27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[orpheus]

Something else just occurred to me. To those who contend that guns are not the problem; that people would just kill with other implements: why don't we see those incidents then? If there's nothing special about guns, we should also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons. But we don't.

Wonder why that is.

You really think the guy would not have killed his parents with knife or baseball bat before trying to turn on the kids if he'd had no gun available? think again, the nut is the cause.
Don't blame the implement for doing its job too well.

You really think the guy would have succeeded in killing so many with a knife or baseball bat?

See my post above. Sure, he probably would have done violence no matter what the tool. 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.

[klr]

Something else just occurred to me. To those who contend that guns are not the problem; that people would just kill with other implements: why don't we see those incidents then? If there's nothing special about guns, we should also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons. But we don't.

Wonder why that is.

You really think the guy would not have killed his parents with knife or baseball bat before trying to turn on the kids if he'd had no gun available? think again, the nut is the cause.
Don't blame the implement for doing its job too well.

And how many people do you think he would have succeeded in killing with a knife or baseball bat?

See my post above. Sure, he probably would have done violence no matter what the tool. 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.

Exactly. In this case, 20-25 people - almost all children - would very likely still be alive.

[orpheus]

My first question to gun proponents was: If there's nothing special about guns, why don't we also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons.

Another question: if there's nothing special about guns - if the tool doesn't matter, then why have a gun for self-defense? Why not have a knife? 

They can't have it both ways. If guns are equivalent to other "tools", then they haven't a leg to stand on for a "self-defense" argument. If guns are special tools - better and more efficient at killing - then they can't argue that they're not part of the problem. 

[Jason]

Something else just occurred to me. To those who contend that guns are not the problem; that people would just kill with other implements: why don't we see those incidents then? If there's nothing special about guns, we should also see comparable numbers of deaths - intentional and accidental - from other weapons. But we don't. 

Wonder why that is.

Let me try to straighten out your warped perception of this line of argument. When I say guns are not the problem, I mean they are not the causative factor. The availability of guns is the reason they are used, yes. But the reason tragedies like this occur is not because of the tools employed. Thus they are not the problem. Remove the tools, the problem remains. Guns did not make this man do what he did, he used them to do it.

Sometimes I wonder if anti-gun people understand the concept of causality at all.

Yes, I understand causality, and I never said guns were the cause. I never said guns made the guy do this. You're putting words in my mouth there.

Well I'm glad you cleared that up then. Guns are not the problem and we agree.

But guns are not comparable to old tool, either. I wonder if you understand that.

No, I don't understand that because it's false. They are tools just as knives are tools. They become weapons when used as a weapon.

You say the availability of guns is the reason they're used. Bullshit. Knives and blunt objects are much more easily available, yet we don't see knife and blunt object tragedies on anything like this scale. What you've left out is that guns are remarkably efficient killing tools, designed expressly for that purpose. To not take that into account when describing the problem is either short-sighted or flat out dishonest.

Not at all. I made the mistake of assuming everyone here had the intelligence to understand the obvious and didn't need it stated. However, guns are not tools expressly for killing. I am glad we agree they are tools however.

So you're technically right when you say "Remove the tools, the problem remains." But remove these particular tools and the intensity and scale of the problem will go way, way down. 

Your basis for this line of reasoning is what exactly? I mean when so many other methods of mass murder are so easily available, why should the removal of firearms reduce the intensity and scale of the damage these deranged persons are capable of doing?

[mistermack]

I have a brilliant idea.
You protect the whatsit amendment. You have the RIGHT to bear arms. But if you wan't to be like a cowboy, you have to DRESS like a cowboy at all times or lose your gun licence.
And I pick the costume :

[Seabass]

I don't understand how shooting children in a school becomes a thing, like a wart or cancer, but that's what seems to have happened. It's a thing now that people catch. Oh, he's got the "going to kill a bunch of kids" thing, better get that looked at.

It should never happen, and then only once -wtf- if it is a thing though, something people must do once infected, why can't we find these fuckers first? I know, we can't actually do anything with our crazies anyway. -rage

That's what I'm wondering. How the hell does shooting children become... in vogue?

I mean, shooting ones boss, or parents, or ex, or attacking a political target a la Timothy McVey--these at least make some rational sense--there is a clear cause and effect relationship with such incidents.

But shooting up a school full of innocent children? Mind boggling. But then it becomes a fad, something pissed off people do when they break because it has become "a thing", as you say. Fucking mind boggling to the nth degree.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm a pro-gun rights person; however, one does have to acknowledge, I think, the capacity of different "tools" to do more or less damage than other tools. A bomb is a tool also, but when a bomb can wipe out a city block, it is characteristically different than a baseball bat or a butter knife. Similarly, a fully auto this or that with hollow point cyanide tipped bullets is likewise a different kind of tool than Red Ryder Carbine Action Range Rifle with A Compass in the Stock.

While guns may not be the "cause" of people murdering other people, if someone has a gun, they can certainly be more effective and efficient at killing people than with the Red Ryder Carbine Action Range Rifle ...even though the latter comes with a compass in the stock. Surely that must be acknowledged? And, it is the capacity to kill and the efficiency of killing, and the speed, and the ability to reach out over long distances to kill that make these tools different than bats and knives.

I'm not suggesting that they be "banned" -- but, there must be, I think, something done. I don't know what that thing is, though.

[Jason]

My first question to gun proponents was: If there's nothing special about guns, why don't we also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons.

Stupid question we've already covered. Availability, inclination, and effectiveness.

Another question: if there's nothing special about guns - if the tool doesn't matter, then why have a gun for self-defense? Why not have a knife? 

Another stupid question already covered.

They can't have it both ways. If guns are equivalent to other "tools", then they haven't a leg to stand on for a "self-defense" argument. If guns are special tools - better and more efficient at killing, then they can't argue that they're not part of the problem. 

False dichotomy. The problem is the psychopaths (and what fosters them) who commit these atrocities, not the atrocities themselves. Guns do not create psychopaths and guns do not foster their growth. Guns are not part of the problem. You've shifted the focus away again. I can only assume you're being deliberately dishonest.

[Rob]

This impacted me more than it should I suppose.

I always consider myself fairly logical but this incident moved me to near tears.

A man, most likely with a medical illness, went into a classroom and killed every single child in sight. Just to think about the entirety of it is horribly sad. Kids love going to school... absolutely love it. They also love Christmas, counting down the days, staying up late every night in anticipation. Now they are gone... dead. Devastated parents will eventually open up their closet just see those presents sitting of the shelf...wrapped. Will they keep the presents for a few years, feeling a terrible sadness each time their gaze hits the presents?

Just horrible.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have a brilliant idea.
You protect the whatsit amendment. You have the RIGHT to bear arms. But if you wan't to be like a cowboy, you have to DRESS like a cowboy at all times or lose your gun licence.
And I pick the costume :

Not a bad idea -- possibly NSFW -

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[klr]

...
Not a bad idea -- possibly NSFW -

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Jeez, is that really appropriate in this thread? It's not against "the rules", but it just doesn't seem to be right.

[Coito ergo sum]

...
Not a bad idea -- possibly NSFW -

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Jeez, is that really appropriate in this thread? It's not against "the rules", but it just doesn't seem to be right.

Probably not. But, neither is yet another re-hash of the gun argument, for the 100th time.

[Jason]

Something else just occurred to me. To those who contend that guns are not the problem; that people would just kill with other implements: why don't we see those incidents then? If there's nothing special about guns, we should also see comparable numbers of murders and mass murders from other weapons. But we don't.

Wonder why that is.

You really think the guy would not have killed his parents with knife or baseball bat before trying to turn on the kids if he'd had no gun available? think again, the nut is the cause.
Don't blame the implement for doing its job too well.

You really think the guy would have succeeded in killing so many with a knife or baseball bat?

See my post above. Sure, he probably would have done violence no matter what the tool. 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.

A bomb, easily made with information freely available and materials sold over the counter, would have left the entire school a smoking crater.

The problem that needs to be addressed is the people who perpetrate such atrocious crimes. More specifically, how to go about identifying these people beforehand, dealing with them appropriately, and how to prevent others from becoming so sick they commit actions like this.

[Jason]

...
Not a bad idea -- possibly NSFW -

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Jeez, is that really appropriate in this thread? It's not against "the rules", but it just doesn't seem to be right.

Probably not. But, neither is yet another re-hash of the gun argument, for the 100th time.

If you want to call it a gun argument, fine, but it certainly is appropriate as it pertains to the correct identification of the problem so that these sorts of crimes may be prevented.

[JimC]

Something else just occurred to me. To those who contend that guns are not the problem; that people would just kill with other implements: why don't we see those incidents then? If there's nothing special about guns, we should also see comparable numbers of deaths - intentional and accidental - from other weapons. But we don't.

Wonder why that is.

Let me try to straighten out your warped perception of this line of argument. When I say guns are not the problem, I mean they are not the causative factor. The availability of guns is the reason they are used, yes. But the reason tragedies like this occur is not because of the tools employed. Thus they are not the problem. Remove the tools, the problem remains. Guns did not make this man do what he did, he used them to do it.

Sometimes I wonder if anti-gun people understand the concept of causality at all.

Psychotic people will still remain, certainly. However, in a society with very many fewer guns, and highly restricted gun ownership, the psychotic will not have, easily to hand, a tool for mass murder. There will always be exceptions, of course (Norway springs to mind), but on average, you will have many fewer mass killings in societies where semi-automatic rifles and handguns are not readily available. The psychotics may still kill, but anything that makes it harder for them to kill en masse is surely worth trying.