Gun violence in America

Newtown’s horror


See article

Readers' comments


but seriously though

I saw a notice that the NRA will hold a news conference this Friday. And I just heard Obama speak about assigning a group of people, led by Joe Biden and including Cabinet members, to meet and come up with workable options in regard to gun control. They have until January when a report will be expected.

Will it be the same tired, lame old, kneejerk crapola from the NRA, or new ideas and a real search for solutions?
I wait with bated breath - although not much hope. But I hope I'm wrong. Then again I'm gullible. I actually thought Katherine Harris would do the right thing.

I hope too that you're wrong. I think one positive is that there is so much pressure after Sandy Hook that if they pull the same old thing they might have to deal with an unexpected backlash brought on by themselves. In any event, something is happening - there is a response. We'll see.


The outcome of the gun debate is predictable and predictably ineffective. The short answer is that Americans are prepared to live with higher gun deaths so that they can have guns, just as Americans and many fine liberal Europeans and Canadians are prepared to live with highway deaths in exchange for higher speed limits. Fast cars and drunk drivers kill more people than guns, but we're not going to lower speed limits to 30 mph (50 kph) and ban alcohol, are we? Enough Americans believe that guns are a fun hobby and/or a bulwark against tyranny that we aren't going to do anything like what TE suggests.

The mental health debate will be an interesting one. In the wake of books like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" we closed a lot of mental health facilities. People seem to selectively recall that this was because they were expensive. More so it was because the mentally ill didn't want to be in these padded prisons, and most of them do no harm on the outside. We have yet to find a solution that prevents widespread homelessness, and I hope that this will spur greater efforts and budgets to find better residential solutions to the mentally ill and homelessness, but we're not about to lock up all the crazy people again. It didn't work the first time, and it won't work now. Adam Lanza, although troubled, would never have been institutionalized, and would likely never have been put on a list to prevent gun purchases either. You can't punish every person with mental illness because one of them shoots up a classroom. Any grouping that included Lanza would be a large and vocal minority of the population.

The most interesting question that we should be asking ourselves is how should we be directing the energy and ambition of young men in the 21st century, so that the less successful among them don't decide to lash out at society by killing schoolchildren (with a gun or a knife), raping women, joining gangs, or spending their days getting drunk or high? In generations past we have sent our young men off to fight wars, told them that they should be the primary breadwinner for a wife and family, or otherwise given them an attainable goal. When attained that goal yielded them respect and/or a family to care for, and in general a sense of purpose and satisfaction. As we transition into our globalized information economy, the least successful of our young men have no useful role in our society, and their numbers are swelling. Whether or not we take measures to control gun ownership and better treat the mentally ill, we will continue to have frustrated young men looking for trouble. If we don't find something for them to do, a charismatic populist will eventually channel their energies for political ends, and we won't like the outcome.

Medicine4theDead in reply to Ohio

Except that cars and alcohol aren't guns. I can't remember the last time someone walked into a public place and drank everyone to death. Yes, people hit each other with cars, but that is not the intent. You are ignoring the intent of the act. Guns have malicious behavior attached to them.

cybervigilante in reply to Ohio

I don't think there are that many dangerous homeless people. They can't afford guns. These are crimes of affluence committed by wealthy white kids who can apparently afford thousands of dollars worth of arms. Heck, I'm scrimping to get five hundred bucks together for a new computer - must be nice.

la.výritý in reply to Ohio

Now, all of a sudden "homeless people", the "less successful" and other social underdogs are committing the mass shooting - not the well off brood from Republican homes; spoiled brats who get every toy they want, including a semiautomatic M 16 rifle for Christmas and 1000 rounds in extended magazines for Easter, so that they can learn to kill faster than the equally spoiled brat from the "regional political director of the NRA".

Adam Lanza was, from early childhood on, trained in the use of assault weapons by his mother, Nancy Lanza, a member of the Republican party, a notable participant of Newtown's conservative establishment and a proud owner of a remarkably expensive gun collection. Friends of the family described her as a 'zealous survivalist'. Nancy Lanza decided to home-school her son when the teachers suggested that Adam see an educational psychologist.

All this suggests that Nancy Lanza and her son were physically dependent on an addiction, not only shared by full-fledged NRA members, but by tens of millions of 'normal-appearing' Americans as well.

These two 'gun-addicted' people, mother and son, could only act as they did because her 'conservative' social environment 'thought nothing of it' . . . This is why tens of millions of similar gun-addicted ("mentally disturbed") Americans "although troubled, will never be institutionalized, and will likely never be put on a list to prevent gun purchases either" (Ohio) . . . because it has meanwhile become a 'national mental illness'.

BTW, what was said about Adam Lanza's social background applies similarly to the Aurora theater shooter, James Holmes.


Ohio: "so that the less successful among them don't decide to lash out" ?? - Don't you see your stereotypes don't apply here. The mass shooters aren't "the less successful" in our society; they come from conservative 'successful' middle class homes . . . in ALL recent cases.

Ohio: ". . . how should we be directing the energy and ambition of young men?"

- Surely not by promoting the early use of guns for a purpose other than hunting animals, and certainly not by training teenagers on semiautomatic assault weapons which only reason of subsistence is to kill people.

Ohio in reply to Medicine4theDead

People buy guns for sport and self defense. Only criminals and the military buy guns to kill people, and both generally would rather not. People don't drive or drink to kill people either, but lots of people end up dead. Guns can kill people; cars can kill people. It is a grave mistake to assume that all gun owners are killer wannabees.

Ohio in reply to la.výritý

Adam Lanza was an unsuccessful man in a successful family; his inability to function in school or find a job made him dependent on his mother, which made him hate himself and his mother. He would never grow up to be a success like his father. Other than the form of his violent outburst, he is typical of many unsuccessful young men of his generation.

His mother liked to buy guns, and liked to go to a range and shoot them. That does not make her insane, obsessive, or violent. That she did not recognize the instability of her son was clearly her fault -- she should have sought help much earlier. Instead she cloistered him in her house, smothered him with attention, and allowed his problems to fester. Blind to his increasing rage and madness, she took no sensible precautions to isolate him from her guns, which was criminally irresponsible.

Are people who own fancy cars addicted to cars? Are dog owners addicted to dogs? Are people who buy new Ipads every year addicted to Apple products? Guns are just another consumer product. Just like the owner of a speedy sports car, owning a gun puts the burden of responsibility on the gun owner to keep it secure and safe. But we don't ban sports cars because someone killed someone else with their dangerous driving machine. Owning a gun doesn't make someone a killer anymore than owning a sports car, but both must take responsibility for the use of their toys. Americans accept that their gun hobby results in more gun deaths. I don't think this case will change that.

la.výritý in reply to Ohio

Adam Lanza, thus, was - if at all - "a product of his mother" - certainly not "of society" - as you claimed. The very same is true for most other recent mass shooters. So, why blame an 'anonymous society' ... and not 'nature' or 'creation'?

Buffalo, NY, Police Commissioner stated the other day: "In my opinion, AK-47 rifles and other high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons exist for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to kill people."

This is the decisive difference, Ohio, which you don't seem to grasp: Fancy cars or IPads DO NOT "exist for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to kill people"!!

Kroneborge in reply to Medicine4theDead

Actually people use cars to run people down all the time, I've even seen it in crowded areas like a farmers market a couple of years back.

Guns (or cars) are inanimate objects, they can be used for good or bad as the user intends

Kroneborge in reply to la.výritý

Actually all guns pretty much exist to kill people, that's why they are a vital part of self defense both against criminals and against governments (which murdered over 170 MILLION of their own citizens last century).

And that's why guns are a constitutionally protected right because the right to self defense (ie own a gun) is not a right to be granted or not, but an inalienable right we have as people. Or one from our creator depending on your view point.

la.výritý in reply to Kroneborge

Don't be a coward and hide behind 'an (non-existing) inalienable right' handed supposedly down straight from the 'creator' to justify that a law, which doesn't discriminate, is co-responsible for the death of 20 kindergarten children . . . and many more innocent civilians in the course of the past decade.

Just stop being such a pathetic coward!

Kroneborge in reply to la.výritý

I doubt there's any point in having a conversation with someone that doesn't acknowledge the right to self defense.

What can you say to someone that believes that nobody should have tried to defend those kids. Me I wish there had been somebody armed there that could have stopped that tragedy. but of course there wasn't because the school was a "gun free" zone. How did that work out again?

la.výritý in reply to Kroneborge

I doubt that guns that spray 33 bullets in less than 10 seconds are needed for self defense. They are they problem, not the solution. IMO, it's a tragedy that America’s nutcases can freely obtain the ‘demilitarized’ version of the M-16, the super-fast .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, which is an extremely powerful, yet lightweight, small-caliber semi-automatic deadly 'killing machine'.




James Green in reply to Ohio

Ohio - so pivotal in the election - I hope your opinion does not sway your state. The article asks a simple question: are we better off with guns or without them. And there's plenty of proof that shows less guns = less dead people. And as we grow globally and in the US, the fringes of our society - whether mentally ill, impoverished, or persecuted are growing to grow in raw numbers if not in percentages. Do we really want these small minorities armed with military grade weaponry? As you say, "we won't like the outcome" if we continue down this path.


Any legal measures addressing the mass-shootings must include the experiences of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek and Newtown . . . where appropriate counter measures didn't exist within the time frame of the rampage. This is exactly the reason why these 'mad-gone' shooters use fast-charging semiautomatics with extended clips (and why this needs to be banned).

'Mad-gone' shooters are often instinctively intelligent; this is why they go after defenseless mall visitors, religious service attendants, moviegoers or – as the perversion’s extreme – after kindergarten children.

The shooting techniques they use are commonly known to shooters, not to the average American. These guys usually have enough ‘survivalist’ training to know exactly what places and ‘surprise situations’ to avoid and what places to 'visit'.

We could go on, post after post, about which weapons should definitely not enter into possession of emotionally or mentally derailed people and – hence – should generally not be available for private use. Personally I am fine with the definition of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban that was lifted in 2004. In my opinion, it shouldn’t have been lifted, but enhanced.

The ban should have included the 'open sale' of such weapons during so called "gun shows", where the guns that were used in the Columbine High School shooting were purchased, and the possession and sale of those 'defined weapons' should have been banned - period - independent of the date of their manufacturing.

And, of course, such ban, if renewed, needs to be amended from time to time anyway.


the NRA is talking about change? when? that statement is completely made up...

cybervigilante in reply to jenizaro

Well, they're having a press conference Friday. We're Hoping there is change. Or it could be the same old crap, and maybe they'll blame the kids for being there, or for inflaming the gunman by being small and defenseless, the same way a running rabbit will inflame a dog. Who knows? I've heard sillier reasoning already.


As in my local newspaper, this brings out people, at the very least, with the appearance of making excuses for the inexcusable murder of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children.

ZpVcxoBFfC in reply to grinnell

No all, but many vocal ones, are psychotic gun owners - many of which when you look at the nonsense they post and study are the same types that blame "liberals" for their own failures (to be a cop, to join the military, etc.). They fear everyone and everything they don't bother to understand counterpoints nor understand what negotiating means (i.e. come to the center with give to take). These same people think they can play army at the expense of society and truly believe their patriotic duty is to protect others from their own government, neighbors, and post apocalyptic zombies. But we don't blame the innocent weapons of war because its just irresponsible gun owners let them fall into the wrong hands by supporting no regulation on who can buy and take where they please. Enough is enough. The mental peopel have already been identified and many own the AR15. A minority of angry white men didnt take the last election - and they arent going to win this impending debate. But they are loud, idiotic, and well funded. Except, some of us 100m+ silly parents that witnessed these horrific acts actually want our freedom and a peace loving nation back. Its time to change - get with the program - its not the OK corral in the 1800's anymore.


Shame on you. I expect more from a serious business magazine.

If a manufacturer found four times as many defects in the output of one plant versus another and didn't drill down into that statistic before they jumped on a global solution you'd rightly call them out as idiots.

Yet while reporting on this horror in Newtown you don't tell us if there are any demographic, geographic, or behavioral clusters where this defect (this higher rate of gun homicides) occurs. Or publish the many cause and effect links and explain the significant weight of any one over another. Or ask why at least five ties to find root causes.

You suggest we leap to the conclusion that we need a change in the second amendment to get those horrible rates down. Maybe that's true but where's the analysis and the facts.

When H L Mencken said news reporting was "a device to make the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy, crazier," he wasn't issuing a dare.

nkBhnxDh2t in reply to lrh

Bravo. What we don't need is to take advice from an Administration whose first call on the Benghazi Embassy attack was to (guess what) attribute the incident to an anti-Muslim film. The linking theme is blame American society first.

Why should we give the Administration any more credence now? How about some serious investigation of the problem -- as lrh suggests? We might even get to other solutions -- like better defenses for school or closer supervision of the mentally unstable.

To exploit this episode for blatently political ends is an exercise in moral turpitude. To treat it as a problem that might be solved, or a condition that might be ameliorated (as lrh advocates) is good public policy and the right thing to do.


Why is this framed as "America's obsession with gun ownership"? Is there a valid reason other than to tilt supporters of gun rights as mentally defective? Would you EVER say that America had "an obsession with free speech"? An "obsession with search and seizure protections"? It's sad that we have to resort to demonizing the other side in order to have a debate on the subject.

The reality is that our actual mental health system is a shambles and we need to fix it. We probably need to provide a modernized institution system that provides people with a humane way to be removed from the general population -- humane in that they shouldn't need to go to jail or suffer through the old asylum system.

Discussions other than that are treating the symptoms, not the disease and, as such, the disease will continue to find other manifestations.

Duckdawdger in reply to Jackknife

Because whereas mental illness is a scourge everywhere in the world, it is only in America where the right to gun ownership places guns in the hands of mentally ill with predictable horrific results with much greater regularity and with much higher mortality than any other first world country. Denial of this fact only continues to lead America down its self justifying rabbit hole of declaring an impossible to win "War on" mental illness, just like its war on terror and war on drugs. Trying to resolve mental health issues to the extent that no new sociopath can go on a rampage because his/her condition will be diagnosed and treated is simply not possible. Preventing sociopaths access to guns and/or ammo is possible and that treats one of America's worst disease - killing its children.

Jackknife in reply to Duckdawdger

"To the extent that no new sociopath"? With all due respect, you have a very poor understanding of our mental health system. We do NOT treat mental health issues. We ignore them. We are the proverbial ostrich sticking its head in the ground. Read the mother's article oh HuffPo. She has an explosive, violent child -- to the extent that she has a safety plan with her two younger children! -- and she can't get help. The police say she needs to press charges despite an actual charge. Insurance covers next to nothing. The mental health system has been on a continued downward spiral since we began deinstitutionalization. Now those weren't appropriate either but there has to be a better solution than depending on the criminal justice system to house our troubled population.

Let me turn the point back kn you: Why do you think we have a good mental health system? While there are certainly mental health issues everywhere, why do you think we service them as good as say Sweden or Germany or France?

Duckdawdger in reply to Jackknife

Your initial post suggested fixing mental health problems and leaving guns alone. My reply suggested that fixing the mental health system is an impossibility but fixing guns is a possibility and has been achieved in other countries to reduce the deadly force a sociopath has access to. I never commented on the relative or absolute level of America's mental health care. I will say that singularly focussing on mental health, while it is important allows Americans to remain in denial that it is "People with guns that kill people" and global relative statistics show much more gun violence in America than in say Sweden or Germany or France.

guest-insooiw in reply to Duckdawdger

duckawdger said it nearly perfectly - "Because whereas mental illness is a scourge everywhere in the world, it is only in America where the right to gun ownership places guns in the hands of mentally ill"; mental illness is a global problem, but, the USA is about the only (supposedly) developed nation that has allowed a situation to arise where its mentally ill might actually get their hands on a deadly weapon, and, doesn't seem to mind if it happens repeatedly.


Yes, we are MUCH more "murderous" than other first-world, euro-centric nations. To wit: more than half of the U.S. states have "stand-your-ground" laws, which states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In Texas, simple trespass is deemed sufficient grounds to use deadly force.

hcl2 in reply to pastdue

"Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons"

Curiously passionate language by The Economist's conservative standards.


As always, the arrogance of the anti-gun proponent comes through. Not only does this one come out and and actually call a huge percentage of American citizens stupid and/or anti-American, he goes on pontificating as if his opinion - and that's all it is - is the only right and logical one to have.

And the problem with statistics is that they can be used to defend almost any position when interpreted "correctly" while using the "right" data sets. The pro-gun people have their statistics that "prove" the murder rates are highest in the highest gun control states.

The real issue is mental illness and a lack of moral and ethical values. When you grow up with a mental and/or psychological problem that is never dealt with, and then you are educated in a system that does not provide any sort of moral compass, or place a high enough value on human life, then this is exactly what you can expect. If people are nothing more than the product of blind, meaningless evolution, and as some environmentalists are fond of advertising, parasites destroying the planet, then the value of human life plummets accordingly.

Of course there is a connection between the murderous intentions of the Newtown killer and guns. The problem is, that if there were no guns, would his murderous intentions have also disappeared? I think not. A bomb made of fertilizer and fuel oil, or a vehicle crashed into the building or whatever other methods that could be concocted would surely have been used. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people without a gun. Even 9-11 was implemented by the terrorists without any guns.

Until America deals with the problems of undiagnosed and untreated mental illness, and the lack of moral values in the school system right from kindergarten through university then nothing will change. Even if drastic gun prohibition laws were to come into effect.

Treating the symptom is not the solution, and attacking the "tool" as the culprit is just plain stupid...

Wat Tyler in reply to Eklektasy


So, the answer is to take evolution out of education and put religion in. What explanation of the diversity of life should be offered in place of ,or in conjunction with, evolution and which of the many forms of religion in America should be chosen to instruct in "moral values"?(this begs the question of whether schools are the place for ethical and moral instruction).

I agree with the need for much better diagnoses and treatment of mental illness. Writing prescriptions and showing ill people the door may be the cheapest path but has consequences.


jenizaro in reply to Eklektasy

mental health will always be a problem, but society can reduce the risk of harm to innocents caused by mentally ill individuals if stricter controls are imposed on gun ownership. society already regulates many activities that may cause harm to bystanders. gun ownership is no different. what you propose is a utopian non-solution.

Eklektasy in reply to Wat Tyler

Jim, please don't assume what I meant. Putting religion into schools is the farthest thing from my mind. Personal faith is exactly that, and everyone should have the right to choose, however repugnant it may be to me or you.

However, when the only explanation offered for our existence (and diversity of life) is a mindless process with no meaning, and then nothing is offered in terms of a moral compass to help place value on human life especially, but all life generally, then it follows that said value will be much less, or even non-existant in some cases. I do not have a solution, I merely present a deficiency that should be considered.

And if schools are not the place for moral/ethical instruction then how will anyone ever connect the dots? History, science, social studies - all these subjects (and others) deal with moral and ethical values. Slavery and the civil war in American history are just two examples that are still salient today. How do you teach only the facts of history, or answer little Johnny's questions without applying moral and ethical values? You simply can't.

Education is one of the keys, and a moral, ethical value system that provides children with a sense of value and worth for human life as well as the rest of the planet is necessary. In my opinion, and that is all it is, mindless evolution falls far short of the mark on that count. If on the one hand you are going to give people the freedom to choose their beliefs, then why is it so wrong to leverage those beliefs in some way to help students develop a moral compass?

On the mental illness issue we are clearly on the same page, well said Jim.

Eklektasy in reply to jenizaro

Jenizaro, will you then propose that fertilizer, fuel oil, pipes, firecrackers, baseball bats, knives, and rocks also be strictly controlled? Once again, the object is not the culprit, it is the user of the object. Even though in this particular case we could argue that the damage could have been less if access to guns was restricted, we do not know that with any certainty. A bomb could have been far worse.

If helping reduce mental illness, treating it effectively and thereby reducing these types of crimes is utopian, then sign me up. If legislation is the only solution, then failure is imminent, because you cannot legislate a state of mind.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

None of the culprits addressed in the article was diagnosed with a treatable mental illness. In the case of the Aurora shooter it might have been merely the result of 'unrequited love'. And if you want to become 'biblical', the whole human race is supposedly descendent from a murderer who killed his brother in an act of insane jealousy (over his mother's love).

If you base your argumentation on God and the bible, then this biblical parable proves that killing out of emotional derailment is as old as the Bible itself and, thus, an intrinsic element of human nature. If Abel would have had a semiautomatic pistol with an extended clip, this biblical drama, most likely, would have been 10 times as severe . . . and might have even included mother Eve.

Even if it is partly the environment that creates potential mass-murderers, it's always the 'opportunity' that turns mere thoughts into a real murder.

jenizaro in reply to Eklektasy

many of those things you mention are already regulated.
using a bomb would have been more difficult. know why? because the materials needed to build a bomb are not as widely accessible as semi-automatic guns.
there are mentally ill individuals everywhere, but they tend to cause deadly shootings more often in America. why that may be?

Jonahvark in reply to jenizaro

Wrong. Using a bomb would have been easier--and simpler to acquire/make. And why are there (supposedly) more mass shootings in America? There aren't! Despite having millions more people than almost anywhere else in the world, the list of countries with MORE homicides and intentional killings than the USA is ridiculously long. DO some research.

The reason it APPEARS that these mass killings happen in the USA is because we have a brown-nosing liberal media, i.e. propaganda machine, in the back pocket of a Marxist president. And--whatever they highlight as a problem is simply swallowed by an ignorant, gullible population.

grace.smith09 in reply to Wat Tyler

Religion was never mentioned in eklektasy's post as a solution. You were the first to mention the word. A person does not have to follow a religion in order to have a well established moral compass. As for the question as to whether school is the place for ethical instruction - the fact that it is even a question is distressing. As the place where most children spend many of their waking hours for at least thirteen years, school plays a major role in a child's upbringing. Teachers have a responsibility to their students to reninforce what is right and what is wrong, and most have wholeheartedly embraced that role.

For future reference, you should use the word "respectfully" in this context.

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

La. vyrity, you just reinforced my case. None of the culprits in the original article was diagnosed. This is one of the biggest problems - diagnosing not only mental illness, but also personality disorders and other mental issues that create the dangerous mindset of people like those in the article and then effectively treating them. This is the point, not to just minimize the damage through object control, but to minimize the occurrences by removing/treating the root cause.

I'm not sure where you got the "biblical" idea from, but it has not been in any of my postings or replies. Also not sure where you came up with the idea that only opportunity turns "mere thoughts into murders" but it certainly is not based on any science or statistics.

Obviously guns need to be regulated to a point, like cars, however, this is not the only solution and must be coupled with identifying and dealing with the root causes. Mental health is one of the root causes, as is a lack of moral values.

Verimius in reply to Eklektasy

Pardon my French, Eklektasy, but fuck your moral values argument. There has never been a moral people in the history of the world, and there never will be.

Improving mental health, teaching moral values, and putting God into schools are beating-around-the-bush solutions and will have little or no effect on the number of people killed by guns. It's clear you're interested in any solution except the obvious one: strict gun control.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

"I'm not sure where you got the 'biblical' idea from, but it has not been in any of my postings or replies."

LOL. Do you really think that intelligent people aren't able to spot proponents of creationism when it's presented so awkwardly as in your initial post?

"If people are nothing more than the product of blind, meaningless evolution . . . ".

One commenter rightly answered your post with a question: "So, the answer is to take evolution out of education and put religion in. What explanation of the diversity of life should be offered in place of, or in conjunction with, evolution and which of the many forms of religion in America should be chosen to instruct in 'moral values'?"

Why don't you answer this question to begin with before pretending to 'wonder' where I "got the 'biblical' idea from".

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

Perhaps you should have read my answer to that post rather than jumping to a wrong conclusion. Evolution is blind, and meaningless - this is a fact. Some people need meaning in their life, and evolution cannot provide that. What meaning does evolution provide to you? It's nothing more than a process, like the precipitation cycle.

My question was why do we ignore the fact that people are going to believe what they choose regardless of whether we like it or not and whether it is true or not? I work in Africa (BTW, I am not American) so I deal with multiple belief systems. It does not matter to me what they are, or whether they are true - I do not get so offended that someone could believe other than me. I must work with them harmoniously and be effective, so I leverage those beliefs to encourage positive forward motion in community development. These beliefs provide meaning, and who am I to take them away just because I think mine are better, or more true?

How arrogant.

Eklektasy in reply to Verimius

Well, you've certainly shown that you are not French.

And for clarity, I never mentioned putting God in the classroom, but I clearly said I support a level of gun regulation, along with the other aspects of mental health moral values as well. It's called holistic.

vdC4agsHMS in reply to Jonahvark

please provide the research and sources noted showing that per capita we have less homicides and intentional killings than comparable countries - i.e. you aren't mixing in Syria, for example.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

If a mental obsession, like the here-seen "gun obsession" has become the 'normal state of mind' of tens of millions within a given society, in this case within the American society, then what do you want to 'cure'? Do you want to cure 'normality'?

There is only one sure way to cure an addict . . . this is by withdrawing the drug.

Teaching "evolution" or "creationism" are totally secondary questions in this context.

Fact, however, is, that biology and earth's history aren't academically communicable by ignoring scientific facts.

What you mean are 'ethics', and ethics have no preference, neither for religion nor for atheism.

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

Obsession with guns is what I assume you are referring to, but was never on my radar screen. I'm talking about serious mental health issues. Tens of millions of Americans do not shoot up school children, only mentally unstable ones do. Not being an American, I do not understand the obsession either, however the point is that merely controlling objects does not address the root causes.

I've never once advocated teaching creationism, nor questioned evolution, I posed the question "if" and postulated "then". Perhaps they are secondary questions - as I said several times now, this is my opinion, nothing more. Looking in from the outside as a non-American makes me more removed for sure. What I fail to understand though is how your education system does nothing to leverage the various beliefs and values held by the large majority of people of faith. As a comparison, parents of no faith as well as those of faith will leverage santa Claus to elicit "good behaviour" from their children even though he is fictitious, and the children will eventually learn this truth. With a worldview based on a legal foundation, and developed by people of various faiths I still maintain you are ignoring a ready-made mother-lode of ethics and morality. You don't have to teach religion. Simply acknowledge the ones held by the students as having some value instead of ridiculing them for having them in the first place. Just like Santa Claus, everyone eventually learns the truth anyway. Those that don't, well good for them too. Freedom includes them too.

Ethics however, do prefer a system of belief. If you are an atheist the ethics you find acceptable will be different than if you were a theist of some variety, especially when it comes to human life. The issues of stem cell research, right to die, and various forms of eugenics that have existed in the past are all testament to the reality of ethics being directly relatable to and dependent upon a system of belief. To think otherwise is to ignore the facts.

J'en ai marre in reply to Eklektasy

Who can doubt American exceptionalism?

Any country where a substantial part of the population:

a) denies evolution

b) doubts global warming

c) believes that mass gun ownership brings increased safety

d) maintains that talk of "second amendment remedies" is compatible with democracy

is exceptionally STUPID.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

"I'm talking about serious mental health issues".

And I'm talking about - predominately - young white middle class males who all of a sudden 'click' and decide to mass-murder innocent people, even children.

None of them had a mental illness known to society. None of them was taught by the school system to go and kill, not even to use violence against other humans.

Schools do convey ethical values. However, this influence isn't strong enough, and never will be, to counter the many influences surrounding us or to level out genetic predispositions.

So, please stay on the issue.

Not those who made this country one of the most advanced and successful in the world share this "exceptionalism" listed in your post.

Those 'Americans' mentioned by you are trying to keep our country socially at par with Saudi Arabia. If they'd really had the "say", our country would fall back into the dark ages.

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

Unless you are a qualified mental health professional, I would say you should leave off of commenting on it. Your simplistic explanation of these "young white middle class males who all of a sudden 'click' and decide to mass-murder innocent people, even children" would be laughable if the topic was not so serious. People who "click" as you suggest will have a history of mental disturbances, imbalances and problems throughout their lives. And to say none of them had a mental known to society is grasping at straws. Did you evaluate them? Do you have access to their psychological profiles?

I am on the issue. The issue is whether controlling objects will stop mass murderers or not. I'm saying no, that is not going to change their minds or stop them and that the object is not the only thing that needs to be considered. Simplistic solutions betray ignorance.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

You still seem not to grasp it. How do you know that thousands of emotionally unbalanced individuals are not among the owners of high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons in the US, when such psychological tests are not required to purchase such guns?

To allow just about any individual free access to these deadly mass-killing machines, which high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons are, is an 'insane concept' in itself. This is exactly the point critics of an abundant interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are making.

Just the tone of your post appears emotional rather than rational. My comments are conveyed rationally to address an extremely serious problem that our society increasingly faces. There is nothing funny about it.

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

Well la.vyrity, you've made my case again. "How do you know that thousands of emotionally unbalanced individuals are not among the owners of high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons in the US, when such psychological tests are not required to purchase such guns?"
Some estimates say that more than 300 millions guns are in private hands, and your solution is to forget about any of them who may have undiagnosed issues, and only control whether future potential killers can buy those guns? Brilliant. Or do you have some Soviet style disarmament program in mind? Good luck with that.
If you had paid any attention, you would have realized that I am talking about both/and, not either/or. Yes, put a level of responsible controls and regulations on gun ownership, but don't neglect the other, and even more serious issue of mental health. Mentally unstable people don't care what objects are controlled or banned.
Let's assume your white, middle class "clicked" male has zero access to guns. In less than 30 seconds he can come up with multiple ways of creating bombs - and all of those materials are easily and locally obtained. Do a search yourself and you'll see. Suicide bombers have no guns. Machetes and garden hoes are easily available and they were used to kill nearly 1 million people in Rwanda in 1994. That took less than 100 days.
There may be emotions in this, but the reasoning is logical and rational. Stop trying to be right and look at the bigger picture.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

The Economist article gave the answer:


There is nothing more to add from my side.

Jonahvark in reply to J&#039;en ai marre

In other words. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid? There is ONLY one way to believe? Talk about prejudice and bias. Methinks the "stupid" is on your part for being so unbelivably legalistic, rude, UNloving, exceptionally ignorant and hateful.

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

And, we're back where we began. Extensive object control, and nothing else. Apparently controlling the objects is far more important to you and others of your particular view than preventing the crimes in the first place. I truly do not understand Americans.

The extreme polarization of your politics on every front is exceptionally myopic on both sides. It's as if there is zero possibility of ever considering any other option than the one you have already committed to.


So glad I do not live in the USA. But I'll be watching for another civil war if the suggestions given are actually attempted. Remember, there are more than 300 million guns out there, and you have no idea how many of the owners are already deranged. Oh right, you don't care about that part...

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

Wow. You could not be more wrong. True security provides personal freedom, in other words, freedom flows from it.

What kind of security are you referring too exactly? Totalitarianism? That kind of thinking is frightening, and is what has produced the worst, most abusive regimes in recent history. In fact, it's right out of the Marx playbook.

I think you have just unmasked yourself for what you really are.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

Are you really such political illiterate?
The communist concept is exactly the contrary of your claim: No individual freedom ... lots of 'collective security'. The opposite ideological blueprint to communism is 'libertarian': "total individual freedom and no collective security" or: survival of the fittest.
Individual freedom and collective security are thus mutually exclusive concepts.

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

You should probably stop exposing your ignorance. You've not only mis-understood freedom and collective security, but you've confused libertarianism with freedom - and they are mutually exclusive.

A libertarian is very close to being an anarchist, and some political scholars consider them synonymous terms. In fact the common meaning outside the USA has continued to lean more toward anarchism or anti-statist strands of the socialist movement. Neither one is free, nor secure, as they must provide their own security and are not free to leave their property or families to find work or seek business without first securing it in some way, or leaving a trusted person behind to guard it. They are not free to take trips away from their homes and would be under constant threat from others who may want to take their land, property or even family members.

So a libertarian is not the opposite of communism. It's an extreme, fringe idea of personal autonomy and anarchy. It also not secure or free.

Communism is not secure - certainly not in the sense I was referring to. Citizens under a communist regime are constantly under threat from a multiplicity of dangers such as spies looking for dissidents, members of the vanguard party or leaders looking to further themselves, unequal distribution and shortages of goods and food, forced conscription, and harsh crackdowns on any vocal opposition to policy, or anything for that matter. But you are right that it is not free.

However, the security of a republic such as the USA where the rule of law is above the lawmakers, and there is an assent to that law among the citizenry, then the freedom flows from the security those laws create. And then the people are free from government tyranny, from the threat of marauding groups, or the threat of outside forces and other insecurities and can go to work outside the home, make pleasure trips, seek business and let their children play at the park because there is a level of security the frees them to do so.

So, freedom flows from security. I ask you again, what kind of security are you talking about? Because it still seems as if you are advocating for greater government control, and less freedom.

ZpVcxoBFfC in reply to Eklektasy

And because cars kill I should be called stupid when I dont understand why I have to drive a tank to protect myself from the other tank owners that feel their right to safety is more important than mine? I have a right to not see guns in my community and gun owners don't have a right to take that away and try to make normal people fearful like them. Its 2013 in a week - wake up and join modern society and stop your BS fear mongering. Guns are tools to kill - some more efficient than others. And last I check people dont routinely drive Ferraris 200 mph through schools - but seems like a growin trend for AR15. But lemme guess - AR15 has a bad rap because the M16 is based on it - and it looks mean - not because it can pump out dozens of rounds about as fast as you can move your finger. And the justifications is.... government takeover and zombies. I get it - these guns are ALREADY in the wrong hands - people with mental deficiencies and massive egos.

ZpVcxoBFfC in reply to Eklektasy

Are you a doctor or professor of mental health or do you just play one on TV? Everything you say exudes arrogance and ignorance. Typical NRA big mouth that thinks the more they say it the more logical people will be convinced of the insanity from the fringe. I fear for society if people like you own these guns. Keep teaching creationism and divine right, moron.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

A country were tens of millions of parents are scared sending their little children to school can only be called 'free' by those who enjoy seeing the jitters in the eyes of their victims.

Fox News’ Janice Dean, surely not a 'socialist', admitted publicly to being fearful about sending her son to school after Newtown. She also expressed other thoughts that many American parents have been having recently, in the wake of the continuous mass shootings in this country.

Here are some fearful utterances:

"Dropping my kids off at school is now harder than it ever has been. You shouldn't have to be scared to leave them there in a civilized country, but, yes, I am" (Ivyelle Wright).

"I'm scared to send my daughter to school now" (Johanna Garcia)

"it is sad that I am scared to send my daughter back to school ..." (A. Blueyez)

"wish I wasn't so scared to take my daughter to school" (Neely Parris)

"Not going to lie - I'm nervous to bring my boy to school. But I have to try to convince myself, there is more good than evil in this world" (Janice Dean).

Letters to the editor in our local papers - 1400 miles away from Newton - are conforming what is stated above.

. . . And there are still dimwits (or perverts) out there who yell "That my kind of freedom! That's what I want!" . . . Those having an 'orgasm' at the thought of mothers, fathers and children taking fright in light that there are tens of thousands of potential spree killers with insane murderous thoughts, running around "free" ... crying "freedom", enjoying "the freedom" to carry loaded assault rifles, ready to practice their hard trained 'skills' on real life targets - at least once in their life . . . not against gangs or armed cops . . . No! These 'survivalist cowards' take it out on the most vulnerable members of our society - our children!

Better shut up ... or we must assume that you are one of them.

Eklektasy in reply to ZpVcxoBFfC

You are a typical arrogant, opinionated, rude, judgemental American bigot who assumes before asking and speaks before thinking. No wonder the rest of the world thinks these things of you.

If you had bothered to read any of the rest of my posts you would have realized that none of the things you just accused me of are true. But of course you're an American with an opinion, and as such, it is the only opinion that can be held without resorting to childish name calling.

FYI, I started my career as a behavioural psychologist in the criminal justice system. I have worked the last fifteen years in post-conflict nations internationally, including Rwanda, DRC and Cambodia among many others. I am also not an American, do not live int he USA and could not join the NRA even if I wanted to. Which I don't.

Check the size of your own mouth to see who the moron really is.

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

Of course people will be afraid. Nobody denies that, but the grand assumptions that you make and the level of one-sided opinion (not to mention your bad grammar) that you spew shows you to be nothing more than a propaganda spewing sheeple. Just like the idiots on the other side of the debate are in their own polarized camp. All of you are ridiculous.

Have you actually counted tens of millions of parents who are afraid? Have you truly determined that gun ownership equals deranged, perverted and cowardly by a scientific method? Tens of thousands of spree killers enumerated? You know absolutely nothing.

Think for yourself for once in your life.

I have nothing further to say to willfully ignorant people who are incapable of understanding the interconnectedness of things, and who are so blindly committed to one idea that nothing else can even be heard, let alone considered.

Do what you like. I'll never be in your hillbilly backwards country anyway.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

“I'll never be in your hillbilly backwards country anyway.”

It’s a good thing you stay away . . . stay in advanced countries where your ‘freedom teachings’ are appreciated, where you can spread your vision of freedom to armed kids who counterbalance the absence of democratically elected power; stay in socially advanced countries such as Rwanda, Burundi, Yemen, Congo or Sierra Leone.

There you find a rewarding environment that accepts eagerly your theory that true freedom flows from guns; where freedom comes from the ‘security’ provided by gun-carrying kids, so people are freed from everything: From their belongings and eventually from their lives as well. Yours is a world where 6-year old children and 20-year old maniacs bear arms, because “they enjoy a level of security that frees them to do so”.

These are countries where juvenile shooters claim that “shooting for them became just like drinking a glass of water” (African Voice, October 9, 2012); countries where whole battalions of ‘defenders’ consist of children, where the deployment of child-fighters is part of the art of survival, where children are trained to kill children. These great achievements of your vision of freedom turn, eventually, “children who were afraid of gunshots to, then, children who’re doing the gunshots” (Errol Barnett, CNN, October 9, 2012).

I bet that the socially advanced world, where you reside, will wholeheartedly embrace your teachings about ‘true freedom’ that depends on carrying guns. – Best to start at kindergarten age, so that 6-year olds are an equal match to those youngsters who come after them, protected by the law, to practice their acquired skills on real life targets . . . such as kindergarten children.

Hallelujah, Merry Christmas . . . and happy hunting!

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

You are without question the most ignorant person I have ever come across. You have not only NOT heard a single thing I said, but you jump to so many conclusions and assumptions I can't even keep up with you.

I'm a Canadian, where we are so much more advanced than you will ever be, it should make you wish you never born.

My friends were right. Don't bother with Americans, they're too busy listening to themselves to care about anyone but themselves and their own opinions. You epitomize that.

la.výritý in reply to Eklektasy

Oh, all of a sudden you’re 'Canadian'. LOL.
It sounded quite different when you wrote: “. . . the security of a republic such as the USA where the rule of law is above the lawmakers, and there is an assent to that law among the citizenry, then the freedom flows from the security those laws create”.
Canada's tradition is to be one of the last countries to leave the 'law' standing alone, not the first, “to create security” within its boundaries. Canadians are usually very aware that "law alone" soon means "survival of the fittest". Any law needs to be properly ‘executed’ in order to take the intended effect. This is where a functioning executive branch of the government comes in.
Thus, Canada isn’t merely a politically-soulless ‘republic’, consisting of -once declared- unalterable laws. Educated Canadians know that "Law" isn't an end in itself. This is why Canada is foremost a democracy, where the government consists of three functioning branches, not just of isolated 'Law'.
All educated Canadians I’ve met, throughout my life, seemed to be fully aware that a functioning democracy must consist of three separate, but co-equal, branches of government: The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branch. You would be the first educated Canadian who is ignorant of this. Thus, you're either NOT Canadian . . . or not educated.
The countries mentioned in my previous post – countries such as Rwanda, Burundi, Yemen, Congo or Sierra Leone – are examples for dysfunctional states were - yes - written ‘laws’ exist – but nobody executes these laws properly. When this happens, people usually start “taking the law in their own hands”, hence the gun-carrying kids in Yemen, Congo or Sierra Leone.
These 'failed states' are the results of your idealist ‘version of freedom’.

Eklektasy in reply to la.výritý

Incredible. The depth of your ignorance truly knows no bounds. When did I ever indicate I opposed an effective enforcement of law? Assent means exactly that, or there is no law. And what “version of freedom” have I ever described anywhere that precludes effective enforcement? All you have done in every post is project your own meaning onto my words and then attack me for it as if it were somehow true. And you call me uneducated? You are the worst kind of idiot. One who keeps proving it over and over again without learning a thing.

I’m becoming convinced that the reason you want radical gun legislation is because you are one of those violent “clicked” people who would use guns against people like me. I’ll bet you are wishing you could shoot me right now aren’t you?

This post has never been about Canada or it’s system of government - which is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic, BTW – but about the USA – which is a republic (I pledge allegiance to the flag… and for the republic for which it stands) – and more specifically, the recent Newtown tragedy and whether additional/radical gun laws will solve the problem.

Further, do you really expect anyone to believe that every Canadian you’ve met made certain that you understood his or her own understanding of how a functioning democracy works? Or do you regularly poll each one you meet to ascertain such information? Did you also obtain records of their educational backgrounds to isolate data sets for those who are uneducated? You’ve obviously never met a Canadian; we talk about hockey more than any other subject, and rarely about politics – especially to Americans. Most Canadians have a very low opinion of you… I’m coming around to that assessment myself after my encounters with you.

You just can’t seem to stop making sweeping generalities, spurious claims, grand assumptions and projecting your favorite “negative” beliefs onto me, in spite of my previous posts to the contrary.

But then, not content to just be ignorant, mean, and abusive, you bring African nations into it, of which you know even less about. Although to be fair, most Americans know nothing outside of their own little backwoods towns.

Rwanda, FYI, never had a citizenry with private ownership of guns (these are poor subsistence farmers), and there were never, ever, gun-carrying kids there. The genocide was primarily carried out with machetes and hoes by the Interehamwe (youth corps of Hutu boys), as well as by teachers, doctors, nurses, neighbors, nuns and priests locking people inside buildings and setting them on fire, and tossing in the occasional grenade stolen from the NATO units. This all happened right after the Belgian NATO tropps were killed by the official government military who organized and backed the genocide. I was there, and one of our most decorated generals was in charge of those NATO troops when the belgian were killed right in front of him. The only guns in Rwanda were owned by the government and used by them on the population when the machetes and hoes were not quick enough to murder entire villages. More than 1 million people were slaughtered in less than 100 days, half of them children.

Rwanda, as well as every other “failed” state in Africa is a result of colonialism, tribalism, corruption and virtually no assent to any law, but rather, true anarchy. I’ve been working in East African countries since the 1990s, so don’t even try to tell me anything about it. It has nothing to do with your ridiculous comments.

The other African countries you mentioned also do not have private gun ownership – never have. Those gun-carrying kids were kidnapped from their villages and then armed by rebel/tribal groups who are funded by theft and outside agents with an agenda to gain access to natural resources. Some of those outside agents are US companies.

I have no reason whatsoever to support gun crazy Americans and never have, nor have I ever said anything like that. Stop telling me what I said, think or believe.

I still maintain that the biggest issues are, and will remain to be, undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues in a culture that celebrates violence, cares not for it’s own, and provides no purpose to exist. Guns need to be controlled to some level too, which I also said, but that will not solve the problem on it's own, or in isolation. But you are too thick headed to understand anything else.

Your boundless ignorance is sickening because you try so hard to sound as if you know something when you know nothing at all.

I don’t care what other barrage of lies, propaganda, ad hominem attacks or personal projections you reply with; I will never answer you again.

Good luck with your obviously miserable life, you deserve all the grief you get.

Alexander A

Firstly, if America's murder rate is six time that of Germany's and four times that of Britain's, then this means Germany's is a lot less than Britain's despite both having strict gun control laws. This would suggest guns don't play as big a part as you suggest, especially since US gun crime has halved in 20 years whilst availability of guns has stayed the same suggesting other factors are in play.

Secondly, Switzerland has high gun ownership rates as well, despite very low murder-rates.

Thirdly, guns protect law-abiding citizens, banning them merely gives this advantage to the criminals; murder-rates will go up if you ban guns or make it harder for good people to own them.

Fourthly, you ignore the far worse social problems and economic poverty in the US which is far higher than in Europe, possibly explaining much in the high murder rates (indeed this would explain the massive difference in British and German rates you mention).

Fifthly, what about the millions of deaths in Europe the result of genocide, fascism and communism, which would have been impossible in the US because of a well-armed citizenry.

I accept if there were no guns in America this crazy person would not have been able to do the damage he did; but as for America as a whole guns should be legal.

Regulation on crazy people owning guns is probably a good idea, although I accept this would not have stopped this particular incident.

la.výritý in reply to Alexander A

This article is NOT about the general crime rate. It's about shooting-rampages committed by young middle class men, emotionally derailed for very private reasons. Taking away the opportunity that such 'common' derailing processes can too easily turn into mass murder is the point here.

It's always the opportunity that makes the thief. If the law offers this opportunity, then the law, consequently, also creates the killer. That's why the window of this 'fatal opportunity' must be closed.

Sociopathic personalities existed throughout human history, and they always will . . . These 'personalities' always did harm according to their 'opportunity'.

As the article states: In China’s (gun-controlled) Henan province, a man burst into a classroom and hacked away at 23 children, nobody was killed . . . But in Newtown, Connecticut, after only a ten-minute rampage 20 children were dead. That might not make any difference in a misanthrope's opinion, but it makes a hell of a difference for people who care.

Again: It's always the opportunity that makes the thief . . . and the killer.

Jonahvark in reply to la.výritý

Oh good Lord, what a stupid comment. "Opportunity??" makes a thief? (or in this case, a mass murderer) Seriously. That's idiotic. What you're saying is that if some random dude off the street walked up and handed you an M-16, i.e. an "opportunity," you'd proceed to whack off a butt-load of innocent lives. Yeah. You did. You said that.

I would suggest that the real problem with your ridiculous argument is a complete and total inability to engage in useful, critical (logical) thought.

Alexander A in reply to la.výritý

This article actually made reference to the general crime rate, and blamed it on the accessibility of guns. Therefore, I think it is a legitimate response to talk about it.

Yes, I agree with your main point that this article is primarily about shooting rampages, but seeing as it calls for banning weapons and does not confine itself to only shooting rampages in explaining why we should ban weapons, why are you against me defending the right to have guns and not confining myself to shooting rampages?

Also, if you're implying that I don't care about human suffering and specifically this horrible crime, then my reply to you would be far too strongly worded for the rest of my message to make its way on here without being deleted by an administrator, so you can use your imagination as to what it would be.

HarrydeGaff in reply to Alexander A

Actually, I'm not sure where the figures come from, "four times more gun murders in the US than in Britain", really?
Well, according to FBI figures for 2011 it's a lot higher than that - "the murder figures themselves are astounding for Brits used to around 550 murders per year. In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms".

Blaming 'assault' weapons for the high death rate is a cop out, he had enough time to kill twice as many children before the police arrived even using single shot weapons. American politicians are not in the business of addressing social problems, there's no mileage in it. Cringe making hand wringing is much more effective, and looks better on TV.
Yes, let's blame the weapon, much easier than pouring billions into America's mental health disorder problems.
Any country which can't prevent almost one military vet per day from committing suicide is unlikely to worry too much about a middle class kid whose behaviour was described as "odd".

la.výritý in reply to Jonahvark

Surely not 'anyone' is 'endangered', but there are situations in life where almost anyone can emotionally 'derail'.

This is exactly the reason why many states have "cooling-off periods" with handgun purchases. It's a set period of time during which the purchaser doesn't receive the purchased gun physically, in order to prevent an 'opportunity-use' of the weapon, due to a possible emotional derailment of the buyer.

This 'cool off' law was a result of a thousandfold human experiences.

Ohio in reply to la.výritý

To be fair, do we really want to write laws based on shooting rampages that a) don't represent how most guns are used, b) don't represent how most children die, and c) don't represent how most mentally ill people act? The death of 20 children in Newtown is tragic, and remarkable, but in the absense of any changes to the nation's laws, how often would you expect this rather singular event to be repeated? Even if we include events in Aurora, Columbine, that mall in Oregon and a few other places, this doesn't qualify as a public health issue. It only makes a major change to society if we react to it with changes whose costs are disproportionate to their benefit. So while the media reaction and your reaction have nothing to do with the general crime rate, shouldn't lawmaking be more about the general crime rate?

If someone made a Youtube video about torturing a puppy, and a huge outcry resulted, should congress stop all other activities to address the problem? No, because there is no epidemic of puppy torture videos, and because we have laws to punish puppy torturers.

Yes, I am a parent, I am deeply troubled by what happened, and I shed tears over the tragedy. But I don't want my legislature to react with "something must be done" legislation every time something emotionally charged happens on the news.

Jonahvark in reply to la.výritý

People emotionally derail all the time without this highly unusual, extreme reaction. I'd guess that 99% (or more)of the population does nothing worse than throw a shoe into the wall! But to redefine that to mean that all are equally likely to do something like this? Nope. Not a psychological liklihood at all.

And--since when does an entire population need to suffer for those in the fraction of a percentile who are well and truly unhinged? More-write new laws on the basis of a tiny fraction of total nutbars? It's ridiculous.
Just for the record, many, MANY more lives are ruined by pedophiles, yet NAMBLA lives on without a peep from the media or our lawmakers.

Perspective is COMPLETELY lacking on this horrible situation in Connecticut.

la.výritý in reply to Jonahvark


America, as a country is already 'mentally derailed'. The country suffers seriously from a "gun obsession disorder" and, like any addict, denies her addiction.

To me and many others this became clear when Charlton Heston stood up in front of an NRA national convention with a rifle over his head shouting that someone would have to pry his weapons out of his "cold, dead hands" before giving up his Second Amendment Rights. The enthusiastic crowd of NRA members cheered. That is the language and behavior of a group of true gun addicts.

As a side note: I own 4 unaltered hunting rifles. They are active 'working tools', used by me 'for the job' in a similar way I use the wrench on my car or quad runner.

But for what kind of 'job' are a (*) semiautomatic variation of the military’s automatic M-16 rifle, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol with extended magazines intended . . . if not for any other than killing people?

(*) these were the three types of weapons used by the man who killed 12 people in an Aurora/Colorado movie theater . . . and are among the most popular guns available in the multibillion-dollar American firearms market.

Jonahvark in reply to la.výritý

America is not mentally derailed, nor does it suffer from a "gun obsession disorder," for Pete's sake. If you really believe that then you should find another country to live in, because we don't want you here.

Owning a gun happens to be a constitutional right in this country, and you can write all the laws you want and strip the citizens of their right to bear arms, but those lunatics who decide to shoot up any venue--and the people inside it--WILL, DEFINITELY still be able to procure the weapons he wants to do it with. You are exceptionally naive indeed if you think otherwise. Punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of a nut-bar is simply asinine. And . . . re-characterizing an entire country (erroneously) as you have done to try and support whatever gun-control notion you have is simply a fantasy. It's also really annoying. Your description of this country lives in your head alone. It doesn't match reality at all.

For the record, the states with the LEAST gun control are the ones with the least crime. Look it up.

I would suggest that if MORE people were armed, this guy never would have made it to a classroom.

teacup775 in reply to Ohio


What is consistently remarkable about America is the consistent patter of mass murder. There were six such events this year.

By your argument 9/11 shouldn't have raised much of an eyebrow. More people die daily on the freeways.

la.výritý in reply to Jonahvark

"... because we don't want you here".

Maybe we don't want you here!

I cherish hunting. I own firearms. Most of my friends are hunters. So don't try to tell me that we are 'the freaks'.

Insane freaks are those who amass dozens of weapons at home which sole purpose is to kill humans, not game.

A real hunter is disgusted by 'weirdos' who run around in camo-outfit on suburban shooter playgrounds, boasting in a childlike manner about the firepower of their semiautomatics, showing off their high-capacity 72-bullets ammo-clips like pubescent boys show off their penises.

The Buffalo Police Commissioner stated yesterday: "In my opinion, AK-47 rifles and other high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons exist for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to kill."

He is right!

And don't think that the law will continue to be too weak to rap you guys over the knuckles. The law will fight back.

After losing his son and another officer in a shootout with 'Sovereign Citizens', armed with semiautomatic AK-47s, West Memphis Police Chief Bob Paudert purchased 30 AR-15s for use by his patrol-officers in the field.

He said, "we are going to protect our people against these maniacs". And: "Times have changed. We've got to change with our times. We cannot allow our officers to continue to be killed by these sovereignty freaks."

Duckdawdger in reply to Alexander A

Actually good people with guns are far more likely to shoot someone they know and love either accidentally or on purpose than they ever are to shoot a bad guy. I would suggest strongly that due to that fact, the overall "death by gun" rate including accidents would drop significantly, don't know about the murder rate.


As a Canadian living in the US, I am saddenned by the tragedy, but have come to learn that my American friends and colleagues, by deed more than word, accept this violence as part of the cost of living in their society. It baffles my mind that such good friends and generally right-thinking colleagues do not feel the need to implement gun control. So, I see all of this outpouring of grief as crocodile tears. Onward to the next gun massacre!

Jonahvark in reply to tac5canada

I am amazed by the tunnel vision that allows otherwise decent people to be duped into thinking that guns are the problem. Does a gun walk around on its own shooting people? No! It has no life; it has no conscience; it has no will of its own. It is no different as an implement than a car, a knife, a bomb or a baseball bat--which by the way is THE weapon used to commit the most murders, by far. Should we have a ban on baseball bats??

This is what happens when people abdicate the notion of God, of a moral compass, and of personal responsibility. Truth be told, if people want to believe in evolution and post-modernistic nihilism, then what's wrong with what this guy did? By the tenets of those two "philosophies," there's nothing wrong with survival of the fittest OR with doing whatever his belief system compelled him to do. The crocodile tears are being shed by those who like to point the finger and then vote prayer out of schools and announce that all belief systems are created equal. Guess what? They're not.

Ohio in reply to tac5canada

We're all saddenned by the tragedy. I think the tears are real. That doesn't make this one incident a good basis to write laws on, or even the several similar incidents where middle class citizens were victimized. Gun violence is only a significant public health problem among poor young men in urban areas. That's a plausible reason for gun control, but that reason has existed for decades, and has been worse than it is now. We have collectively decided that the increased likelihood of the death of poor young men, and the occasional media-friendly tragedy amongst the middle class, is not worth giving up a favorite hobby of many Americans and what is seen as a bulwark against tyranny by a significant minority (not me, but I can understand the basis of their belief).

So yes, there is an outpouring of grief. I'm sad, too. The underlying arguments for and against gun control have shifted little. Guns are a part of American culture. We are who we are, and won't change quickly.

shibakoen in reply to Jonahvark

The "tunnel vision" is called logic. Just as a hammer is a tool, guns are tools. But, hammers are very helpful for pounding nails and building houses. What is a loaded gun helpful for -- other than killing? You can't even use one as a hammer because any responsible gun owner will tell you that you'd be more likely to shoot yourself and I doubt a rifle would be as efficient as a regular claw hammer. Sure, go drive your AR-15 to work. You mention bombs, but you don't exactly find those at Walmart, do you? Guns are tools, designed with one purpose -- delivering death to whomever it's pointed at.

Bats cause more murders? Where, Japan? I'd love to see your figures cited.

Damn Dirty Ape in reply to Jonahvark

If people want to believe in evolution? What twaddle, it is the the explanation that the evidence, all the evidence points to. That our inheritance is carried in DNA instead of a magical sack of beans has nothing do to with whether we should treat each other nicely or not. You seem to be advocating that the only way to have a moral society is to abdicate our reason and posit the existence of some supernatural force that dictates how we should act. This begs the question of who gets to serve as medium for the supernatural force and decide what it is commanding us to do. Utterly silly.

GH1618 in reply to tac5canada

There is plenty of genuine grief among Americans over this latest tragedy. Despite the political difficulty of enacting sensible gun control legislation there is widespread support for doing so. We are not all gun nuts down here.

vdC4agsHMS in reply to Jonahvark

First of all, you need to source your claims about baseball bats being the weapon used to "commit the most murders, by far" because the statistics for the US as follows for 2011:12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Second, are you arguing that the capability of a weapon is of no consequence relative to the 2nd amendment? are you arguing that we should allow free access to suitcase nukes for all citizens? because that appears to be your line of reasoning when you argue that the gun should not be considered as nothing different than a knife or a baseball bat.

Finally, are you also arguing that the families of the mass murderers of late have abandoned the notion of God and of a moral compass and of personal responsibility? how are you gaining the insight into the specific lives and values taught in the homes of these individuals? how are you gaining the insight into the specific actions of the educators in the classrooms who, while they may not be teaching religion may in fact be teaching philosophical concepts? are you 100% certain that they are not indeed receiving CCD or other similar instruction after school?

teacup775 in reply to Jonahvark

Mental illness respects no God.

These sad souls commit suicide in the most horrific way.

But you forget American history, which was founded to no small degree on the idea of avoiding all the death and horror caused by religious war. So, no, historically belief in God was statistically associated with death, disease and war.

guest-iwosass in reply to Jonahvark

your comment 'vdC4agsHMS' is flawed as all the comparison to cars and all the other dangerous stuff. Guns are made for killing. I would suggest all americans should have baseballs bats then instead if they are so effective in self defense. I wonder how this guy would kill 20 kids with this bat? It is just the sick obsession that you have with weapons, unfortunately.

rgmichel in reply to Ohio

"Guns are a part of American Culture.... and won't change quickly" As long as we believe that we can change the culture at least slowly, then we have a chance. Otherwise, it is an ever spiraling problem. The gun advocates have their battle cry "armed good men in the schools", gun control advocates should be just as loud and clear. "We don't want an armed society, with armed guards around our kids." This is not an external terrorist threat, like Israel. It is ourselves!
The good thing about the driving analogy is that proper licensing and training, including DUI enforcement, is a very powerful approach that seems to work. This should be instituted for guns too. That mother isolated her shy boy from social interactions by home schooling him and training him to use guns. She trained him to do that thing! Surely, part of the education of gun owners is to train them not to allow unlicensed youngsters to use guns until they are old enough. If 21 is the drinking age, then so should be the gun age.


"perhaps a reinstatement of the assault-weapons ban which, between 1994 and 2004, prohibited the sale of a list of the most militaristic weapons, or an end to the “gun-show exemption”"

I've already seen the counter-argument circulating around social media that Columbine occurred during said "ban."

Jackknife in reply to shibakoen

Or how about the fact that the gun in question would NOT have been banned? Assault rifles are boogeymen. The gun used is just another .223 semi-auto rifle. The same as many, many hunting rifles. You know what makes it scary? Some extra pieces of metal around the barrel and that black color. Booooooo!

la.výritý in reply to shibakoen

"I've already seen the counter-argument circulating around social media that Columbine occurred during said 'ban'."

Your counter argument is, indeed, symbolic for the claim of "being an idiot".

I wrote on another TE blog ( ):

"Personally I am fine with the definition of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban that was lifted in 2004. In my opinion, it shouldn’t have been lifted (under George W. Bush), but enhanced. The ban should have included the possession and sale of those ban-defined weapons, independent of its manufacturing date. Plus, such ban needs to be amended from time to time anyway."

That, exactly, was the point concerning the Columbine massacre: it could occur during said 'ban' because the ban was a lukewarm approach. The ban didn't cover the sale of banned weapons at gun shows and it didn't ban the possession and sale of the ban-defined weapons that were manufactured before the date when the law was enacted.

All of the guns that were used in the Columbine High School shooting were purchased at the Denver 'Tanner Gun Shows'. The TEC9 with its barrel extender and 30-round clip was purchased from Larry Russel on August 2, 1998 for $491 by a man named Mark Manes, who later sold the pistol to under-aged 'shooter' Dylan Klebold for $500 cash.

shibakoen in reply to la.výritý

"Your counter argument is, indeed, symbolic for the claim of "being an idiot"."

I disavow any ownership of said counter-argument and I don't know where in my post you may have gotten the impression that it was what I believed. I have fired a gun and have lots of friends who own them and go hunting a lot (and have posted some rather heated defenses of guns on social media) but I don't own a gun, don't want a gun, and felt a hell of a lot safer living in Japan amongst like-minded people. My point: it is not my counter-argument as I think a ban could work great -- if loopholes like gun shows, etc., are not present. But I do know this argument is already out there and I'm not optimistic that any legislation will be loophole-free.

Despite the shooting, I am highly pessimistic that any concrete action will be taken with regard to gun control. Politicians on the left will be happy to pass anything while those on the right will likewise be happy to introduce as many loopholes and riders as possible to make up for the hit they'll take in Primaries during the next election cycle. I can already see them deflecting as much blame as possible to "mental health issues", video games and rap music.

Just as the massive security apparatus put in place after 9/11 (DHS/TSA) has caught more of their own screeners committing crimes and violating our rights than stopping actual "terrorists", this event will likely result in more smoke-and-mirrors security.

la.výritý in reply to shibakoen


This was a 'mutual misunderstanding', shibakoen. I didn't actually mean 'your' argument, rather the counter argument cited by you (that of the gun lobby).

Sorry for the tiff.

GH1618 in reply to Jackknife

The notion that semiautomatic derivatives of military rifles are hunting weapons is a relatively recent invention promoted by gun nuts, not hunters. I was raised in a hunting culture, and hunting rifles were almost universally bolt-action. Even today, serious hunters use predominately bolt-action rifles. There is no need for any semiautomatic long gung for legitimate hunting.

Kroneborge in reply to la.výritý

Wait, so the person that didn't mind killing all those kids would have not done so if the guns were illegal?

Or are you actually suggesting that making the guns illegal would prevent people from getting them. Are you aware how easy it is to get drugs? And if so why do you think guns would be any different?

Kroneborge in reply to la.výritý

Yes, the government has no right to tell me what I can or cannot put in my body. Freedom means you can make poor decisions, even doing something harmful like heroin (as long as you aren't putting other people in danger by doing something like driving impaired of course)

Let me ask you a question, do you support Abortion on demand, and if so, why do you think it's ok to bill a baby growing inside, but not to do drugs?


"Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact that 300m guns are “out there” in the United States, more than one for every adult."

I love how you've left the staunch American pro-gun defender two choices: be an idiot or un-American. The latter seems to be an even bigger insult to that particular demographic. Unfortunately, there is a third choice as there is whenever anyone brings up a statistic: attack the number and/or the methodology used to obtain it - in particular the murder rate.

For example, maybe the UK has a bunch more "manslaughter" judgements than the US? Dunno, since I'm not up on my international crime statistics and the relevant definitions for the slew of terms. Just thought I'd bring up the likely argument.

Damn Dirty Ape in reply to shibakoen

Well, you are half right. It was an unfair rhetorical gambit. The half wrong part is that we do indeed have a more violent, lethal society and that guns play a big part in it. There are other nations that have high gun ownership without that lethality. There are two solutions for us, perhaps not mutually exclusive but both near impossible to implement. The first is to figure out what those other societies have that we lack and to promote it within our own. The second would be to severely limit access to firearms. A third, less believable alternative is that what we are experiencing is a dearth of guns, if only everybody was armed, there would be less crime. I find this one too far fetched and after all, the whole point of society is so we don't have to live like that, concentrating instead on more specialized tasks.

teacup775 in reply to Damn Dirty Ape

But but we are a nation of rugged individuals, swaddled as we are in our XXXL camo outfits, and hats (super big gulp cup holders included), SUV fully automatic AC, cruise control, with the telly running 24x7 Limbaugh telling the masses what to be outraged about.

cybervigilante in reply to teacup775

If you look it up nearly all of these killers had at Least, and usually over, two thousand dollars worth of guns and ammo, or access thereto. Maybe what they needed was less money. You sure don't blow that kind of cash working for a living these days. People supporting a family are lucky to have a few hundred to spare for Xmas.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

