I can't handle the Connecticut bleating on Facebook

[Guest fittofat]

For the argument the founding fathers thought guns were key in the life and soul of the population of the United States, the US 2nd amendment says-

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

This does not mean everyone has the right to own the kind of weapons Adam Lanza owned.

For a quick quotation in video, check this out (not that the figures are strictly accurate, or were, but the whole point is very valid)-

[Queen Victoria]

Good riddance! Let me just run you over with that tank.

Atlya...

No, nevermind. I'm not going to go picking on the retarded now.

[Guest Atlya]

Atlya...

No, nevermind. I'm not going to go picking on the retarded now.

Ahah, "hospital mocking charity".

But a mistake was mine, I shouldn't have feed the redneck yankee troll. I'll refrain from that... from now on that is.

[bdog]

I find it curious that for some the choice is to acknowledge one tragedy or another. Why should a mass shooting in the United States be any less than one on Afghanistan. I think there is something to be said for the argument that folk are ignorant to the woes of the world the majority of the time, but that does not mean they should not be hurt by this incident.

People are entitled to their feelings and I don't begrudge anyone that, of course.  The chorus of platitudes that followed, however, I found to be somewhat disingenuous.  Once upon a person could feel sad without making a public statement to that effect.  Also, peoples' hearts "go out to the victims" while their hands and wallets sit firmly rooted under their buttocks.

[wilan]

Old Queen Victoria's a crazy guy –

His kind believe in "an eye for an eye".

Toting his gun, he'd bravely clean the streets,

Mowing down killers, soon covered with sheets.

All citizens have the right to bear arms –

Taking out sickos should give you no qualms.

The American way's always the best:

Quick on the draw – a bullet in the chest.

[Guest fittofat]

Bdog,

I admit one can feel sympathy without public sentiment, but you are venting public view, so what is wrong? We do so, and that is that, but there is no problem.

I regret some feel the need to attack those who mourn and admit a tragedy. I agree with you all too many are closed minded to the issues of the world, but that said, it should not diminish the individual or an incident.

[Klaus!]

I'm not disagreeing with you in principle vennie. My point is that the different culture surrounding firearms here in the US makes it a futile task. The NRA is incredibly well-funded and has powerful backers politically. You won't make any headway against such things to institute European-style gun laws. So it's important to understand this and then decide what course of action to take. It may be smarter to limit ammunition rather than guns. After all, you can own a machine gun, but without bullets, what are you going to do with it? Club someone? As I said before, I am a gun-owner as well. I would not like for my rifle to be taken away from me. However, I don't keep ammunition in my home. I purchase it at the firing range when I go shooting. I only go shooting a few times a year. I like to take apart my gun and clean it more (I love watches for the same reason). So, ammunition restrictions would work for me. But then again, my rifle is also a bolt-action Soviet-made rifle from the Second World War. It'd be hard for someone to take it and go on a CT style shooting spree with it.

For the argument the founding fathers thought guns were key in the life and soul of the population of the United States, the US 2nd amendment says-

I wasn't saying that the 2nd amendment was some kind of catch-all. I was trying to explain the history behind it and the culture that fostered it. The reasoning for the amendment has changed significantly over the past century, as I mentioned in my previous post.

This does not mean everyone has the right to own the kind of weapons Adam Lanza owned.

Adam Lanza's mother owned the weapons. The police found two handguns and a Bushmaster hunting rifle on him at the school. I live two towns over from Newtown, CT. I know people who teach in the Newtown school district and I indirectly know some of the victims and their families. Around here, hunting is a big sport. It's not uncommon to hear scattered gunfire over the weekends in between October and December. The Bushmaster is a common hunting rifle used to hunt deer and ducks. The weapons he carried weren't military grade. Granted, a semi-automatic rifle seems overkill for hunting in my mind, but I'm not a hunter so I can't tell you why it's used.

[caitidee]

I regret some feel the need to attack those who mourn and admit a tragedy. I agree with you all too many are closed minded to the issues of the world, but that said, it should not diminish the individual or an incident.

You don't have to regret it on our behalf. These people don't care as much as they pretend to.

[Guest Atlya]

The American way's always the best:

Quick on the draw – a bullet in the chest.

You truly are a master of your domain, sir.

[Queen Victoria]

Granted, a semi-automatic rifle seems overkill for hunting in my mind, but I'm not a hunter so I can't tell you why it's used.

I suspect different reasons depending on who you ask. The hardcore types will innevitably tell you that it's a good weapon in the event of an insurrection, etc. etc., which may be true because, my guess is, with a bit of retooling, you'd probably be able to set it on fully automatic.

However, this hardly explains the broad-based appeal of the Bushmaster which is, by all accounts, one of the better selling rifles in America these days. My own money's on MilSim -- Military Simultation. In the most basic sense, people like to 'play war.' The Bushmaster .223 is the civilian equivalent of the M4 -- the 'standard issue' rifle of today's armed forces. So, while the rifle may not be the best choice for hunting, people go with it anyway because it makes them feel cool. This is basically the same thought behind Airsoft, though being applied to real, live-fire weapons.

In the end, the gun sells, and that's what the vendors and manufacturers care about the most. All guns kill -- all guns possess the potential to be used in mass shootings. A healthy percentage of guns are also semi-automatic: same as the Bushmaster. In that vein, this obsession with 'assault weapons' is more than a little silly because A) no gun currently (legally) available on the market is a true assault weapon, and even if you outlaw the Bushmaster, there are a hundred other guns out there that can do the exact same thing. The Bushmaster simply looks more dangerous than your standard .22, .223 or .243, and to those of don't know better, that must mean it *is* more dangerous.

The problem is, we've got ill-informed, obssessed people driving the ship right now, and the knee-jerk reaction is to 'ban assault weapons.' I personally don't think anything will come of it, because the Supreme Court has already taken a pretty strong position on the matter. But in the immediate wake of a tragedy like this, there's bound to be a significant helping of lunacy as people attempt to conveniently explain away why a 20-year-old would murder his mother and then, at random, kill 20 children.

A hundred years ago, this kid would have been locked in an asylum. But facts like that make the soccer mom generation uncomfortable. There's this dangerous idea in America today that, with the right medication, everyone can be saved. There's no evil; there's no unfixable people out there -- sociopaths and people who murder for sport? They don't really exist. We've 'evolved' beyond it. Hitler? Stalin? Hell, if they were born today, just hit them with the right cocktail of meds and they're the friendliest gents around. This is the mindset that allowed Adam Lanza to perpetrate this monstrous act.

Yet, nobody is talking about that -- they just want to rob the other 99.99% of their rights.

[bdog]

I regret some feel the need to attack those who mourn and admit a tragedy. I agree with you all too many are closed minded to the issues of the world, but that said, it should not diminish the individual or an incident.

Your first point is valid enough, but love without truth is sentimentality.  If one mourns for Connecticut but ignores the children being killed by state sanctioned drone strikes then I do question the value of one's sentiment.  Very much so. 

The difference between one child and the next is just an imaginary line that some folks decided to draw on a map.  If compassion can be fooled so easily then it was already diminished to begin with. 

[Queen Victoria]

Your first point is valid enough, but love without truth is sentimentality.  If one mourns for Connecticut but ignores the children being killed by state sanctioned drone strikes then I do question the value of one's sentiment.  Very much so. 

The difference between one child and the next is just an imaginary line that some folks decided to draw on a map.  If compassion can be fooled so easily then it was already diminished to begin with.

But this is how the entire world is today, sadly. It's the same mindset that bolsters the 'public appology' -- "Man, I am professional athlete, but I am so, so sorry for running over that dude while I was drunk. But this announcement should, I hope, make it all better" -- and the same thought behind redistribution of wealth. There's this idea that everyone should care about everyone else so, *so* much, and if you don't actually care, you fake it. Because it is far easier to lie about caring than to confront the fact that you don't.

I felt bad about the shooting -- I'm not going to lie about it either way. And I cannot imagine the anguish that the parents are going through -- that they will go through every day for the rest of their lives. Looking across the dinner table every night, and seeing that empty chair, as if the Ghost of Christmas Future's vision of Tiny Tim's unused and forlorn crutch leaning against the wall played out forever. It's a horror on a level that's indescribable, rendered all the worse because the person who committed the crime can neither be held accountable nor can we understand anything of his motivations. In a sense, it's like a giant space rock fell out of the sky and randomly crushed this classroom -- such a random act would be no the more explicable or easy to deal with.

However, I've moved on, and other people not involved should too. This ongoing frenzy is dangerous. According to several reports, residents of Newtown have been begging the media for nearly a week to get lost, because as long as they are there, no sense of normalcy can be restored. Normalcy is not only an important part of the healing process, it also plays a vital role in ending the continuing glorification of this madman. At this point, all the ongoing attention is doing is encouraging the next mass murderer; egging him on towards his fateful decision. And, sad to say, the media would secretly love nothing more than another copy cat. After all, death on this scale sells, and that's all they care about.

But I agree with you -- there are a lot of people out there who do not care, do not really sympathize, and are either using the tragedy to make themselves look better, or piling on -- not because they care -- but because they feel like that's how they should think and act. It's emotional fraud.

[gta]

I find it curious that for some the choice is to acknowledge one tragedy or another. Why should a mass shooting in the United States be any less than one on Afghanistan. I think there is something to be said for the argument that folk are ignorant to the woes of the world the majority of the time, but that does not mean they should not be hurt by this incident. One can hope, that out of this ghastly tragedy some Americans may learn and act to try and make sure it does not happen again, but may it also open their eyes to the evils in the rest of the world (many of which have been mentioned).

When it comes to what some call over the top demonstrations of grief, the one which springs to mind for me was the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Madness took over the country for over a week, madness and lack of reason which was to the detriment of the families involved. From this we should learn that the knumbskulled- 'this is not a tragedy because there are much bigger things in the world' approach is offensive to those who are affected, to the; mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, extended family and friends. This is a tragedy for them, and a community and a country.

I don't agree with your last sentence. I believe you are projecting a personal sentiment on the average consumer of news, let alone conflating the media's intent with the media consumer's intent. I do no think that people are belittling tragedies because of "bigger things" occurring elsewhere. This isn't a competition where people are compiling a top 100 list. In the US, a shooting that kills many elementary school children is going to get a larger reaction than many other tragedies: there are plenty of parents out there who have kids in suburban elementary schools. It becomes a tangible threat to them and their children, more so than a suicide bombing or a war in another country. There are too many tragedies to focus on, so I feel that most people (including myself) react proportionally to how close it hits to home for them. The media will cover what they think will attract an audience, so they focus on these kinds of events. Is it wrong? Perhaps. But I would be a very, very depressed person if I felt bad about every single incident that happens around the world - especially when there's so little I can do about it.

[bdog]

Is it wrong? Perhaps. But I would be a very, very depressed person if I felt bad about every single incident that happens around the world - especially when there's so little I can do about it.

There's a lot less we can do for unpredictable shootings than we can for predictable diseases, water and food shortages, contaminations and pollutants, and so forth.  Collectively we focus on the tragedies that are freakish in nature while ignoring the ones that we can actually mitigate.

If people are concerned about the well being of America, then we should be freaking out the academic achievement of tens of millions, not some crazy event that may not happen again for 10 years even if we do nothing.

[Plunderking]

I feel you man, we should care a lot more about kids being sold and forced into child labor and prostitution. Giving this much attention to this is just what sicko killers want and all we are doing is setting the bar for the next nut. That is probably why they keep one upping each other. They shouldn't even devuldge information and spot light mass murderers names because it just give them what they wanted in the first place. Wish people would focus on shit like scores of kids much bigger than this die everyday from gang and drug violence just to survive.

[gta]

There's a lot less we can do for unpredictable shootings than we can for predictable diseases, water and food shortages, contaminations and pollutants, and so forth.  Collectively we focus on the tragedies that are freakish in nature while ignoring the ones that we can actually mitigate.

If people are concerned about the well being of America, then we should be freaking out the academic achievement of tens of millions, not some crazy event that may not happen again for 10 years even if we do nothing.

Again, I think this is an issue with the media side of things. A capitalistic media would be dumb to disenfranchise their customer base. Telling people they are bad parents, or just plain suck at life, will cause them to change the channel. This is why you don't see stories about America's decline in world rankings for things like education, healthcare, jobs, etc. The customer is always right and they don't want to hear that they are being dumb and contributing to the problem. A shooting incident, on the other hand, can be played as a freak occurrence and many people escape blame. Thoughts like "I don't let my kids play violent video games", or "My guns are locked in a safe and my kids do not have access" comforts the parents as the media scapegoats video games and negligent gun safety. What the media doesn't want to talk about is mental health and parental responsibility because there is no easy answer for it. Then there's always the topic of who owns/controls the media, but that's an entirely different topic. Let's just say that the interested parties are typically a contributor to food shortages, pollution, etc. Why would they paint themselves in a bad light?

[wilan]

In other words, the media avoid telling the truth because people don't want to hear it, thus perpetuating an endless cycle of pointless debate, despite the fact that the media could, and should, promote awareness and understanding of the real issues behind such acts of violence, which might actually lead to some meaningful changes.

[gta]

In other words, the media avoid telling the truth because people don't want to hear it, thus perpetuating an endless cycle of pointless debate, despite the fact that the media could, and should, promote awareness and understanding of the real issues behind such acts of violence, which might actually lead to some meaningful changes.

Precisely. Well put Wilan 

[Heart and Mind]

the media could, and should, promote awareness and understanding of the real issues behind such acts of violence, which might actually lead to some meaningful changes.

Well said, but remember not to expect any of those^ during your lifetime.

[Guest flamins]

US firefighters shot dead at blaze in Webster, New York

www.washingtonpost.com/national/firefighter-shot-at-scene-of-blaze-in-western-ny-2-homes-burning-as-police-search-for-shooter/2012/12/24/a73d0b34-4dd2-11e2-835b-02f92c0daa43_story.html

Well, I guess if those firemen had been armed then they'd still be alive now.

I wonder if the gun-nuts have considered arming foetuses yet?  I mean, if the little babies had guns, they'd not get aborted so easily, right?

[Heart and Mind]

Now i understand Sting when he said he was an alien in New York.. The only one without a gun.

[bdog]

I mean, if the little babies had guns, they'd not get aborted so easily, right?

Quote of the week and the religious right's new motto.  :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, the English spelling of fetus is as about as attractive as the mental image I have of your teeth.  Which is to say I'm totally fapping right now. 

[Queen Victoria]

US firefighters shot dead at blaze in Webster, New York

www.washingtonpost.com/national/firefighter-shot-at-scene-of-blaze-in-western-ny-2-homes-burning-as-police-search-for-shooter/2012/12/24/a73d0b34-4dd2-11e2-835b-02f92c0daa43_story.html

Well, I guess if those firemen had been armed then they'd still be alive now.

I wonder if the gun-nuts have considered arming foetuses yet?  I mean, if the little babies had guns, they'd not get aborted so easily, right?

I'd love to hear your ramblings on how taking away guns is going to stop people from doing bad things. Or would it have made you far more warm and fuzzy if he'd hurled pipe bombs at the unarmed first responders? Hell, he could have rigged his house with explosives, lit the roof on fire, and then blown it up when the firetrucks pulled up, killing two or three dozen rescuers and neighbors instead of two.

Again, and I cannot emphasize this enough, if you think that guns are ever going away in America, you are a lunatic. Simultaneously, you cannot cure evil. Unless the reality you're advocating is some Orwellian, 1984 style dystopia, where every single aspect of people's lives is rigorously monitored or controlled, bad stuff is still going to go down. Your imbecilic personal crusade not withstanding, that kind of future is never going to come to pass.

But it's cute that you think if you rail hard enough, the world will change.

[Guest Atlya]

Using "how are you going to be sure that people won't do bad things if you remove the guns?" is like saying "how are you going to stop cancer by preventing people to smoke?"

Same shit, same facepalm.

[Guest primitive]

Using "how are you going to be sure that people won't do bad things if you remove the guns?" is like saying "how are you going to stop cancer by preventing people to smoke?"

Same shit, same facepalm.

This. I always laugh at how ludicrous it is when people suggest that . Skimmed the first few pages of this and don't feel like wading through 11, but has the whole "BUT CRIMINALS WOULD STILL HAVE KNIVES!!111!eleven" argument been brought up yet? Even more hilarious.

As for the original point of the thread, I find it pretty disgusting when some people choose to respond to tragedy by attempting to invalidate the legitimate feelings of sorrow that people have. Yes, kids everywhere die. And yes, people should give a damn about that as well. That doesn't make these kids dying less sad.

By attempting to somehow dismiss people's sadness by somehow ranking the cause relative to other terrible events doesn't mean you've introduced some kind of new perspective on the situation, it only makes you into a giant fuckface.