle or 10 guns to do so?

I honestly appreciate the fact that people want their freedom but there has to be some limits especially when it starts hurting so many people as a nation. It's why we have speed limits because if everyone had the freedom to drive as they see fit you can bet that death rate would rise drastically. People shouldn't be looking at making a problem disappear because it will never happen but look for solutions to lower the impact.

I would love to sit down with one of the families of this tragedy and have a NRA representative explain to them why having guns so easily available is more important than their child possibly being alive to open Christmas presents in 10 days.