zlacker

>>KenCoc+(OP)
Listen, there are two parts to this: 1. The horrible tragedy, and 2. The hopes to prevent this from happening again. If we are going to talk about this, we need to all fall under the assumption that we agree that this is both a very tragic act perpetrated by someone who is obviously disturbed/mentally ill, and that it is all of our desires to do what we can to make sure senseless acts of violence like this never happen again.

So where do we go from here? How do we prevent this from happening again? It seems that there are two schools of thought (generalizing obviously): 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. Regardless of which side you fall in, neither work perfectly unless they are complete (i.e. all weapons are gone thus criminals don't even have access, or everyone is armed and no one has the upper hand). The problem with both absolutes, is a deranged person will always find a means to carry out their ill will, whether that's a gun/knife/driving a car into a crowd.

The safest computer is encased in concrete, and buried 6 feet underground. Much in the same way, the safest society would have each of us locked in a room, with no interaction. What we have to figure out is this: How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few?

>>JoeCor+B5
It is utterly fascinating to me how much discussion there is around this, here on this forum and in other places. In no other country in the world would this even be a debate...

Of course you want to disarm everyone!

That is the only sensible option! There is absolutely no need why anyone, save members of the executive branch enforcing the government's monopoly on violence, would ever need to carry a firearm.

"Self defense" and "liberty" are totally crazy arguments, that are only ever brought up in America and are based purely on historical reasons.

>>schrot+lb
I'm genuinely interested—is this the consensus opinion of most of the developed world outside of the US?

I'm a US citizen, and generally consider myself liberal and progressive. I favor much stricter gun control laws. But I'm not sure I do favor complete disarmament of the citizenship. I do believe that the knowledge—not the use—of citizen's arms does provide a reminder to the government in times of crisis.

But am I simply experiencing large cultural bias? Is there any research on this? Any evidence I can look to? I'm very curious.

>>thetab+Lb
Pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

>>notdru+mc
Actually I'm not, but reading the post again I see how it could come off that way... (edit: at least to an American...)

>>schrot+Uc
The problem is with the concept of "need". I think very few people, even in the US, think that citizens should be allowed to have guns because they "need" them. The only possible exception I can think of is people living or hiking in remote areas where safety from wildlife can be a concern. You will find people who think that guns ownership should be permitted because they are needed in that edge case.

You are arguing against something few, if any, people believe. Americans think they should be allowed to own guns despite a need to have guns.

If that is reasonable or not is frankly irrelevant. Politics and legal realities make the elimination of all guns impossible. You are not being realistic if that is what you propose.