27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[Gallstones]

Looks as if this is going on longer and in more places than the media would have us think:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_at ... ry_schools

One thing that is obvious from that page is that people will use whatever they can get, to maximise damage.
Several of those atrocities were done with explosives, and it seems absolutely obvious that if explosives were easier to get, there would be a lot more use of them.
The same obviously applies to guns. They are easy to get, and there is a lot of use of them. Make it harder to get one, and people have to use something else.
But explosives and guns make killing easy, and impersonal. It would be very hard to keep killing with a knife, when you see people dying slowly and bloodily.
A gun is quick, easy, and not so messy.
Any sane country would make guns and explosives as hard to get as possible, but of course, the USA is insane, in this regard.
They think it makes it ok, if you just fly a flag at half mast the next day, and do fuck-all. The only thing that might change minds, is if gun-lovers lose one of their own.

So at least there is one good thing that came from this. The shooter shot his own mother with her own gun. Good. One down, 100 million to go.
And about half the bereaved parents would have been gun owners. So they might have learn't a valuable lesson.
Nothing's all bad.

Another illustration about how it isn't the violence of guns that anti-gun nuts object to.
Hypocrites.

[Gallstones]

I dread to think what damage people with a certain mindset could do with tomorrow's robots.

Me too.
Indications of that can be found in the last couple pages of this thread.

[orpheus]

It's easier to insist the means have nothing to do with it because to admit otherwise would both admit how complex the problem actually is, as well as put favorite toys in danger of being taken away. This causes brain pain.

No.
Means is one bullet point. Even the stupidest can think of that without suffering any intellectual toil.
How many bullet points will be on the list of causes?

So you admit that means does have something to do with the problem. Good - that's more than I can say for a lot of other gun proponents.

[Cormac]

Tell me macdoc, we both live in Canada, we have ease of access near what Americans have, why do we not have elementary school massacres?

I did notice Canada appear on the lists I posted, but am not sure if they were mass murders or murders of individuals.

[Gerald McGrew]

Looks to me like there are some folks who feel their ability to own as many guns of as many types as possible, with as few regulations as possible, is more important than a child's life. Statements like, "I'll say flat out that yes, this is the price we pay for the freedom we have. Yes, it is worth it." are essentially saying that those 20 dead kindergarteners are acceptable losses. And btw, it's pretty uncaring to say that "we" are paying this price. It's not your kids that are dead. You aren't "paying" anything. I have a feeling if you were given a choice, your kid's life or your gun, you wouldn't hesitate to hand over your weapons. But apparently when the choice is "someone else's kid or your gun", you're keeping your weapons.

That just baffles me. What is it about guns that elicit such extreme loyalism and borderline sociopathy (and yes, seeing dead children as acceptable losses is sociopathic)? Or is not not really guns, but more of a tribalism thing, where if you're on the "pro gun team", you advocate for and defend that team no matter what, even if it means "dead kids = the price we pay"?

[orpheus]

That's what I've been saying this entire time - get at the root of the problem. However, the anti-gun nuts cannot see past their irrational bias and continue to trumpet the war song 'guns ARE the problem'.

Really?

I never said guns are "the" problem. There may not be a single "the" problem. Guns, however, are a major factor in the tragic results because they're so easy and efficient.

No we don't, and stop distorting my words. Guns are not the cause. They are an immense part of the problem.

Yes, I understand causality, and I never said guns were the cause.

I'm not blaming the tool. I'm saying guns are by far the more efficient tool, and that's why they're so dangerous.

Because guns aren't "the" problem, some people refuse to see that guns play any part at all. But the situation isn't black and white. Are guns THE problem? Arguably not. Are they a major factor in the degree of carnage in these situations? Absolutely.

[orpheus]

Looks to me like there are some folks who feel their ability to own as many guns of as many types as possible, with as few regulations as possible, is more important than a child's life. Statements like, "I'll say flat out that yes, this is the price we pay for the freedom we have. Yes, it is worth it." are essentially saying that those 20 dead kindergarteners are acceptable losses. And btw, it's pretty uncaring to say that "we" are paying this price. It's not your kids that are dead. You aren't "paying" anything. I have a feeling if you were given a choice, your kid's life or your gun, you wouldn't hesitate to hand over your weapons. But apparently when the choice is "someone else's kid or your gun", you're keeping your weapons.

That just baffles me. What is it about guns that elicit such extreme loyalism and borderline sociopathy (and yes, seeing dead children as acceptable losses is sociopathic)? Or is not not really guns, but more of a tribalism thing, where if you're on the "pro gun team", you advocate for and defend that team no matter what, even if it means "dead kids = the price we pay"?

Excellent point. I've been horrified and mystified by this as well.

[Gerald McGrew]

And did I just see someone post actual data and analyses showing the correlation between more guns and more gun deaths, and tighter restrictions and fewer gun deaths....and that post generally be ignored?

Funny thing to see in a group that has "rational" in its fucking title.

[Gallstones]

It's easier to insist the means have nothing to do with it because to admit otherwise would both admit how complex the problem actually is, as well as put favorite toys in danger of being taken away. This causes brain pain.

No.
Means is one bullet point. Even the stupidest can think of that without suffering any intellectual toil.
How many bullet points will be on the list of causes?

So you admit that means does have something to do with the problem. Good - that's more than I can say for a lot of other gun proponents.

I think the problems are separate from the means and are far more complex if we are wanting reasons.

[Ian]

Another illustration about how it isn't the violence of guns that anti-gun nuts object to.
Hypocrites.

Y'know what's really distasteful? How all the pro-gun people (and by pro-gun I mean anyone who thinks US gun control laws are restrictive enough as it is) are griping about how all the anti-gun people are coldly using tragedies like this to advance their own set of beliefs. That is short-sighted to the point of inhumanity. The reason many of us who are in favor of stricter gun control speak about it so much at times like this is because times like this happen so much. Incidents like this are not used to exploit our ideology; they are a major source of our ideology. Get it?

[Gallstones]

Looks to me like there are some folks who feel their ability to own as many guns of as many types as possible, with as few regulations as possible, is more important than a child's life. Statements like, "I'll say flat out that yes, this is the price we pay for the freedom we have. Yes, it is worth it." are essentially saying that those 20 dead kindergarteners are acceptable losses. And btw, it's pretty uncaring to say that "we" are paying this price. It's not your kids that are dead. You aren't "paying" anything. I have a feeling if you were given a choice, your kid's life or your gun, you wouldn't hesitate to hand over your weapons. But apparently when the choice is "someone else's kid or your gun", you're keeping your weapons.

That just baffles me. What is it about guns that elicit such extreme loyalism and borderline sociopathy (and yes, seeing dead children as acceptable losses is sociopathic)? Or is not not really guns, but more of a tribalism thing, where if you're on the "pro gun team", you advocate for and defend that team no matter what, even if it means "dead kids = the price we pay"?

A single individual in this thread on this site made that statement.
How broadly do you intend to cast that net of association?

[Gallstones]

Another illustration about how it isn't the violence of guns that anti-gun nuts object to.
Hypocrites.

Y'know what's really distasteful? How all the pro-gun people (and by pro-gun I mean anyone who thinks US gun control laws are restrictive enough as it is) are griping about how all the anti-gun people are coldly using tragedies like this to advance their own set of beliefs. That is short-sighted to the point of inhumanity. The reason many of us who are in favor of stricter gun control speak about it so much at times like this is because times like this happen so much. Incidents like this are not used to exploit our ideology; they are a major source of our ideology. Get it?

None of your screed is about my point.
Nothing other than that for me to "get".

How many pro gun people have said they want to see anti gun people killed as a solution to THE PROBLEM, or that non gun owners deserved to be killed?

[Gerald McGrew]

Excellent point. I've been horrified and mystified by this as well.

Thanks, and I have to repeat....I just don't get it.

It's like an obsession with guns. "I love my guns. I love my guns! I LOVE MY GUNS SO DON'T EVEN SUGGEST RESTRICTING MY OWNERSHIP OF THEM IN ANY WAY!!!!"

I've been accused of being obsessed with golf, and in some part it's probably true. But if I thought for one second that a higher frequency of golf courses = dead kids, I'd stop in a heartbeat and never look back. It wouldn't even occur to me to proclaim that they'd have to "pry my clubs from my cold dead hands".

I just don't get it.

[Gerald McGrew]

A single individual in this thread on this site made that statement.
How broadly do you intend to cast that net of association?

Except it's entirely consistent with the sort of sentiment I've seen in lots of places over the years, including NRA rallies (which I've attended btw). And to be perfectly clear, I am a gun owner.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

The BBC is still not 100% sure that this US massacre is the worst ever - and the news folks absolutely love stuff being the worst! so my bet is that for not want of research........

....I guess just so many to choose from.

I wonder how many next year?