rickyp wrote:tom

banning guns is a band aid at best and I hear NOTHING about solving the problem.

In countries that have effectively banned guns, gun deaths are virtually unheard of. say Japan.

We are not Japan and will not become Japan. The United States cannot and will not ban guns.

tom

but the REAL problem is the person behind the gun

,

Your right. Its not guns that kill people.
Its people who kill people
Its just that its people with guns who kill the most people...

And, the only way to defend yourself is to arm yourself.

Funny, the same people that rail against the mention of gun control also legislate for a social darwinstic pressure cooker of a society that seems to produce these crazies with great regularity, who of course have easy access to guns to cause appalling levels of carnage. These kinds of incidents should cause us not only to ponder gun control but the kind of society we are creating.

fate

How would they have helped any of the kids in China?

You know what probably helped those kids in China? The fact that the assaillant wasn't armed with several guns.
The rate of private ownership of guns in China is 4.9 per 100 people.
The rate of private ownership of guns in the US is 88.8 per hundred.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compa ... ession/194

The rate of gun ownership in the US is going down...
“

For all the attention given to America’s culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,” writes political scientist Patrick Egan. The decline is most evident on the General Social Survey, though it also shows up on polling from Gallup, as you can see on this graph

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... s/?hpid=z3

Perhaps people are realizing the fiction that guns create security.

So how long before we get to hear the 'wouldn't it be better if all those 20 kids were carrying guns' argument ? DF has already attempted the old argument that a knife could have done the job (which seems to have already been disproven) so surely it's only a matter of time.

Australia instituted strong gun control laws about 15 years ago and appears to represent a real-world example of what strict gun control laws might do with regard to gun deaths. It appeared to work in Australia. http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/news ... 061214.php

Doctor Fate wrote:And, the only way to defend yourself is to arm yourself.

Does this include elementary school kids?

freeman2 wrote:Funny, the same people that rail against the mention of gun control also legislate for a social darwinstic pressure cooker of a society that seems to produce these crazies with great regularity, who of course have easy access to guns to cause appalling levels of carnage. These kinds of incidents should cause us not only to ponder gun control but the kind of society we are creating.

Funny, the same people who call for outlawing guns to protect human life are the same ones who are completely indifferent to the thousands of lives ended every day at abortion clinics.

Funny, but you are the same people who practice cultural neutrality and can't see that the culture your ideas is impacting is becoming more and more hostile. There were more guns per capita 50 years ago, per Ezra Klein, yet we had fewer incidents like we do now. Why? Maybe it's because to discuss moral rights and wrongs is not important while making sure that kids learn all about the proper use of condoms and the rightness of homosexual marriage is.

Our education system has been focused on making sure we turn out as many liberal-thinking people as possible. It hasn't made our society less violent.

Sassenach wrote:So how long before we get to hear the 'wouldn't it be better if all those 20 kids were carrying guns' argument ? DF has already attempted the old argument that a knife could have done the job (which seems to have already been disproven) so surely it's only a matter of time.

Disproven by what?

He did it with a knife. It's been done before (in 2010) with a knife.

Did the kids live? The article doesn't say. Do you have updated info?

freeman2 wrote:Australia instituted strong gun control laws about 15 years ago and appears to represent a real-world example of what strict gun control laws might do with regard to gun deaths. It appeared to work in Australia. http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/news ... 061214.php

We're not Australia. We have long borders.

We also have a long history of owning guns. You want to ban them? You have two choices:

Amend the Constitution

OR

Have your man installed as dictator.

Frankly, a few of you would probably choose the latter.

I'm sorry, but you all demonstrate as much compassion as some people I know who were thankful they homeschool.

Neither reaction is appropriate.

I wept for the parents of those kids. I can't imagine what they're going through.

Actually, I can--and that's why I weep.

I think most of you who are most vociferous about gun control at this moment have no kids. That's not an indictment. I'm just saying that instead of empathy you've seemed to skip to the political solution part, like Bloomberg.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, the only way to defend yourself is to arm yourself.

Does this include elementary school kids?

Cheap and not worthy of you.

fate

Did the kids live? The article doesn't say. Do you have updated info

The attacker, 36-year-old villager Min Yingjun, is now in police custody, said the officer, who declined to give her name, as is customary among Chinese civil servants.
A Guangshan county hospital administrator said the man first attacked an elderly woman, then students, before being subdued by security guards who have been posted across China following a spate of school attacks in recent years. He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.
A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that seven students had been admitted, but that none were seriously injured

.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... z2F9mTr600

rickyp wrote:fate

Did the kids live? The article doesn't say. Do you have updated info

The attacker, 36-year-old villager Min Yingjun, is now in police custody, said the officer, who declined to give her name, as is customary among Chinese civil servants.
A Guangshan county hospital administrator said the man first attacked an elderly woman, then students, before being subdued by security guards who have been posted across China following a spate of school attacks in recent years. He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.
A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that seven students had been admitted, but that none were seriously injured

.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... z2F9mTr600

Great--happy the kids made it. Genuinely. However, the fact that he could wound so many just indicates either he didn't want to kill them or didn't much care to learn how. Either way, he could have killed them. One can cut a jugular or femoral artery just as easily as an arm.

I'm not sure how many Americans would trade living in China for living in the US though.

fate

We're not Australia. We have long borders

Guns mostly cross borders out of the US. Not in....

I don't know that anyone has suggested banning guns. Perhaps some kinds of weapons. In that case, the 2nd amendment might not need to be amended.
But even if it came down to amending the constitution, are you simply saying it can't be done. Or that it shouldn't be done.
You seem to feel morally superior to everyone on this issue. Is this because you think its impossible to feel the same emotions as other people AND at the same time want to take actions on gun control that might alleviate the problem?
If so, I think you need to reconsider your reaction.

As for the possibility of amendment. Well, the constitution has been amended. Great flaws have been corrected. It might be difficult to amend the 2nd...but as these kinds of incidents pile up the motivation to act will increase. And that's an emotional and logical response.
And the incidents certainly will continue.
You want to rail and say its society that's wrong? (How liberal of you.) Okay. But if society has created pressures or conditions where people can't be trusted with guns.... is it easier to start limiting guns or change society? I'm sure there would be no agreement on what to change in society anyway.
A lot of people don't think condoms are a problem (since they help reduce teenage pregnancy and avoid abortions) or tolerance for equal treatment of LGBT under law... And certainly don't think they are part of what causes gun deaths.


Fate

Our education system has been focused on making sure we turn out as many liberal-thinking people as possible. It hasn't made our society less violent

.

There are more gun deaths in red states than blue states... (As per Ezra Klein's information that you quoted) . It would seem, based on this evidence, that the increase in liberal thinking people within the populace does make society less violent.

rickyp wrote:fate

We're not Australia. We have long borders

Guns mostly cross borders out of the US. Not in....

1. So true--when the Obama Administration helps smuggle them into Mexico!
2. Maybe that's because they're legal here. However, do try to be logical. If they were illegal, like drugs, they would come over our border--even from your blessed Canada.

I don't know that anyone has suggested banning guns. Perhaps some kinds of weapons. In that case, the 2nd amendment might not need to be amended.

You don't? I've read plenty of it since yesterday. An acquaintance from Australia suggested a boycott on the US to teach the NRA a lesson! And, you must not have checked Huffpo in the last hour or so. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-mic ... 08272.html

But even if it came down to amending the constitution, are you simply saying it can't be done. Or that it shouldn't be done.

Can't.

It's not possible to meet the threshold.

You seem to feel morally superior to everyone on this issue. Is this because you think its impossible to feel the same emotions as other people AND at the same time want to take actions on gun control that might alleviate the problem?

Not at all. I'm sick of being lectured by those who cannot see that no amount of gun control would solve this problem. Well, unless you favor a totalitarian state--that level of gun control would have stopped it.

The guns were legal.

The young man was deranged. He had even been disallowed from buying weapons, so he killed his mother and took hers.

If so, I think you need to reconsider your reaction.

I'm waiting for any of you on the Left to express some sorrow.

As for the possibility of amendment. Well, the constitution has been amended. Great flaws have been corrected. It might be difficult to amend the 2nd...but as these kinds of incidents pile up the motivation to act will increase. And that's an emotional and logical response.

Gun ownership is less than it was 50 years ago. Why do we have shootings now?

It's not guns. Something has changed in society.

And the incidents certainly will continue.

Maybe. Quick . . . what was the last grade school shooting?

You want to rail and say its society that's wrong? (How liberal of you.) Okay. But if society has created pressures or conditions where people can't be trusted with guns.... is it easier to start limiting guns or change society? I'm sure there would be no agreement on what to change in society anyway.

Right. It's easier to suppress legitimate rights than to look at larger issues. It's easy to panic and give up our rights than to do the right thing.

Again, no thanks.

A lot of people don't think condoms are a problem (since they help reduce teenage pregnancy and avoid abortions) or tolerance for equal treatment of LGBT under law... And certainly don't think they are part of what causes gun deaths.

Missing the point is a particular talent of yours.

Think of all the time schools spend teaching kids amorality.

Then we marvel when they act in amoral ways.

Yeah, it's amazing--and all the fault of guns!

Fate

Our education system has been focused on making sure we turn out as many liberal-thinking people as possible. It hasn't made our society less violent

.

There are more gun deaths in red states than blue states... (As per Ezra Klein's information that you quoted) . It would seem, based on this evidence, that the increase in liberal thinking people within the populace does make society less violent.

Sigh.

Want to live in Chicago? It's a virtual war zone.

Whole swaths of Los Angeles are quite dangerous. It would take the National Guard to remove all the guns.

Oregon . . . blue state or red state?

Connecticut?

Colorado?

I really appreciate your opinions. They're perfectly suited to your country.

I'm sorry I'm a bit bitter. But, so far, you've treated 20 little dead children as if they are simply means to your end.

I'm sorry, but you all demonstrate as much compassion as some people I know who were thankful they homeschool.

Neither reaction is appropriate.

I wept for the parents of those kids. I can't imagine what they're going through.

Actually, I can--and that's why I weep.

I think most of you who are most vociferous about gun control at this moment have no kids. That's not an indictment. I'm just saying that instead of empathy you've seemed to skip to the political solution part, like Bloomberg.

I've heard this line a few too many times now for it to retain its emotional weight. Initially I was very receptive to the idea that my choosing to raise the issue of gun control around the time of a major massacre was distasteful and should be avoided, but increasingly I've come to the conclusion that this is bullshit. Yes, those parents are grieving now. The thing is though, in a few months time there will almost certainly be a different group of parents who are also grieving, and in a year or two there will be more. This is inevitable because these horrific school massacres keep on happening, and will continue to happen for as long it remains pitifully easy for disturbed teenagers to get hold of lethal firearms. There comes a point where the obvious really does need to be stated.

People debate aspects of public policy most commonly at times when something happens in the news to bring that area of policy to the fore. The gun control issue is no different, it just happens that the main reason people tend to debate gun control is that guns are frequently used in massacres like this. Deal with it. I refuse to apologise for bringing this up, I think it's perfectly right to do so.