Well, what can I say… 
Oh, and please, spare me the stats on bowling related deaths.
[QUOTE=newcomer]
Well, what can I say…
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know…what CAN you say? What point do you suppose this proves?
As for bowling deaths, well, a quick Google search turns up 2 deaths directly caused by bowling in 2005 (this doesn’t count all the deaths due to the torture of having to endure either bowling or watching someone bowl of course…or the heart attacks from the nachos and beer)…
I had a little exchange with shagnasty on this.
The bigger points would is that sometimes we can conclude the course of action before the evidence and prevent certain activities prior to see if they are going to cause harm.
Not all ideas are of equal value on paper and it seems that many people think that freedom means having an idea being recognized as valid regardless of the inherent value of the idea.
In short, having guns as a therapy is a bad idea and it should be said she was a bad mother. If someone told her that or talked more about it, you never know. But, what I think happened is that some people just shrugged, some stopped hanging out with her perhaps and many had no idea what’s going on.
Are you saying she was a bad mother because she shared her hobby with her child?
Well, bully for you I guess. Does that mean nobody does ?
No.
She was a bad mother b/c she did not recognize the fact that she is not a professional in the field of deadly weapons handling and teaching. This and the fact that they were related made her biased and subjective in evaluating her son skills and behaviour with deadly weapons. PLUS – as per article cited – she further exhibited confirmation bias by suggesting that handling deadly weapons is “therapeutic” for her son.
In my book this qualifies for mildly delusional, but, as I always say, it’s me so don’t go by me.
It was a mass killing because some deranged monster chose to kill his mother and then go to a gun-free zone and kill more defenseless people. Or did you forget there was a monster making these choices and pulling the trigger? It’s unfortunate that the teachers couldn’t defend themselves because they were law-abiding people.
He wouldn’t have done shit if he didn’t have his big gun to do his talking for him. There’s no way that loser would have gone a stabbing spree. And even if he tried, do you think we’d see the same body count? It takes time to stab 20 kids to death; shooting them with a Bushmaster is child’s play - pardon the pun.
The commonality is that some monster decided that people should die.
In Columbine, the two 20lb tanks didn’t explode but their pipe bombs worked. Maybe you think society should give monsters like them a 2nd chance to get it right? They expected to kill 300 to 500 with their bombs alone. Their incompetence worked to many peoples advantage.
The monster at the movie house failed to kill as many of his neighbors as possible because no one tried to open his front door. It wasn’t from lack of trying on his part.
What do these monsters all have in common? They’re all human beings who stopped acting like human beings.
Shooting a gun is easier than making a bomb, to begin with. That’s why people who make bombs at home sometimes blow themselves up or make devices that don’t work (as in Columbine). In Newtown, the shooter killed 26 people at the school in 10 to 20 minutes. It’s difficult to murder that many people in that time frame with anything other than a gun.
It’s tiresome that we have to deal with these shootout fantasies in every thread that follows a murder spree like this. Most of the teachers who died were trying to hide their children when they were shot. I think it’s unlikely they would have chosen to go for their guns instead of what they actually did.
I’m not going to go back and reread this thread and all the other ones we’ve had in the last week, but there are few people who think this kind of thing can prevented with gun laws alone. In fact few people think it can be stopped at all. But taking gun control out of the equation entirely on the presumption that people will just start killing with other tools is ridiculous. Guns are the weapon of choice in massacres like this, and it’s not hard to understand why. And for that matter, sales of chemicals that can be used in making bombs are tightly controlled. It’s hard to say the same about guns.
I would argue with your reasoning, they are the tool of choice in this country due to their ease of access.
Around the world explosives, poison and bombs all trump firearms, even in places with easy access to firearms like Afghanistan.
I do agree there is room for gun legislation, and I am personally open to good legislation but I am personally not open to cosmetic feel good bans.
Do you have a cite for anything like that? I’m not sure this is an apples to apples comparison.
I agree.
Except maybe a bomb. 500 deaths in a matter of seconds.
Tiresome to whom?
“Most of the teachers” doesn’t include the four (?) who died during their encounter with this monster when he first broke thru the front door. What you call a “fantasy” excludes the “possibility” that someone in that school could have chosen to train and arm themselves. State law doesn’t allow that. The school personel know that. The monster knew that too.
You don’t have to be armed. School teachers don’t have to be armed. Moviegoers don’t have to be armed. But some might and they don’t have that option - for their own safety, of course.
You “think” it’s unlikely. I can respect your opinion. I believe there is a possibility that some teachers will accept the responsibility of having access to a firearm inside a school. Could you see your way to respecting their opinion on the subject?
This one is a good source for the attacks in Afghanistan. Poison seems the preferred method there.
And where are the people bombing schools and malls and movie theaters? It just isn’t happening. We do see people walk into those kinds of places and just start shooting. It’s that much easier to get a gun than it is to make a bomb. You can’t walk into a mall or a school carrying the bomb like the one that killed all those people in Oklahoma City.
Two.
That was the principal and the school psychiatrist, and yes, I think it’s unlikely they would have had guns with them in that situation (they were in a meeting when the shooting started) when they left the meeting to see what was happening.
Poison gas. And yes, I don’t think it makes any sense to compare random school shootings to poisonings by terrorists trying to stop girls from going to school.
Who’s going to sneak into their mom’s closet and steal her bomb, ferchrissakes?
Twenty children dead in one school in a few minutes is a tragedy. Millions of children dead all over the world from various preventable causes every year is a statistic.
Thanks, Stalin.
But no emotional or physical connection to the act ; no watching the victims’ pain ; no feeling superior to them ; a mere second of being the decider, the judge with the power over life and death at the push of a finger.
Psychologically speaking, a bomb doesn’t satisfy nearly the same criterions and impulses as a gun (or a knife, baseball bat… y’know, *artisanal *means of killing as opposed to industrial ones). If postal shooters were motivated strictly by body count like it was some kind of search for a high score, they would not look to guns. They’d hijack buses and drive them over cliffs, they’d put bombs by railroad tracks, they’d sabotage hospital power generators, they’d trap people in blazes, they’d poison water supplies. One definite advantage of all these methods would be that they might even survive their plots…
Yet gun rampages are exponentially more common than all of these crimes combined. Why do you think that is ?