Another shooting - 20 children killed

Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
You think the principle should have had a gun, at the school? Yeah good idea. That's some backward logic, as is keeping a gun in your house to keep your family safe.

What they should have is an armed police office at every school rather than doing bs work like writing parking tickets.

If we want to limit these types of incidents, the key is not gun laws, its mental health care and forcible treatment. Will it stop all of them? No of course not, nothing ever will, but it would greatly reduce them. There are simply too many people walking around with mental illness with either no access to care or refusing to take it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
I can't get my head around the fact that some people don't think gun availability and murder rates are unrelated. If Americans want the right to bear arms, they have to live with the consequences - ie. more murders. The debate should be about whether the greater liberty is worth the cost, rather than some ridiculous flailing around to find some scapegoat other than gun availability.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
542
Location
Englandland
The fact that this happened at all is itself proof that stricter gun control laws won't change anything. After all, the shooter wasn't deterred by the fact that bringing the gun onto school grounds was illegal, to say nothing of the fact that shooting & killing people is also illegal. And while you can to argue that removing all firearms from civilian possession is the solution, doing so ignores the fact that in the US, that might actually spark a war.
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Banning guns from civies would have many positive outcomes, but I don't think it would have prevented this tragedy. Besides its not a realistic idea for the americans to ban guns. Different culture and all. Its just not going to happen.

As for this nutcase who killed all these childred I doubt that any possible punishment would have made him rethink his idea. After all he killed himself too. It proves he wasn't afraid of dieing.

Arming school children isn't the sanest idea either.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
Sometimes tragic accidents should be accepted as what they are and there's no point blaming anybody or anything. One thing that history teaches is that violence, whether by a single person or a large group, happens under all circumstances and laws. (and of course, with all kinds of tools)

There's no correct answer to the question: " is it OK to let people carry guns? " It all depends on the situation and the person who's in that situation. Personally, I prefer it when guns are forbidden for everybody. But as it was already mentioned, lots of people saved themselves and their family by the gun they kept in their house. So you never know.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
210
Location
Iran
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
One thing that history teaches is that violence, whether by a single person or a large group, happens under all circumstances and laws. (and of course, with all kinds of tools)

"Happens" is binary. How about using "happen often" in your reasoning?

Murder with a firearm:
United States: 9,369
Germany: 269
Canada: 144
Spain: 97
Sweden: 58
Japan: 47
Denmark: 14
Ireland: 12
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
"Happens" is binary. How about using "happen often" in your reasoning?

Murder with a firearm:
United States: 9,369
Germany: 269
Canada: 144
Spain: 97
Sweden: 58
Japan: 47
Denmark: 14
Ireland: 12
I meant since the dawn of man, not just in the current time. But even if we discuss it that way, first we should include all kinds of homicide, not just those done with firearm and second, we have to give statics based on rate, not numbers.
In the recent year, US is ranked #108 based on intentional homicide rate and just based on numbers, it's #14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I don't deny the fact that in countries where people are free to have a gun, violence happens more often. However, I believe in the saying: guns don't kill people, people do. If homicide rate is high in a place, there's something wrong. But freedom of carrying guns is not the main reason.

Also Some countries and cultures are just basically more violent than the others. ( compare Mexico and Switzerland for example ) So when gun carrying is permitted in the first place, it's mostly because of the violent nature itself.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
210
Location
Iran
Getting people to understand the simplistic concept of how not having easy access to guns - and not having guns as an integral part of your culture - will prevent a LOT more tragedies than it will create, is harder than one would think. Even if it means saving ten times more lives, people will prefer to be able to defend themselves with guns because there's a chance they'll get attacked. Well, people without much of a brain or without much care for the majority.

Basically, people are not very bright - and most have a hard time keeping more than a handful of factors in mind when they form opinions. For instance, a lot of people think that because some people will go through the effort of getting hold of a gun illegally - that means everyone will have access to one when they break down and go on an assault like this. Even a simpleton would understand that's not the case - and yet it's one of the most common arguments against stricter gun control.

However, I know that stricter gun control will arrive in the US - it's just a matter of time. When that happens, and not having a gun becomes part of the culture - everything will be much easier to comprehend. That said, the fools arguing against it will not be able to acknowledge this as the reason for fewer gun-related crimes. Luckily, that's irrelevant - because lives will be saved and that's all that matters.

But it will take time.

So, a lot of people will die needlessly - and people will proudly bash their chest in ignorance of even the simplest and most obvious ways to prevent a lot of cases like this. All cases? No - but a LOT.
 
Gun or not I am not prepared to keep a firearm and use it on a human being.
And people who feel this way will always be at the mercy of those who have no such compunction.

tl,dr version:
"If you disagree with me, you are stupid."

That is pretty much the substance of almost every post of yours I have ever read, so it comes as little surprise.

The US was founded on the revolutionary (at the time) idea that humans can be entrusted with almost limitless freedom so long as they were willing to maintain constant vigilance against the misuse of that freedom. We have continued to hold on to the belief that freedom is a good thing, but we have shirked, outsourced, or flat out ignored our responsibility to maintain that constant vigilance. Without one, we cannot have the other.
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Sometimes tragic accidents should be accepted as what they are and there's no point blaming anybody or anything.

Please go out of your flat, travel to the parents of the murdered children, and say exactly these words to them.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
I meant since the dawn of man, not just in the current time. But even if we discuss it that way, first we should include all kinds of homicide, not just those done with firearm and second, we have to give statics based on rate, not numbers.
In the recent year, US is ranked #108 based on intentional homicide rate and just based on numbers, it's #14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

I compare with the "west" first and foremost. Didn't check in detail, but by a quick glance the first other western nation is UK.

However, I believe in the saying: guns don't kill people, people do.

Since I study psychology I listened to a profiler on this. That psychological profile isn't uncommon in Sweden. So you have the people here. Do they kill? Not really.

Also Some countries and cultures are just basically more violent than the others.

US is basically more violent? No argument there.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
And people who feel this way will always be at the mercy of those who have no such compunction.

This is the reason we have a society, because a society can support more than warriors.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
This is the reason we have a society, because a society can support more than warriors.

And so it does. But on an individual level if you are confronted by overwhelming violence, then you are capable only of fleeing or hiding behind others who are better suited to action. If you are ok with that, then that is your business. What is the saying? That a society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Please go out of your flat, travel to the parents of the murdered children, and say exactly these words to them.
" Except the ones responsible. " I forgot to add that. Believe it or not, I wanted to edit my post and add that phrase, but I got busy writing the other one and forgot about it.
Anyway, that quote was not out of cruelness. Actually I'm deeply saddened by this incident. But I really hate this human habit when everyone is looking for someone to blame, even though it doesn't matter anymore. I believe when someone does something bad, he is the only one responsible for it. Not government, not society, not role models and in most (not all) of the case, not even parents. Just the one and only the person who directly did the deed. Many people might not agree with this point of view though and it's completely understandable.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
210
Location
Iran
And so it does. But on an individual level if you are confronted by overwhelming violence, then you are capable only of fleeing or hiding behind others who are better suited to action. If you are ok with that, then that is your business. What is the saying? That a society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.

To reduce violence before it happens is a viable strategy. It may not offer great opportunities for warriors, but it offers great opportunities for families.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
That is pretty much the substance of almost every post of yours I have ever read, so it comes as little surprise.

In this case, it is stupid to disagree with me. As for your perception of "almost all my posts" - that's hardly very realistic and seems equally stupid. Of course, if you actually think it's a good thing that people die needlessly - it's not necessarily stupid to disagree. I have to accept that as a position.

The US was founded on the revolutionary (at the time) idea that humans can be entrusted with almost limitless freedom so long as they were willing to maintain constant vigilance against the misuse of that freedom. We have continued to hold on to the belief that freedom is a good thing, but we have shirked, outsourced, or flat out ignored our responsibility to maintain that constant vigilance. Without one, we cannot have the other.

Even if that was the foundation of the US - it wouldn't be a very impressive one. Given the history of your nation and what you've done to people who didn't agree with your ways - I think it's pretty obvious that any foundation has never been ideal in reality. But I don't doubt that supporters of widespread and easy access to guns are stupid enough to actually believe that the foundation was so romantic and naive.

I use the word stupid, because I find it appropriate given the level of destruction the position represents. On another day, I might have used the word ignorant. Essentially, they're one and the same. It's not a personal insult - simply a claim that you don't have the insight required to understand human nature on the level required for this.
 
And so it does. But on an individual level if you are confronted by overwhelming violence, then you are capable only of fleeing or hiding behind others who are better suited to action. If you are ok with that, then that is your business. What is the saying? That a society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.

Are you seriously suggesting that using a gun against someone in self-defense is brave?

Refusing access to guns and reducing personal safety for the sake of the majority is not only brave - it's also smart. Except, if widespread access is eliminated - personal safety is actually enhanced.

I don't like to use the word coward, because it's never that simple. Instead, I'll call your position that of a weak mind and feeble heart.
 
Well we don't all have the benefit of your significant experience with making the world a better place, so you'll just have to be patient with us.

And, for the record, I doubt my analysis of your post history would be disputed by many here.
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Back
Top Bottom