Oh, look! Another US mass shooting.

[Geo Dude]

Quite frankly, there is no solution to this.  Whatsoever.  Gun laws or no gun laws, gun control or no gun control.

If a person is at the end of their rope, and decides selfishly to take other lives before taking his/her own, then there really isn't much one can do.  Even a 'normal' person could snap one day and 'lose it'.

Perhaps assisted suicide for those who've had enough with the hardships of life might help, although not sure that would help either?

I think you're right, though as I noted a few pages back there are ways to help limit the body count when something like this does happen if people that can defend themselves are on scene rather than several minutes away.

By the way, ChamberNut, congratulations on getting your problems under control and doing such a great job getting your life together.  I know that dealing with psychological issues can be a long, hard road.

[Brahmsian]

I think you're right, though as I noted a few pages back there are ways to help limit the body count when something like this does happen if people that can defend themselves are on scene rather than several minutes away.

By the way, ChamberNut, congratulations on getting your problems under control and doing such a great job getting your life together.  I know that dealing with psychological issues can be a long, hard road.

And I really cannot disagree with that.

And thank you kindly.  It's been a lot of hard work, but life is great again! 

And one last thing:  Cato will grumble at my use of the word 'And' to start three sentences in a row. 

[ibanezmonster]

And one last thing:  Cato will grumble at my use of the word 'And' to start three sentences in a row. 

Maybe not. I caught him doing that before and he told me it doesn't really matter. 

[Mirror Image]

If a person is at the end of their rope, and decides selfishly to take other lives before taking his/her own, then there really isn't much one can do.  Even a 'normal' person could snap one day and 'lose it'.

This is what I've been saying all along:

My opinion of the matter is simple: guns will always end up in the hands of those that want to others harm. Always. You can't stop them. The U.S. government can outlaw them until they're blue in the face. They will still wind up in the wrong hands.

A mentally ill person hellbent on killing people will find a gun, a knife, a baseball bat....need I go on? The issue is a sociological one. It has to do with our culture and how the U.S. has become such a cold, heartless place.

[zamyrabyrd]

I'm assuming that all bleeding heart liberals need to hear is "gun-shoot-kid" and their overweening victim button gets pushed and it's over for any logical investigation. Just disarm the planet already so only trustworthy governments have the guns to quell any resistance to the coming New Age of Order and Utopia. Military styled swat teams cracking the heads... goon squads.

What we NEED massive massive firepower for is NOT hunting, but to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannical government. At least, THAT's what the 2nd amend is for... NOT hunting squirrels.

It's the bleeding hearts who apparently trust the all seeing eye of the bloated beaurocratic(sic) government to PROTECT them,... these are the people who frighten me.

Fine. At least if they take away all the guns, then the culling can begin in proper, and you can have your soviet style regime here. 60 million dead.

FREEDOM trumps everything, yeah right! "We are free to do... it's our right..."  such slogans are expected to be routinely trotted out by liberals who claim the option to parade down the street naked but to restrict smoking on the same premises, for atheists not to be offended in hearing Merry Christmas or (horror!) having to be confronted with Nativity scenes so they are taken off public parks, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

HOWEVER, those who could never fathom that they have anything in common with the bleeding heart other end of the ideological spectrum also suffer from the same misconceptions of what freedom in a civil society is supposed to be, in other words balancing one's rights and needs with those of others. Sure one is "free" to drive on the opposite side of the road but agreed upon conventions and social contracts protect the greatest good for the greatest number.

Surely the most vulnerable - lives of children - should be the uppermost consideration here, not whether there is an imagined constitutional freedom to individually stockpile military grade weapons. I disagree with practically everything Obama has done or stands for but do concur with his speech in Connecticut that we cannot say we are helpless about preventing such outrages.

I really can't get over the naivety that the gun rights supporters have about the concept of freedom which is never absolute, also the implication that we should on some level accept the possibility of collateral damage.  The punch line though, comes with fear mongering warnings that even with partial disarmament, the tyranny of the new world order will immediately follow, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Yeah, the Apocalypse just around the corner - ignorance, complacency and stupidity are bringing it on!

ZB

[Opus106]

This incident could have happened anywhere in the world, regardless of gun laws (or lack thereof).  Plain and simple.

But the fact remains that it didn't happen anywhere else. It happened in that place where such incidents are now becoming, sadly, almost an annual fare.

[Florestan]

One of the regions where breaking the law is routine is Southern Italy. Mafia, Camorra, Cosa Nostra, N'Dranghetta --- all these criminal organizations operate there and often clash with each other in shooting incidents. The region is a hotbed of arms trafficking. Perhaps most of those who own guns there (except the police, the carabineri and the army) are criminals. You would think that all the conditions are met for mass shooting. Yet I can't remember the last time it happened, let alone a school mass shooting...

IMO it is not that much a question of law (and law enforcement) as it is a question of culture and society. Where you have a cult of family and kids, as in Italy, even the most cold hearted Mafioso would think twice before shooting children en masse.

Now, to the argument that the US school shootings are the work of mentally deranged people, it could be replied that such people exist everywhere but it is only in the US that they display such levels of violence. The world is full of teenagers who hate their teachers and schoolmates. Why is it that the percentage of American teenagers who manifest their hatred by shooting far exceeds that of other nationalities? Something is obviously rotten in the state of Denmark...

[Dungeon Master]

This incident could have happened anywhere in the world, regardless of gun laws (or lack thereof).  Plain and simple.

It could have, but it didn't. It happened in the US. Again. Doesn't happen in Australia anymore because we have strict gun laws. Plain and simple.

Have you been following the logic of this thread?

[Dungeon Master]

The list of genuine reasons leaves out the most important, and only necessary, reason to own a gun:  to protect oneself against feral humans

In Australia we do not feel the need to protect ourselves from "feral" humans.

Why?

• The vast majority of the population do not have guns.
• Death by homicide is a very rare cause of death in Australia.
• Death by firearm homicide is extremely rare in Australia
• Death by firearm homicide from an unknown assailant is now almost unheard of in Australia

Being killed by a stranger with a gun in Australia is something I do not need to worry about while I live here. Its one of the many reasons why I do live here.

[zamyrabyrd]

One of the regions where breaking the law is routine is Southern Italy. Mafia, Camorra, Cosa Nostra, N'Dranghetta --- all these criminal organizations operate there and often clash with each other in shooting incidents. The region is a hotbed of arms trafficking. Perhaps most of those who own guns there (except the police, the carabineri and the army) are criminals. You would think that all the conditions are met for mass shooting. Yet I can't remember the last time it happened, let alone a school mass shooting...

IMO it is not that much a question of law (and law enforcement) as it is a question of culture and society. Where you have a cult of family and kids, as in Italy, even the most cold hearted Mafioso would think twice before shooting children en masse.

Now, to the argument that the US school shootings are the work of mentally deranged people, it could be replied that such people exist everywhere but it is only in the US that they display such levels of violence. The world is full of teenagers who hate their teachers and schoolmates. Why is it that the percentage of American teenagers who manifest their hatred by shooting far exceeds that of other nationalities? Something is obviously rotten in the state of Denmark...

And soldiers openly carry weapons in Israel. The point is the Mafia have their own perceived enemies so wouldn't think of going into a movie theatre to shoot up viewers. Where there is an identified enemy and the US hasn't had any real threats to its physical integrity, then one would expect the bad guys would go after the good guys and vice versa, or in the case of the Mafia, against one another.

I do think the culture of narcissism and self-indulgence is a big part of the phenomenon, plus broken up families (also a symptom of the same) and the easy way out of taking drugs which seems like the case with Lanza. His mother astonishingly introduced her mentally disturbed son to guns. He seems to have had intense hatred towards her for whatever reason. Too bad she is not around so one can get into what was really going on with them. But it is not impossible to speculate.

The point is that practically everyone has at some time experienced unfairness or abuse but can work through it and balance with the positive aspects of life. So I really don't care about discussions whether he was bullied or not as a kid. Some NEVER get over an injury to their EGO, real or imagined, and go through life with an enormous chip on their shoulder. They punish people in the present to avenge wrongs of the past, again real or imagined, but they are NEVER satisfied because the original wound cannot be healed.  Narcissists and psychopaths are in general consumed with irrational sense of entitlement, nursing any affronts to their precious ego in the true spirit of lèse majesté. 

[Geo Dude]

It could have, but it didn't. It happened in the US. Again. Doesn't happen in Australia anymore because we have strict gun laws. Plain and simple.

Have you been following the logic of this thread?

These are a very recent occurrence in the US (past 20 years or so).  Guns and even looser gun laws than we have now have been around for a very long time in the US without these incidents occurring.  It's time to pick a different scapegoat.




EDIT:  So I don't double post I'll get into the implications of what an assault weapons ban actually means in the US here since people really don't seem to get it.  An assault weapons ban in a country where none have proliferated is one thing, but it's different here.  First of all, it means that small businesses (gun shops) will be forcibly robbed of part of their stock and a significant portion of their income with no compensation.  Private individuals will suffer the same fate, their hard earned money (around $500 + per weapon) gone, with no compensation.  Of course, this is the least of their concerns given that those suspected of hiding any extra 'assault weapons' may very well end up swiss cheese when they attempt to defend themselves against unknown assailants in their home during a no-knock raid, which is an increasingly common police tactic.  In addition to this, the current assault weapons ban plans, in spite of all the claims of 'WEAPONS OF WAR, WEAPONS OF THE BATTLE FIELD' have no intent of denying peace officers whether local, state, or federal access to assault weapons.  If they truly belong exclusively on the battlefield, no one should have access to them but soldiers in a war zone or using them for training purposes.  Demand any less and you are doing nothing more than begging for the government to screw you over.

In short:  If you want an assault weapons ban in the U.S. the only sensible way to handle it is financial compensation for those law-abiding citizens that never have and never would have committed a crime with those weapons to make up for their loss, financial compensation for the businesses hurt by the loss of their merchandise and the loss of sales, a law preventing enforcement of the ban through the use of para-military tactics that result in the deaths of innocent people at the hands of police, and most importantly, a ban on use of these weapons by anyone not in a war zone or training to be in a war zone that includes peace officers.  Unfortunately, I doubt most of the advocates of an assault weapons ban are agreeable to such a plan.  Certainly not the politicians advocating for it.


EDIT 2:  I was hoping to leave this alone, but it's bothering the hell out of me:

Surely the most vulnerable - lives of children - should be the uppermost consideration here, not whether there is an imagined constitutional freedom to individually stockpile military grade weapons. I disagree with practically everything Obama has done or stands for but do concur with his speech in Connecticut that we cannot say we are helpless about preventing such outrages.

While I agree in principle with the idea that we can't just say 'nothing can be done' blah blah blah and would be supportive of some gun control regulations if I felt they would actually work instead of making things worse, it's downright naive to think that Obama gives a damn about body count except to use it as an example to support his cause.  Let's not forget that he gave Eric Holder political protection during the Fast & Furious scandal, with the white house going so far as to stonewall congress and refuse to hand over documents they had relating to the case throughout the entire investigation, even after DOJ informants revealed that Holder knew about the case over a year before he claimed to and that people reporting directly to him had signed off on Fast & Furious wiretaps.  (Never mind that Obama also promised the Brady campaign that he was working on 'under-the-radar' gun control while Fast & Furious was going on.)  Hundreds are dead as a result of Fast & Furious, but that's just fine because they died to support the cause.  Based on his willingness to see hundreds die and go out of his way to see to it that the culprit(s) go unpunished, it's quite likely that the children are nothing more to him than martyrs useful for manipulating peoples' emotions to get them to support his proposed gun ban legislation.  The man is no humanitarian.

[Brahmsian]

But the fact remains that it didn't happen anywhere else. It happened in that place where such incidents are now becoming, sadly, almost an annual fare.

Navneeth, I disagree.  It does happen in other countries, not just in the US.

Wasn't there an incident (maybe not on the same scale), in Finland or Norway, not that long ago?

Marc Lepine, in 1989 in Quebec murdered 14 women, wounded 10 women and four men at l'Ecole Polytechnique.  Yes, that was over 20 years ago, but Canada even back then did not have the same gun freedom mentality that exists in the USA.

[Karl Henning]

Navneeth, I disagree.  It does happen in other countries, not just in the US.

Wasn't there an incident (maybe not on the same scale), in Finland or Norway, not that long ago?

Norway.

I think, though, that Nav's point largely stands.  In Norway, the incident was shocking for its rarity; in the US, the shocking thing is that it happens so regularly, one is jaded to it.

[Mirror Image]

One of the regions where breaking the law is routine is Southern Italy. Mafia, Camorra, Cosa Nostra, N'Dranghetta --- all these criminal organizations operate there and often clash with each other in shooting incidents. The region is a hotbed of arms trafficking. Perhaps most of those who own guns there (except the police, the carabineri and the army) are criminals. You would think that all the conditions are met for mass shooting. Yet I can't remember the last time it happened, let alone a school mass shooting...

IMO it is not that much a question of law (and law enforcement) as it is a question of culture and society. Where you have a cult of family and kids, as in Italy, even the most cold hearted Mafioso would think twice before shooting children en masse.

Now, to the argument that the US school shootings are the work of mentally deranged people, it could be replied that such people exist everywhere but it is only in the US that they display such levels of violence. The world is full of teenagers who hate their teachers and schoolmates. Why is it that the percentage of American teenagers who manifest their hatred by shooting far exceeds that of other nationalities? Something is obviously rotten in the state of Denmark...

Good points. Again, a sociological issue is brought to the fore. Why is the United States such a violent country? What is it about the American culture that is driving these lunatics to mass shootings? We can talk about gun control until we're blue in the face. There's much, much more to it than this I'm afraid.

[Karl Henning]

There's more to it, certainly; I believe we most of us on this thread acknowledge so.

But gun control is part of the problem, and an important part.  Acting as if it somehow is not, is criminal.

Has anyone on this thread made the case that sportsmen need semi-automatic weapons to pursue their hobby? I ask only for information.

[North Star]

There's more to it, certainly; I believe we most of us on this thread acknowledge so.

But gun control is part of the problem, and an important part.  Acting as if it somehow is not, is criminal.

+1.
And keeping guns locked away and hard to get is going to decrease the number of young people who can commit these crimes.

As to the Norway incident:
(from Wikipedia)
In a sequential bombing and mass shooting on 22 July 2011, he (Breivik) bombed government buildings in Oslo, resulting in eight deaths, then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya, where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers.

[ibanezmonster]

In Australia we do not feel the need to protect ourselves from "feral" humans.

Why?

• The vast majority of the population do not have guns.
• Death by homicide is a very rare cause of death in Australia.
• Death by firearm homicide is extremely rare in Australia
• Death by firearm homicide from an unknown assailant is now almost unheard of in Australia

Being killed by a stranger with a gun in Australia is something I do not need to worry about while I live here. Its one of the many reasons why I do live here.

Norway.

I think, though, that Nav's point largely stands.  In Norway, the incident was shocking for its rarity; in the US, the shocking thing is that it happens so regularly, one is jaded to it.

There was also that one school shooting in Finland a few years ago (5 or 6?).

Keep in mind the population differences.
America = 314 million, the 3rd most in the world.
Norway= 5 million
Finland=5 million
Australia=23 million


So, for America to have the same amount of public shooting incidents as Norway or Finland per population, it has to have 62.8 times as many public shootings. Compared to Australia, it has to have 13.6 times as many shootings.

I'll leave others to look up the actual count of incidents or deaths, but I doubt there is a huge difference.

[zamyrabyrd]

These are a very recent occurrence in the US (past 20 years or so).  Guns and even looser gun laws than we have now have been around for a very long time in the US without these incidents occurring.  It's time to pick a different scapegoat.

Values are different and too many looney-tunes on the loose.

In short:  If you want an assault weapons ban in the U.S. the only sensible way to handle it is financial compensation for those law-abiding citizens that never have and never would have committed a crime with those weapons to make up for their loss, financial compensation for the businesses hurt by the loss of their merchandise and the loss of sales, a law preventing enforcement of the ban through the use of para-military tactics that result in the deaths of innocent people at the hands of police, and most importantly, a ban on use of these weapons by anyone not in a war zone or training to be in a war zone that includes peace officers.  Unfortunately, I doubt most of the advocates of an assault weapons ban are agreeable to such a plan.  Certainly not the politicians advocating for it.

The subject of compensation surely will come up. This would not be the first time pressure was put on certain businesses.

EDIT 2:  I was hoping to leave this alone, but it's bothering the hell out of me:

While I agree in principle with the idea that we can't just say 'nothing can be done' blah blah blah and would be supportive of some gun control regulations if I felt they would actually work instead of making things worse, it's downright naive to think that Obama gives a damn about body count except to use it as an example to support his cause.  Let's not forget that he gave Eric Holder political protection during the Fast & Furious scandal, with the white house going so far as to stonewall congress and refuse to hand over documents they had relating to the case throughout the entire investigation, even after DOJ informants revealed that Holder knew about the case over a year before he claimed to and that people reporting directly to him had signed off on Fast & Furious wiretaps.  (Never mind that Obama also promised the Brady campaign that he was working on 'under-the-radar' gun control while Fast & Furious was going on.)  Hundreds are dead as a result of Fast & Furious, but that's just fine because they died to support the cause.  Based on his willingness to see hundreds die and go out of his way to see to it that the culprit(s) go unpunished, it's quite likely that the children are nothing more to him than martyrs useful for manipulating peoples' emotions to get them to support his proposed gun ban legislation.  The man is no humanitarian.

I did say that I disagree, actually that is a too tame word to describe it, OK, despise, most of what Obama has been doing including the so-called Fast and Furious Operation since 2009. How does unleashing about 1,400 firearms to drug cartels stop the craze for weapons?  It's ironic that a gun buyer was just sentenced to 57 months for gun smuggling that resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent. 

Like Adam's mother who she probably never dreamed her own guns would be aimed at her, Obama and Holder, never thought they wouldn't actually be used, moreover against those who supplied them?

ZB

[North Star]

There was also that one school shooting in Finland a few years ago (5 or 6?).

Keep in mind the population differences.
America = 314 million, the 3rd most in the world.
Norway= 5 million
Finland=5 million
Australia=23 million


So, for America to have the same amount of public shooting incidents as Norway or Finland per population, it has to have 62.8 times as many public shootings. Compared to Australia, it has to have 13.6 times as many shootings.

I'll leave others to look up the actual count of incidents or deaths, but I doubt there is a huge difference.

There were two shootings in Finland, in 2007 and 2008, but they are the only ones along with the one in 1989, when a 14-year-old shot two of his school mates during a class.

According to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in the United States, from September 1986 to September 1990:[20]
At least 71 people (65 students and 6 school employees) had been killed with guns at school.
1992–1993 (44 Homicides and 55 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1993–1994 (42 Homicides and 51 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1994–1995 (17 Homicides and 20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1995–1996 (29 Homicides and 35 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1996–1997 (23 Homicides and 25 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1997–1998 (35 Homicides and 40 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1998–1999 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)
1999–2000 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)

+ about 100 people in 2001-2012.

I hope nobody is going to claim that Lanza could have killed just as many with a bow and arrow:
"November 30, 2012: In Casper, Wyoming, Christopher Krumm, 25, killed his father while he was instructing a class at Casper College, using both a bow and arrow and knife. Christopher committed suicide by stabbing himself. Krumm previously killed his father's girlfriend in a house near the college campus.[55]"

[Opus106]

If it's purely a matter of population, China and, perhaps in a few decades, India, each with currently four times as many people as in the US, ought to be topping the charts or at least be giving some European countries a stiff competition. Each has enough poverty, sub-standard levels of living and authoritarian/extremely corrupt governments to drive anyone insane and go on a killing spree.