Yet another mass shooting...

[Stacia]

Except the people doing exactly that in this thread.

 

I think when people have mentioned it, they say they know it's a complete dream/their ideal world & know that it would never happen. That they know it's not reality. Kind of like saying, "I think it would be cool to see a unicorn but I know that won't happen in reality." I think it has been repeatedly & clearly stated that those who wish for no guns know that is not a realistic solution.

 

Personally, I would love it if all guns went away. But, I'm American, I live in the US, & I'm also not completely stupid. I know the gun lobby has a stranglehold on our lawmakers & that gun-owners will never, ever, never, ever give up their guns. I know that. (Just look at the knee-jerk reactions that occur any time anyone mentions anything having to do with guns. There's an automatic defense of gun ownership, a shut-down of real conversation. Every.single.time.) So while I dream of a gun-free world, I also know that will never happen.

 

How about this? Most people have only two arms so maybe we should limit gun ownership to two guns per person. How about banning assault weapons? I'm not even sure of the purpose of having one other than to kill many people quickly. I don't think hunters use assault weapons for duck or deer hunting & I think assault weapons are pretty much just for people hunting. Or maybe at least severely limit who can own an assault-style weapon & strictly enforce it. How about closing up loopholes that allow gun sales w/out background checks? How about making it illegal for people on the 'no-fly' list to get guns? (From 2004 to 2014, over 2,000 terror suspects legally purchased guns in the United States.) Etc...? There are plenty of compromises out there, but the NRA (which is well-funded & highly influential) has opposed every single compromise out there. So, gun owners & gun lovers, please stand up & help speak for some reasonable compromise. Please.

[mom2scouts]

Now, they are saying that it could be terrorism or a mixed case of terrorism+work dispute (the man traveled to Saudi Arabia recently and his wife is from there). And there is speculation that there is a "gang" or group of them working together (that these are not "lone" terrorist acts). There was also a CBS news article according to my local TV station that there were several middle eastern men seen going into the house of the gunman in the past week. 

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/02/authorities-search-redlands-home-tied-to-suspect-syed-farook/

 

If my neighbor was middle eastern, I would expect that he might have friends or relatives that were middle eastern men, so this is kind of a silly thing to report.

[mathnerd]

If my neighbor was middle eastern, I would expect that he might have friends or relatives that were middle eastern men, so this is kind of a silly thing to report.

I agree with you on that.

[mamiof5]

I agree with the sentiment that there is much disrespect for life. But you mentioned "mother's wombs" and lumped abortion in with this anti-life stance. I actually have great respect for the "pro-lifers" who are consistent from conception to the end of life (though I find most of them are not), but I don't get what would be the assumed policy corollary disconnect for you. So banning or placing extreme limits on people's access to abortions would make sense (the vast majority of people I know who mention "babies in mother's wombs" are in favor of such laws - correct me if you're not) but you can't see "how we could blame guns either because it's not the gun killing someone..." Not sure if getting rid of guns would stop this madness, but wouldn't you concede that much tighter controls would?

 

Except they're not.

 

 

Me, too! How is that possible at anywhere near the level of a gun? And even if it's possible for YOU, very few people could kill 14 people in a few minutes. I've never held a gun, but I could walk up to a building tomorrow and do damage. Not so with a knife -- I'd get to one person, and be pretty immediately taken down by the rest. That's the difference between guns and knives -- I don't have to be nearly as precise to do damage -- I'd just have to let the bullets fly, and I wouldn't have to be close to anyone. Rather a whole building of people up against a knife rather than a gun.

 

 

 

Exactly this. This is similar to people's overestimation of their ability to swim to safety/stay afloat in the case of a ship sinking. Most people don't have the level of skill to save their lives in that situation. Most would just drown. People more often than not overestimate their ability to react to EXTREME situations based on pretty controlled scenarios. It's not happening. Please keep your conceal carry weapon at home.

 

The last thing I want to say on conceal/carry is that it's not even evenly applied to all groups. There is a lawsuit in Illinois because black men's permits were being held up - including several who were former military. Not that I would recommend to any person of color not in uniform that they actually conceal and carry...

Totally agree. Yes, I definitely think abortion should be banned, or at least not be such an easy option. And you are right, maybe controlling guns could help somewhat? But maybe not? Where there's a will there's a way. If it's not a gun it can be a knife, a bomb, any other weapon (you get the idea). However, there are more limited ways to hurt a baby in the womb, you control abortion regulations and the abortion industry will slow down tremendously. Also, by having abortion legal we are absolutely giving the OK to do it, we are saying "it is totally OK to kill this human life whenever you feel like it". I am not a pro in gun regulations, but by owning one or selling one I am not making it legal to kill someone. My dh owns guns, he loves target shooting (cans, milk cartons)...I am perfectly OK with that. Will buying a gun or a riffle give him the legal right to murder someone? I guarantee you it doesn't. Every time a baby is murdered in a mother's womb nothing is done, it's LEGAL to do it. How is it legal to kill a baby? So...answering your question, I don't think we can compare regulating guns with abolishing abortions.

[umsami]

Now, they are saying that it could be terrorism or a mixed case of terrorism+work dispute (the man traveled to Saudi Arabia recently and his wife is from there). And there is speculation that there is a "gang" or group of them working together (that these are not "lone" terrorist acts). There was also a CBS news article according to my local TV station that there were several middle eastern men seen going into the house of the gunman in the past week. 

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/12/02/authorities-search-redlands-home-tied-to-suspect-syed-farook/

 

Going to Saudi Arabia does not make one a terrorist.  It's actually the duty of every Muslim who can afford to to make pilgrimage there.  So, going to Saudi Arabia, does not necessarily mean terrorist...and at least in recent history, it's not where people tend to go to get radicalized.  A lot of it actually happens online...with Twitter being a popular spot.

 

As for several middle eastern men going into his house, if he's Muslim, that's not at all unusual.   If he was planning something, it's highly unlikely that people involved would congregate at his house for meeting right before.  That would be stupid.  They'd meet elsewhere or text or whatever.  

 

Could this guy and his wife still be terrorists? Sure...but those things honestly don't mean much.  

 

So, I wonder where the Planned Parenthood terrorist was radicalized?  Did he have white friends coming over to his house?  Oh wait, not Muslim, sorry...what was I thinking...must just be mentally disturbed white man.

Edited December 3, 2015 by umsami

[8circles]

Really?! You would die so evil could prevail? Huh?

 

Nope.  It's a good soundbite but, no.

 

Evil prevails when I carry a gun, just in case.

 

Evil prevails when I carry a gun into church.

 

Evil prevails when I say I "need" one, just in case - even though I live in a town with police response times of minutes.

 

Evil prevails when I buy into the idea that more guns is the solution.

 

Evil prevails when I, as a civilian, say guns are the answer to any problem.

 

Evil prevails when I accept that guns = patriotism.

 

Evil prevails when I say that I'd be irresponsible to not have a gun.

 

Evil prevails when I can't see the connection between current gun culture & my gun & can't recognize my contribution towards it.

 

If I were, God forbid, shot & killed, then sure - evil prevailed in that moment.  But I won't let evil prevail in my life, even if it might in my death.  Fortunately, I don't live in a place where that is at all likely, even if possible.  I'm guessing most other people posting also don't, if they're honest.

[ikslo]

If my neighbor was middle eastern, I would expect that he might have friends or relatives that were middle eastern men, so this is kind of a silly thing to report.

 

Not if it was abnormal.  It's relevant to the story.  (However, I wouldn't expect someone to call the cops just because their neighbor had extra guests one week.)  It's being reported because there is apparently evidence that this was planned, not a spur of the moment thing.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Totally agree. Yes, I definitely think abortion should be banned, or at least not be such an easy option. And you are right, maybe controlling guns could help somewhat? But maybe not? Where there's a will there's a way. If it's not a gun it can be a knife, a bomb, any other weapon (you get the idea). However, there are more limited ways to hurt a baby in the womb, you control abortion regulations and the abortion industry will slow down tremendously. Also, by having abortion legal we are absolutely giving the OK to do it, we are saying "it is totally OK to kill this human life whenever you feel like it". I am not a pro in gun regulations, but by owning one or selling one I am not making it legal to kill someone. My dh owns guns, he loves target shooting (cans, milk cartons)...I am perfectly OK with that. Will buying a gun or a riffle give him the legal right to murder someone? I guarantee you it doesn't. Every time a baby is murdered in a mother's womb nothing is done, it's LEGAL to do it. How is it legal to kill a baby? So...answering your question, I don't think we can compare regulating guns with abolishing abortions.

 

Wow.

[Stacia]

Only a small percentage of gun owners are members or supporters of the NRA, but many anti-gun people seem to think gun owner equals NRA. I have a friend who is an open carry advocate. He's had people come up and, when they see his gun, yell at him that they "hate the NRA!". He tells them he doesn't care because he's never been a member and doesn't plan to be.

 

That may be. But buying certain guns & gun-related products gives money to the companies that do fund the NRA.

 

How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA 

 

So, if a person is a patron/buyer of products from Springfield Armory, Beretta, Smith & Wesson, Cabela's, etc..., they are helping to support & fund the NRA.

[mathnerd]

Going to Saudi Arabia does not make one a terrorist.  It's actually the duty of every Muslim who can afford to to make pilgrimage there.  So, going to Saudi Arabia, does not necessarily mean terrorist...and at least in recent history, it's not where people tend to go to get radicalized.  A lot of it actually happens online...with Twitter being a popular spot.

 

As for several middle eastern men going into his house, if he's Muslim, that's not at all unusual.   If he was planning something, it's highly unlikely that people involved would congregate at his house for meeting right before.  That would be stupid.  They'd meet elsewhere or text or whatever.  

 

Could this guy and his wife still be terrorists? Sure...but those things honestly don't mean much.  

I agree with most of what you said - what I did not post is that there is a lot of speculation that they were "indoctrinated" by terrorists while in Saudi Arabia - the FBI has taken over the investigation  and there is broad speculation about it now even in the local news stations here in California and nobody can say for sure because as you say, those things honestly don't mean much unless they dig out connections to terrorist groups or interview all the people the couple were in contact with on a regular basis.

[umsami]

I'll also add that  both of them were South Asian, not Middle Eastern. (His wife was from Pakistan, but had lived in Saudi.)  There is a difference.  Skeptical me says that it is neighbors trying to offer up "useful" information, which is probably not accurate.  Muslim is not necessarily Middle Eastern or Arab.   Actually, more Muslims are Asian than Arab/Middle Eastern.

 

You can't tell a Muslim by looking at him or her.  Really.... unless the woman makes it easy for you by wearing hijab, but know that other religions cover their heads...so you really need to know our head covers.  For white Muslims who choose not to cover, you can't tell.  You cannot distinguish between a Hindu, Christian, or Muslim South Asian person just be looking at their skin, hair, eyes, etc.  You cannot tell a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim Iraqi by just looking at them.  There are Muslim Chinese.  Etc.  

Edited December 3, 2015 by umsami

[mathnerd]

I'll also add that  both of them were South Asian, not Middle Eastern. (His wife was from Pakistan, but had lived in Saudi.)  There is a difference.  

Yes, the killers were both of Pakistani origin.

[Guest]

http://cnn.it/1lad5WH

[Carol in Cal.]

Ya know, some of the stuff that is being argued about here is already in the law.

 

For instance, semi-automatic (assault) weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are illegal to sell here in CA.

 

Even just possession of automatic firearms and short barreled shotguns and rifles is prohibited.

 

We have gun control here.  Already. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree with most of what you said - what I did not post is that there is a lot of speculation that they were "indoctrinated" by terrorists while in Saudi Arabia - the FBI has taken over the investigation  and there is broad speculation about it now even in the local news stations here in California and nobody can say for sure because as you say, those things honestly don't mean much unless they dig out connections to terrorist groups or interview all the people the couple were in contact with on a regular basis.

 

CNN is reporting that officials have confirmed that the husband did have contacts and associations with at least one person on terrorism watch lists.

[justasque]

Totally agree. Yes, I definitely think abortion should be banned, or at least not be such an easy option. And you are right, maybe controlling guns could help somewhat? But maybe not? Where there's a will there's a way. If it's not a gun it can be a knife, a bomb, any other weapon (you get the idea). However, there are more limited ways to hurt a baby in the womb, you control abortion regulations and the abortion industry will slow down tremendously. Also, by having abortion legal we are absolutely giving the OK to do it, we are saying "it is totally OK to kill this human life whenever you feel like it". I am not a pro in gun regulations, but by owning one or selling one I am not making it legal to kill someone. My dh owns guns, he loves target shooting (cans, milk cartons)...I am perfectly OK with that. Will buying a gun or a riffle give him the legal right to murder someone? I guarantee you it doesn't. Every time a baby is murdered in a mother's womb nothing is done, it's LEGAL to do it. How is it legal to kill a baby? So...answering your question, I don't think we can compare regulating guns with abolishing abortions.

 

Please, please, please remember that when you speak of abortion in a public venue, you are being heard by women who have walked this path for many reasons.   I've listened to enough women's stories to know that it is not always a matter of a mother believing "it is totally OK to kill this human life whenever you feel like it".  We can only keep the number of abortions at a minimum if we have a deep understanding of the many reasons why women make this choice.  Please try to choose wise and thoughtful words when you speak to those women; and know that you are speaking to them whenever you write here.

Edited December 3, 2015 by justasque

[mathnerd]

CNN is reporting that officials have confirmed that the husband did have contacts and associations with at least one person on terrorism watch lists.

There is more that I read online, but, I did not post those things because it comes under "speculation" - but, they are trying to track down the middle eastern men seen at the apartment a few days ago. There was reportedly an IED factory in their garage and their rented house and the people living there (grandma and a sister) and the visitors should have known a lot about what was going on. They are also trying to find the person who purchased the 2 assault rifles and provided them to the 2 killers (they know who purchased it, according to my local TV station). The killers were of Pakistani origin but it is thought that they have connections to "Middle Eastern" terrorist groups (and traveled to those areas as well as pakistan and possibly radicalized there).

 

ETA: some details that quote FBI sources and not merely "speculation" are here : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?_r=0

Edited December 3, 2015 by mathnerd

[Corraleno]

I'll also add that  both of them were South Asian, not Middle Eastern. (His wife was from Pakistan, but had lived in Saudi.)  There is a difference.  Skeptical me says that it is neighbors trying to offer up "useful" information, which is probably not accurate.  Muslim is not necessarily Middle Eastern or Arab.   Actually, more Muslims are Asian than Arab/Middle Eastern.

 

You can't tell a Muslim by looking at him or her.  Really.... unless the woman makes it easy for you by wearing hijab, but know that other religions cover their heads...so you really need to know our head covers.  For white Muslims who choose not to cover, you can't tell.  You cannot distinguish between a Hindu, Christian, or Muslim South Asian person just be looking at their skin, hair, eyes, etc.  You cannot tell a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim Iraqi by just looking at them.  There are Muslim Chinese.  Etc.  

 

And according to this report, it wasn't even a neighbor, it was someone who happened to be working in the area and wondered what "Middle Eastern" people were doing in that neighborhood — as if it hadn't occurred to him that they might live there. 

 

 

 

A man who has been working in the area said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.

“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?'†he said.  â€œWe’d see them leave where they’re raiding the apartment.â€

[Amira]

If this does turn out to have connections to "Middle Eastern" terrorism, I will think it terribly ironic that this couple chose a common method in the US to perpetrate violence. To me, it would highlight how thoroughly we have tried to ignore the problem of gun violence in the US if even terrorists are copying our daily mass shootings.

 

Or maybe this will finally spur us into action.  We didn't do anything after Sandy Hook; maybe the rampant fear of Islam in the US will get us to do something about gun control.  Right action, wrong reason.

[Guest]

If this does turn out to have connections to "Middle Eastern" terrorism, I will think it terribly ironic that this couple chose a common method in the US to perpetrate violence. To me, it would highlight how thoroughly we have tried to ignore the problem of gun violence in the US if even terrorists are copying our daily mass shootings.

 

Or maybe this will finally spur us into action. We didn't do anything after Sandy Hook; maybe the rampant fear of Islam in the US will get us to do something about gun control. Right action, wrong reason.

So no matter what the cause or laws broken, you have laser-like focus on gun control and will not be dissuaded.

 

Awesome!

[mathnerd]

 

Or maybe this will finally spur us into action.  We didn't do anything after Sandy Hook; maybe the rampant fear of Islam in the US will get us to do something about gun control.  Right action, wrong reason.

Cynical me says that we will see no changes anytime soon. I sure do wish that something would "spur" us into action - but, highly unlikely.

[Amira]

So no matter what the cause or laws broken, you have laser-like focus on gun control and will not be dissuaded.

 

Awesome!

 

Oh no, I'm plenty concerned about Muslims feeling the backlash of this more than anyone.  I can talk about that for a long time if anyone wants to.

[ikuradesuka]

If this does have ties to terrorism, I will think it terribly ironic that we wasted a whole day arguing about gun rights when we could have been discussing terrorism.  Because surely we can all agree that preventing access to guns isn't going to prevent a terrorist attack?  Either one of those shooters yesterday could have been wearing a suicide vest, and killed everyone in the room faster than anyone could blink.  Gun or no gun isn't really the issue.  

[Guest]

If this does have ties to terrorism, I will think it terribly ironic that we wasted a whole day arguing about gun rights when we could have been discussing terrorism. Because surely we can all agree that preventing access to guns isn't going to prevent a terrorist attack? Either one of those shooters yesterday could have been wearing a suicide vest, and killed everyone in the room faster than anyone could blink. Gun or no gun isn't really the issue.

That's exactly my point. And even in a 'run of the mill' shooter with a grudge situation, removing the tool doesn't deal with the heart of the issue with is the malevolence and evil intent of one man against another. The issue is *people*, not guns.

 

This is like those who insist on targeting soap bottles and knitting needles for air travel instead of profiling. As long as the focus is items there will be an ever growing list of restrictions every time yet another avenue is missed. And the criminals aren't the ones being curtailed, it's just you and me.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So no matter what the cause or laws broken, you have laser-like focus on gun control and will not be dissuaded.

 

Awesome!

 

A gun homicide rate of 8-10x that of the rest of the western world lends itself to that focus.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If this does have ties to terrorism, I will think it terribly ironic that we wasted a whole day arguing about gun rights when we could have been discussing terrorism.  Because surely we can all agree that preventing access to guns isn't going to prevent a terrorist attack?  Either one of those shooters yesterday could have been wearing a suicide vest, and killed everyone in the room faster than anyone could blink.  Gun or no gun isn't really the issue.  

 

Well **** it.  If you can't stop everything then you shouldn't stop anything.

Got it.

[Guest]

A gun homicide rate of 8-10x that of the rest of the western world lends itself to that focus.

No, it doesn't. People are dead here, and not because of guns. They're dead because people decided to kill them. And we are bitching about the inanimate object instead of the operator.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's exactly my point. And even in a 'run of the mill' shooter with a grudge situation, removing the tool doesn't deal with the heart of the issue with is the malevolence and evil intent of one man against another. The issue is *people*, not guns.

 

This is like those who insist on targeting soap bottles and knitting needles for air travel instead of profiling. As long as the focus is items there will be an ever growing list of restrictions every time yet another avenue is missed. And the criminals aren't the ones being curtailed, it's just you and me.

 

Yet somehow other countries have managed to keep their gun homicide rates so much lower.  I guess their criminals are just different or something.  Yeah, has to be that.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, it doesn't. People are dead here, and not because of guns. They're dead because people decided to kill them. And we are bitching about the inanimate object instead of the operator.

 

Yet there are fewer dead people in so many other countries.  Why?

[8circles]

No, it doesn't. People are dead here, and not because of guns. They're dead because people decided to kill them. And we are bitching about the inanimate object instead of the operator.

 

No, some of us are talking about gun culture which affects mass shootings like this, terrorism in the whole world, and also non-mass shootings.  Feel free to join in that conversation.

[Guest]

Yet somehow other countries have managed to keep their gun homicide rates so much lower. I guess their criminals are just different or something. Yeah, has to be that.

You want to talk about murders and violence in DRC, India, or even China? We can do that. Just because firearms or only occasionally used doesn't mean people aren't dying.

[Amira]

If this does have ties to terrorism, I will think it terribly ironic that we wasted a whole day arguing about gun rights when we could have been discussing terrorism.  Because surely we can all agree that preventing access to guns isn't going to prevent a terrorist attack?  Either one of those shooters yesterday could have been wearing a suicide vest, and killed everyone in the room faster than anyone could blink.  Gun or no gun isn't really the issue.  

 

I don't think the past discussion about gun control has been a waste of time and I'm perfectly ready to tackle a discussion about terrorism. 

 

I also don't think that gun control can prevent all terrorist attacks, but if people (any people, no matter their motivation) are using guns to kill innocent people, then I think a conversation about guns is reasonable even if there were another way they could have committed this crime.  I don't agree with the argument that there's no reason to even try gun control because there are other ways for people to do awful things that don't involve guns.  

 

I do not understand why we have to throw up our hands and just give up when it comes to guns.

[Guest]

No, some of us are talking about gun culture which affects mass shootings like this, terrorism in the whole world, and also non-mass shootings. Feel free to join in that conversation.

No. I reject the premise unless you are talking about working on the hearts and minds of men to increase the value they give to the lives of others and the restraining of evil in their hearts through fear of the penalties of violating the freedom and agency of another.

 

If we want to talk much, much harsher penalties for any level of violent crime and changing the entire landscape of our culture with regard to life then we may agree. But focusing on the implement and not the impulse misses the point entirely.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You want to talk about murders and violence in DRC, India, or even China? We can do that. Just because firearms or only occasionally used doesn't mean people aren't dying.

 

Let's. Intentional homicide rates:

China: 1.1 per 100,000 in 2010

United States: 3.8

India: 3.5

 

We can't even be better than India.

 

If by the DRC you mean the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I am not sure why you think bringing them into the discussion is relevant.

[Minerva]

No, it doesn't. People are dead here, and not because of guns. They're dead because people decided to kill them. And we are bitching about the inanimate object instead of the operator.

 

I really don't understand this argument. Of course there is someone out there who can murder with a garlic press, but still guns are doing the killing. Guns make killing easy (especially assault weapons). They kill fast and create both an emotional and physical space between the attacker and the victim. This is why the US has such high rates of murder as opposed to every other country in the world. 

 

There are angry people everywhere but without an abundance of guns the amount of killing is much much less. 

 

 

[TCB]

Guns aren't the only thing that kills people. Taking away all the guns won't help.

 

I'm sorry but this seems like such a lame argument. Guns and bombs kill way more people much faster than any other method perpetrated by people. I've heard the one about Cain killing Able with a rock too. I can only say that I'd much rather be up against someone with a rock than a gun any day.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No. I reject the premise unless you are talking about working on the hearts and minds of men to increase the value they give to the lives of others and the restraining of evil in their hearts through fear of the penalties of violating the freedom and agency of another.

 

If we want to talk much, much harsher penalties for any level of violent crime and changing the entire landscape of our culture with regard to life then we may agree. But focusing on the implement and not the impulse misses the point entirely.

 

Why are the folks in Europe less evil than we are?

[Guest]

Why are the folks in Europe less evil than we are?

.

 

Good question, wrong angle. But violence is increasing across more than a handful of nations in Europe in the last decade. The why is important - homogeneity and group identity are big factors. There's more but I can't get into the depths of it right now, we have swimming to get to.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[Tanaqui]

I'm not looking up the stats, but I could venture to guess that the total populations of all of those nations put together would probably not equal that of the U.S. More people, more conflict.

 

Ah, no. Those stats use the per capita rates. Additionally, the entire EU has more people in less space than the US - and you'll notice that all the EU nations are well down on the list for gun violence.

 

Also, the U.S. has many different kinds of people vs some of those listed, and that leads to even more conflict.

 

Then you'd have to explain away why we're not at the very top of the list. Most gun violence, at any rate, is perpetrated by people known to the victim - family members and neighbors and romantic partners.

 

Most shootings happen in gun free zones.

 

Do you have a citation to back this up?

 

I think one obvious difference that is rarely talked about is that many of the countries "without a gun problem" are islands or island-like (Scandinavia...and you left out Australia, another island).

 

Jamaica was, I believe, top on the list for gun violence. That's an island. And the Philippines are only a little better than we are, and they're an island nation as well.

 

Meanwhile, as the current refugee crisis shows, nations like Italy, Germany, Greece hardly have the most firm borders in the world (and the EU as a whole certainly isn't "an island") and yet - look, Ma, no shootings. Or very few, anyway.

 

Additionally, if your assertion were correct, we would expect to see similar results when we sort US states by firearm deaths. We certainly wouldn't expect to see Alaska as the number one state for firearm deaths. After all, they're far away from Mexico, both in terms of miles and the fact that they've got the entire nation of Canada in between them and the rest of the US. Okay, maybe Alaska is an outlier. The next three states are all close to the border with Mexico... and then we bump into Montana and Wyoming. Those states aren't close to the border, they're not heavily populated - and just to deal with the "but diversity!" argument, they're 90 and 86% white, respectively, so not exactly bastions of racial mixing.

 

So, no, after a cursory review of the evidence, I don't think that argument holds up.

 

The place he wanted to kill people had too many cops, so he chose other areas.

 

Too many cops != "gun free zone".

 

No, it doesn't. People are dead here, and not because of guns. They're dead because people decided to kill them. And we are bitching about the inanimate object instead of the operator.

 

They're dead because it was EASY to kill them. It was EASY to kill them because the shooter had access to a destructive weapon.

 

All you people talking about how you could kill dozens in minutes with a knife (lol), do you know what? Nobody is arguing that you should have the right to concealed carry of a switchblade. There aren't huge lobbies protecting the rights of people who have been arrested for possessing so-called "gravity knives". But you're going to argue that you need a gun? Why, because you might get shot poking your nose out the door?

 

Do you know, the ancient Athenians used to say that theirs was the first civilized place on earth, because in Athens, you walked around the streets unarmed. Some of you seem to think that the USA isn't very civilized, and can't be made that way either. That's disturbing.

[mamajag]

The problem is that the criminals already don't obey the laws. You know, like the you-shouldn't-kill-people law? So what good would more laws do? The only way to stop the madness is to get rid of the guns. ALL the guns. Then you wouldn't have to have a gun to protect your family from a guy with a gun because he wouldn't have a gun either!

What is magical about your no guns law that criminals would obey that law?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

.

 

Good question, wrong angle. But violence is increasing across more than a handful of nations in Europe in the last decade. The why is important - homogeneity and group identity are big factors. There's more but I can't get into the depths of it right now, we have swimming to get to.

 

Wait...whut?

[mamajag]

Yet there are fewer dead people in so many other countries. Why?

Because we are a society producing profoundly sick individuals while providing next to no care management for the mentally ill. Blaming guns is to ignore the root of the problem. There is no innate value to a human life any more.

[HRAAB]

Why are the folks in Europe less evil than we are?

 

I'm with Arctic Mama in that I want to understand what is in the hearts and minds of people who kill.  And then why are there fewer people with these evil intentions in their hearts in Europe.  I believe people are people, but people can be hugely influenced by the culture they live in.  What is the difference between American and European culture?  In this particular discussion, one thing that jumps out is America's long history of gun ownership.  How much has our gun culture impacted our tendency to violence?

 

I'm not saying I believe that, but I am really curious why we have so many more 'violent hearts' in America.  If hearts are just as violent in Europe, why aren't there more killings?  With knives, bombs, whatever.  There must be a lot of frustrated wannabe killers in Europe.

 

That's what I always end up focusing on after shootings.  What makes a person want to kill random people.  I'm just sort of mumbling to myself here.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Because we are a society producing profoundly sick individuals while providing next to no care management for the mentally ill. Blaming guns is to ignore the root of the problem. There is no innate value to a human life any more.

 

Weird that isn't happening in Canada or Europe.  What is your evidence that our gun homicide rate that is so much higher than theirs is only due to "sick" individuals?

[Stacia]

Gun or no gun isn't really the issue.  

 

And we are bitching about the inanimate object instead of the operator.

 

What about the young children that kill themselves or others with guns? (Accidental shootings.)

 

Guns *are* a part of the issue. I bet they're a big part of the issue for families grieving losses in school shootings, victims in domestic violence situations, accidental shootings, road rage incidents, suicides, racial or religious violence, hunting accidents, etc....

 

No, I'm not saying get rid of all guns because some accidents occur. (I know that argument will be brought up & then people will say we have to ban cars, yada, yada.) More serious regulation, limits on the amounts & types of weapons & ammo, better/mandatory training, etc... might, just might, help. Those of us who wish for things like that are already having to live in a compromised world (i.e., the laws & regulations do not favor our ideals in any way, shape, or form). We are willing to compromise, but the gun lovers need to be willing to come to the table too. It hasn't happened. Shootings just further drive rhetoric & increase gun sales. To me, that doesn't seem to indicate any sort of willingness to compromise.

 

Obviously the system as it currently stands has some flaws in it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm with Arctic Mama in that I want to understand what is in the hearts and minds of people who kill.  And then why are there fewer people with these evil intentions in their hearts in Europe.  I believe people are people, but people can be hugely influenced by the culture they live in.  What is the difference between American and European culture?  In this particular discussion, one thing that jumps out is America's long history of gun ownership.  How much has our gun culture impacted our tendency to violence?

 

I'm not saying I believe that, but I am really curious why we have so many more 'violent hearts' in America.  If hearts are just as violent in Europe, why aren't there more killings?  With knives, bombs, whatever.  There must be a lot of frustrated wannabe killers in Europe.

 

That's what I always end up focusing on after shootings.  What makes a person want to kill random people.  I'm just sort of mumbling to myself here.

 

I think it really does come down to guns.

 

Stabbing someone is a difficult, demanding, and very personal attack.  While it may done in a rage, you rarely see someone just go on a stabbing spree.

 

A gun is much more impersonal and efficient, and in some ways can divorce someone from the act itself.

[umsami]

There was another mass shooting yesterday in Savannah.  As far as I know , Muslims weren't involved, so it can't be terrorism.

We lose kids every single day to gun accidents.  We lose four women each day to domestic violence homicide, usually by gun.  Kids are more likely to die being shot than in a car accident.  

 

We lose men every single day to suicide.  A gun is 11x more likely to be used in a suicide than in self-defense, BTW.

 

It is far more difficult to kill somebody without a gun.  It's far more difficult to kill numerous people at a time without a gun.  Yes, there are other means, but if we took that away, we'd have far less deaths.   Other countries have demonstrated this, but for some reason, we're too stupid to realize that.

 

But as others said, if the killing of twenty first graders didn't change anything in this country, it's unlikely anything will.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Because we are a society producing profoundly sick individuals while providing next to no care management for the mentally ill. Blaming guns is to ignore the root of the problem. There is no innate value to a human life any more.

 

So, just to be clear, you are stating that mass shooters are predominately mentally ill?

 

[8circles]

No. I reject the premise unless you are talking about working on the hearts and minds of men to increase the value they give to the lives of others and the restraining of evil in their hearts through fear of the penalties of violating the freedom and agency of another.

Which premise do you reject? That the current gun culture contributes to gun violence? I'd love to hear your explanation.

 

I think that choosing to see other solutions to problems (including fear of crime) besides guns *IS* helping to change hearts and minds. I'd love to change more hearts and minds to not reach for guns.

 

Do you think the current gun culture does anything to change hearts and minds for *good*? I think it does the opposite.

[Katy]

<snip>

 

 

Too many cops != "gun free zone".

 

 

<snip>

 

That's right, he purposely chose areas where there would not be police or many guns so he could kill more people.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting-document.html?_r=0