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?
Nice strawmen. There are obviously options in the middle, namely, increasing traceability of weapons and ammo and shutting down channels that where weapons are allowed to change hands anonymously.
The proliferation of weapons is one thing, but the fact that these tragedies occur and we don't have a way to follow the chain back to the disreputable dealer who sold these armaments - and shut them down - is just non-sensical.
The 2nd amendment fundamentalists who don't even want question how these weapons can get in the wrong hands - often use that same strawman you pose above - which is rediculous - many folks support the 2nd amendment yet find the need for further action to prevent these events from happening.
The guns used in shootings are usually legally bought. There are no disreputable dealers here.
Also, you don't have to be either for banning guns or having no regulations at all. Instead, a compromise of allowing regulated gun ownership would be better.
If you can determine in advance who the "wrong hands" are, I'm sure the TSA would love to speak to you and dump buckets of money over your head.
> How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few?
Liberty? What about the liberty not to get randomly shot down and you or your loved ones' life taken away from you and the people who know you? Isn't the gift of life the supreme liberty taking precedence over the need of some to worship guns?
The ability to take away someone right and liberty to live at a moment's notice borders on a superpower and should be handed out very sparingly to those who absolutely need it to do their job.
Though that seems about as likely as "1.Disarm everyone".
It seems to me that there are two problems here. The first is that we suck at finding/handling the mentally ill. These mass shootings are rare, but the connection between crime and mental illness in this country is anything but.
The second issue is of course that we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns away from the people they need to be kept away from.
Ideally both issues should be tackled.
A few days ago someone posted a web site called http://www.banthecar.com where they laid out detailed arguments for banning all cars, because of all the problems they cause, including accidental deaths. Obviously banning cars is not reasonable or realistic.
We have a process for who is and is not allowed to drive a car, and we are fairly comfortable with it, even though it still fails to prevent thousands of deaths. The process of firearm ownership could use some adjustments, but ultimately we cannot prevent all deaths. The best we can do is prevent those who are obviously unsuitable(1) from owning firearms, and ensuring we have a system to remove the rights of those who abuse them.
(1) this is very dangerous due to the history of gun control being used to enable racism and genocide. The criteria must be objective, not subjective.
[1] Canada/the US, at least; I'm not familiar enough with other cultures.
I think these are actually two extreme positions to which almost nobody seriously subscribes.
I ask you: if this trend continues, where do you think it leads?
Our guns are our final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime; they are our assurance that we will never become helpless, that we will always have the capability to fight if fighting ever becomes necessary. Though it is certainly a great tragedy that these children have died today, how much greater were the tragedies throughout human history that resulted from the excessive centralization of power and a populace that was unable to fight against it? You think that human nature has changed in the last half century; you think that something like that cannot happen again, that it won't happen here? People have not changed; sociopaths still seek power, and when they find it, if the masses have no way of fighting back, they will find themselves dealing with problems many orders of magnitude more horrific than the occasional school shooting. I am familiar with all of the arguments for disarming the people of the United States, and they are all fundamentally flawed, because nothing is worse than being at the mercy of tyrants.
It's shocking but it's not surprising, because it's almost a predictable event in the US today. Hardly a year goes by in the US without a shooting spree, at schools and otherwise.
The problem is that he had access to guns when he was mentally ill. Thats the problem. You cannot isolate the two.
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.
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.
Reference? (Genuine question.)
Look at example 2.5 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure
By reducing the argument to one extreme vs. another extreme, these are strawmen arguments... very few support either extreme, so the commenter can then knock down the arguments and look reasonable saying pretty much anything.
Would people be coerced? Would it be voluntary? If voluntary, I suspect only a fraction of those who had serious issues would seek help. On the other hand, there would be serious issues with legally compelling people to be treated involuntarily, if they have not violated nay other major laws which would make their treatment compulsory.
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.
Your argument is that the two absolutes are not the only options, which is pointing out a false dichotomy. Of course, even that's not an appropriate response, since JoeCortopassi had already pointed out the potential problems (like excessive loss of personal liberty) with absolutes.
The simple fact is that Americans are exceptional, so anything that happens outside the US is irrelevant.
From that, a huge majority supports some new restrictions on gun ownership (background checks, no guns for felons or the mentally ill, require gun registration) but almost nobody supports "no guns, period".
(source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/n...).
However, I'm only willing to take those as anecdotal evidence for promoting less gun control: they are all written by people and groups who are heavily invested against gun control, i.e. a very high risk of motivated thinking, research and writing.
(Sure, one might point at all the references and evidence they provide, but what are they not saying? What about a discussion of the countries around the world with gun control that has (as far as I can see) no racist or genocidal purpose (e.g. most of modern Europe, Australia, New Zealand)?)
Do they get to plead insanity in court? Should they be sent to mental hospitals or prisons?
I'm not being facetious, I'm asking seriously, what definition of sanity are we running on here?
I don't care if they are placed in prisons or mental hospitals, so long as they are not set free. People who are interested in revenge will likely prefer they be sent to prisons, and those interested in helping the individual will likely prefer they be sent to mental hospitals. I don't care, so long as there is a lock on the door.
The US would still be under British rule if it weren't for the support of the French government during the American Revolution. It was not the muskets of American farmers which won that war (though they helped); it was a fleet of French ships, 6,000 French soldiers, a steady supply of French gunpowder and muskets, and approximately $13B (in today's dollars) of direct aid from the French--more if you count French defense spending.
Serial killers in general are perfectly aware of what they are doing, they just don't care about the judgement imposed by society on such actions and at the same time the personal payoff is too great to ignore.
What we should be concerned with is how we as a society handle mental health as a medical condition, not as a legal defense. I am talking about early detection, treatment, and if necessary preemptive detainment, not about how we handle the people we who have already gone Rambo.
This is literally the most callous justification for nuking someone I have ever seen.
"It's not that bad guys. It's habitable now, 70 years later! If you didn't know better you would swear 80,000 didn't get instantly incinerated in nuclear fire, with over 125,000 more who died in slow agony over a few weeks of burns and radiation poisoning!"
I know Stalin said that a million deaths is just a statistic - but you weren't supposed to take Stalin to heart. Just sayin'.
From what I've heard, it doesn't seem like the shooter in this instance had things planned.
I don't know though, lots of questions.
