PabloSerna said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Do nations with more hammers commit more carpentry, or do nations which have more carpentry have more hammers?

It is a ridiculous comparison or assertion regarding violence and the tools used in violence.

Guns are just a tool. No more good or evil than any other inanimate object.

Guns do not cause violence. I assert that on the whole, guns prevent more violence than they "cause".

---

So which is it? A ridiculous comparison or that guns are just like any other tool?

You really can't have gun violence without guns right? What folks like me are saying is that we need some sensible laws in place to keep guns, for the most part, out of the hands of lunatics. As it stands, any lunatic can purchase a gun and do stupid things. Even worse, any lunatic can purchase a gun that can shoot bullets faster than the average hunting rifle! And you are ok with the way it is now?

---

Define "lunatic"

Edit to add: I am OK with current gun laws. I am not OK with current culture devaluing life. We have a heart problem, not a gun problem.

When our society develops kids who feel that life has no meaning, that there is nothing sacred, that we are all just a massive cosmic accident with no real purpose, then we will have people doing just what this kid did.

We need a return to a sense of the sacred and the belief that human life is sacred.

Quote:

---

I'm never going to shoot up a school. I've owned guns all my life, I started shooting when I was 4. You'd have to convince me that any measure would actually do something other than make my life more difficult and soothe the emotions of people like larry before I'd support it.

---

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you support the highest level of restrictions that would still allow you to own and use guns as you responsibility do...yet would clearly keep some level (if not totally quantifiable) of people who don't have your level of responsibility from having them? Whether it would lead any change or not...why would want someone who doesn't respect firearms like you do having the same access as you do.

I can understand an argument against this on execution...but you seem to disagree with the premise before we get there.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm never going to shoot up a school. I've owned guns all my life, I started shooting when I was 4. You'd have to convince me that any measure would actually do something other than make my life more difficult and soothe the emotions of people like larry before I'd support it.

---

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't you support the highest level of restrictions that would still allow you to own and use guns as you responsibility do...yet would clearly keep some level (if not totally quantifiable) of people who don't have your level of responsibility from having them? Whether it would lead any change or not...why would want someone who doesn't respect firearms like you do having the same access as you do.

I can understand an argument against this on execution...but you seem to disagree with the premise before we get there.

---

In this hypothetical, what is the exact language defining the subset of population prevented from owning guns?
Can it by changed in the future?
What's the procedure for doing so?

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Do nations with more hammers commit more carpentry, or do nations which have more carpentry have more hammers?

It is a ridiculous comparison or assertion regarding violence and the tools used in violence.

Guns are just a tool. No more good or evil than any other inanimate object.

Guns do not cause violence. I assert that on the whole, guns prevent more violence than they "cause".

---

Seriously? Can we agree that not all tools are equal? When my 9 year old helps me do stuff around the house I'll let them hammer stuff or use a drill with a screwdriver bit or a level. He doesn't get to use the circular saw yet. Why would I do that, its just a tool?

A nuclear bomb is just a tool for leveling an area of land. Its not good or evil. Its basically just a hammer, right? Nuclear weapons don't cause violence, what justification is there for making those illegal for me to own?

Quote:

---

In this hypothetical, what is the exact language defining the subset of population prevented from owning guns?
Can it by changed in the future?
What's the procedure for doing so?

---

Honestly, my question is all about the premise, rather than the execution. His statement does not read like he's in favor of Switzerland-like restrictions, but just cant agree on the exact method.

it reads like he doesn't believe in restrictions as a tool at all.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Pegged my thoughts exactly. Would anyone be satisfied that this broken person walked into a school with a sword and started killing people? Or a bomb jacket? The disturbed barely man wanted to kill a bunch of people. He went with the most effective and available method. Make that method less available and he goes for the next best thing. Maybe 2/3 or 1/2 as many people die if he uses a sword or builds a homemade flamethrower? Which is better I guess but still not a solution.

---

Can you read this back to yourself in your head. Do it over and over and slowly.

Quote:

---

To me the question is "does America have more people that want to commit mass violence than other places and if so why?"

---

Uh, yes.

---

Quote:

---

Make that method less available and he goes for the next best thing.

---

What's the proof in this? (versus not doing it at all)

Sorry, i have no idea what this means.

A lightbulb and words strung together do not an argument make.

schmendeler said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I think people blame guns because it is an easy scapegoat, instead of looking at the fact that some kid, a real person was behind this and somehow reached a mental state where he could commit this sort of unspeakable violence.

Mental health issues are a much more complicated and difficult thing to solve than gun ownership. It is very difficult to institutionalize people and very easy to release and hope for the best.

I also think that the style of violence has changed. All the people watching these murder podcasts about heinous serial killers...most of those murders are decades ago.. people don't commit those types of crimes as much (murder/kidnapping/serial torture etc) Why? well, because society has changed. Committing one big blaze of glory action has instant gratification.

---

Pegged my thoughts exactly. Would anyone be satisfied that this broken person walked into a school with a sword and started killing people? Or a bomb jacket? The disturbed barely man wanted to kill a bunch of people. He went with the most effective and available method. Make that method less available and he goes for the next best thing. Maybe 2/3 or 1/2 as many people die if he uses a sword or builds a homemade flamethrower? Which is better I guess but still not a solution.

To me the question is "does America have more people that want to commit mass violence than other places and if so why?"

---

9 or 10 dead kids is better than 19. No?

---

My original sentiment was correct: reduce the number, don't fix the problem.

schmendeler said:

---

How about reduce the number while you also try to address the problem?

But while you're addressing the problem, the body count of dead children is lower.

---

Seems like a pretty simple concept to me. Sure beats doing nothing.

Part of that is because I know that conversations about "addressing the problem" result in nothing happening for ten years and then another classroom of children gets murdered.

Now that this thread has run through its predictable course with the usual arguments. . . .

In an ideal world, people don't shoot themselves, others, or schools full of kids because people get the help and support they need or [fill in the blank on what you think keeps people from doing these things].

Since we are not in an ideal world, I am curious as to what everyone thinks should be done, if anything, by government?

- Nothing / Not government's job?

- Gun control measures?

- Make guns more accessible?

- Arm teachers?

- Enact Christian theocracy and treat the nation's souls?

- Expand availability of mental health services?

- Other?

I think I can predict a lot of the responses from the gun control side of this thread, So I'm mostly curious on what the other side has to say.

You'll have to connect the dots on how this is proof that violence has never been dissuaded due to access to guns. I am not asking you to prove the unknowable - but that unknowable has been written off nonetheless.

My question is why we view criminals who do this as psychopaths who will not be stopped in their reign of terror versus a human who will have complex motivations and triggers to cause them to do what they do.

As everyone understands, before Columbine...this wasn't a thing, and guns were just as prevalent. Now, it's a thing.

Quote:

---

Since we are not in an ideal world, I am curious as to what everyone thinks should be done, if anything, by government?

---

For School Shootings? Nothing about guns themselves. I would change how we cover them in the media, as i think that's the problem.

For General gun violence and Suicides? There probably needs to be access restrictions here and creative ways of dealing the illegal gun trafficking problem.

School shootings are the red herrings of the gun conversation.

The internet has been an ugly place the last 24hrs. Maybe we should all agree to just be sad and mourn for the losses for a bit before we start fighting.

Sure. I'm not the one that made the idiotic argument that it was about the number of guns and nothing else. Glad we agree.

I don't disagree with the premise. No one has said anything concrete other than "more restrictions".

But I was just curious why you wouldn't want the restrictions high since you will clear them easily due to your personal responsibility.

I figured you wouldn't want to be lumped in with the irresponsible, yet you take the opposite side.

We're sort of guessing what the carnage would look like, right? No telling what would have happened. My point is that no one is looking at a dozen casualties from sword attack and is happy it wasn't a gun.

In the sentence "a deeply troubled teen shot up a school with a legally purchased firearm", I'm much more likely to focus on the "deeply trouble teen shot up a school" and not the "with a legally purchased firearm". Change that part to "illegally obtained firearm" or a different weapon and it's not really better.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to all gun control. I'm just have a hard time trying to figure out what sort of rule would have worked here. He was a 18 with a clean criminal record and no psych history as far as I know.

One thing these people all seem to have in common is that they are loners. So I'd be cool with making everyone buy a gun have 3 sponsors who are adult citizens. The idea being that they get charged if a crime is committed with the weapon. Anyone without 3 friends or family to vouch for them probably doesn't need a gun anyway

larry culpepper said:

---

It is staggering, absolutely staggering, seeing otherwise educated people bend so far backwards and do all these mental gymnastics to blame ANYTHING but guns. They will blame decline in religion, mental health, and other stupid bull**** like LGBT people becoming more accepted, premarital sex, and climate change activism.

Let me state it in plain English: AMERICA HAS A GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM BECAUSE WE HAVE FAR TOO MANY GUNS, IT'S EASY TO ACCESS THESE GUNS, AND WE HAVE AN ENTIRE POLITICAL PARTY HELLBENT ON ENSURING THE STATUS QUO NEVER CHANGES.

My God, our obsession with guns is so troubling. People are denying a reality that is sitting in front of our faces, and we get reminded of this reality over and over and over and over again. We will do anything to blame anything but the guns. There's a reason we have the most mass shootings in the developed world. Europe is less religious than we are and shootings are very rare. It's not about the decline of God. Stop denying reality and accept the facts.

The United States of America is not the best country in the world. We tolerate mass murder because a bunch of slaveowners from the 1780s wrote something on a piece of paper and our government is run by a bunch of extremist lunatics beholden to the gun lobby. And our citizenry accepts this **** as normal. None of this is normal at all.

/rant

---

This entire, heartfelt statement is a good analogue for how many people (some of whom probably agree with you on guns) feel about the slaughter of more than 60 million entirely innocent and totally vulnerable unborn children in the USA.

And for the record, no constitutional right is absolute. The government can execute you as long as you receive constitutional due process. So reasonable limits on gun ownership is something I personally support. Obviously what is reasonable will be contentious.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Fetuses are not children. YOu can call them babies and children all you want but they are not children and they are not babies.

---

If the fetus is growing, it must be alive

If it has human parents, it must be human

Living humans have inherent value

Fetuses are unborn humans deserving of the same legal rights as any human.

---

Nope. a fetus is wholy dependent upon a host. it's only alive because of that host. Fetuses are potential humans but they are not children and/or babies. They are fetuses.

Macarthur said:

---

For the record, I don't want to fight anyone.

But I'm damn tired of being lectured on when is the right time to talk about these things and when the wrong time is....There are families of the dead kids that are talking about our lax gun laws. Is it okay for them?

---

There is a time and place to talk about these things. Overly emotional rants on the internet do nothing but stir up arguments.

The families I presume will become advocates of some solution when this settles down. For now I would imagine the shock is so large that they can't do anything really but mourn.