Why should the Connecticut shooting change anything?

Great Debates
1

I’m always left a little numb following incidents such as last week’s shooting. Not as much by the violent act, but by the reactions to it. Is there any reason to view this type of event as anything other than a foreseeable result of the society we have willingly created? To a large extent, is it not a desireable reflection of our free society?

Is there any way keep our children (or adults) entirely safe from crazed gumen (or hijacking terrorists)? I guess we could try to amend the 2d amendment, but with however many hundreds of millions of firearms already in circulation, is there any reason to believe that would prevent any crazed person from obtaining guns - if only by killing a legal gun owner as this guy did? Surely no one is going to suggest massive confiscation attempts…

Sure, we could increase mental health care services available, but I’ve seen no signs that the shooter’s family had any financial impediments to obtaining whatever care they thought necessary. Surely no one is going to suggest widespread institutionalization of all “oddball” kids…

I’m not sure what our schools can do to prevent this, short of turning into fortresses with armed guards - and I wonder where expenditures for such efforts would fit into our already stretched school budgets.

Maybe you should homeschool your kids to keep them safe. Oh, but what about those home invasions you hear about every once in a while…

I find extremely disgusting the extent to which graphic violence has become an accepted theme in our entertainment. But I oppose censorship, and am unaware of any clear link between such entertainment and acts such as last week’s.

The vicitims of this attack simply had the misfortune of being in the way of this horrendous accident. It could have happened to any of us, but fortunately, it never happens to the overwhelming majority of us throughout our lives. We are far more likely to die with our loved ones in a car accident, than in such a violent shooting.

I just wonder about efforts to “make sense of” what impresses me as an inherently senseless act. And the manner in which I perceive news outlets presenting this, and the public consuming such offerings, I wonder whether it does anything so much as increased peoples’ overall stress and unease.

This was a horrible incident. Same way it is horrible when a bus goes off the road, or any number of other misfortunate events occur. But given the free society we have created, every once in a while a bus is going to go off the road, a mass shooting is going to occur (yes, even in a school), and a plane is going to crash (intentionally or not). IMO having such events occur is a far smaller price than the cost of whatever measures could be attempted to try to prevent them.

2

Except that you regulate the shit out of traffic and air travel without all the hysterical ‘Obama has come to take our cars’ equivalent hysteria the moment someone suggests that maybe gun ownership needs regulating.

3

Given the 2d amendment and the number of guns out there, I don’t know that meaningful and effective gun regulation is anywhere near realistic.

4

“…unaware of any clear link between such entertainment…” The fact that gun violence is a main form of entertainment, speaks volumes to me. We’ve become a society that condones and likes violence and has no respect for the sanctity of human life. It seems to me hardly surprising that frustrated depressed people resort to violence against others on their way out.

5

To expand on this - for someone who has never armed myself with a gun nor driven a car, which is easier to legally do in the US?

It seems to me that to legally drive a car I have to learn how to drive, learn the rules, pass a written test, pass a driving test, and pay for a license, which puts my name in a database of known drivers.

My car has extensive safety regulations, limitations on its performance, rules about my mental state when I operate it, and requirements that I be insured against damage it may cause.

To legally shoot a gun I have to find a gun show or private seller, and I’m good to go. My gun has no limiting regulations on performance or safety and I’m not required to be insured against damage it may cause.

6

To drink alcohol all you have to do is be a certain age and be able to open a bottle or pop a cap. Oh, you need a mouth as well. You don’t even have to be a certain age if, as in your example, you go around the laws in place and have someone else buy it for you, or use a false ID. Want to take a guess which thing causes more deaths and injuries each year in the US (let alone world wide)…guns or booze? What do you think?

7

Amend the 2nd amendment? How about follow it. Guns should be for a well regulated Militia… No one wants to speak about the obvious.

8

To the person doing the consuming, or to 6-year-old children?

I’m reasonably sure that if I could harm other people’s children by misuse of alcohol (like, for example, by driving a car) it would be regulated (or, in fact, banned).

9

Either way. How many kids die each year in alcohol related accidents verse how many are killed each year in school shootings? How many people die each year in any sort of alcohol related incident verse how many are killed each year in any sort of gun related incident? Feel free to go any way you like with it…I think you’ll find that guns are a lot less dangerous than alcohol is…and that, as a society, we have accepted that fact. We try and mitigate it to the extent we can…just like we do with guns…but by accepting that people can buy and use alcohol we accept that a non-zero number of people will be harmed or killed every year. Just like with guns.

I’m sure that if you harm someone’s children (or even your own) with a gun it is equally regulated…and you’d be even quicker in jail than you would be by drinking and driving, which has many repeat offenders.

10

I’m sure the grieving families will be happy to know that you’ve determined their sacrifice is an appropriate price to pay.

11

Ugh! Can we confine the stupid alcohol analogies to other threads?

Don’t make me pull out anthrax again.

12

We as a society have determined that. Just like we determined that setting a speed limit of 75 on the interstate was worth the price of the non-zero number of additional people who would die because of it. I realize that playing the emotion card is the standard thing in these debates (it’s sickening, but it’s reality), but the sad truth is that as a society we do many things that can potentially harm individuals but are desired by the majority of society.

13

Um, no. But thanks for your input. You are going to have to do what you think best with the anthrax…

14

I don’t give a shit what society has determined. At least with cars, there’s an obvious use for them and when I use my car for its intended purpose on the highway, no one dies. No one needs a handgun and when a handgun is used for its intended purpose, people are hurt or killed.

In 1996, 16 people were killed in a school shooting in the UK. The government’s response was to ban private ownership of cartridge ammunition handguns. They have not had a school shooting since. I’m not saying that the ban is the sole reason, in fact, it’s possible that the ban is entirely unrelated and something else is entirely responsible for the subsequent dearth of school shootings but I’m totally willing to give it a chance.

15

I agree with everything you wrote except for the bolded part.

My point, which I’m sure you understand, is that there are certain activities (driving, building a pool, etc.) that bring with them an inherent risk to others. And due to that we have certain responsibilities before an incident/accident/crime occurs. We have to register to drive, we have to build a fence around our pool. Similarly we could, were we in fact trying to mitigate the risk of a society with high gun ownership rates, require registration of firearms, background checks on all sales, and perhaps certain safety equipment.

I’m not entirely sure the point of the alcohol analogy, but if you’re proposing that since there are more alcohol-related deaths we should consider getting some sort of alcohol license (perhaps with a limit on the amount you could buy per month?) I’m all ears. There are some regulations in place, but I’d be receptive to considering others (particularly on college campuses).

16

[QUOTE=Jas09]
I agree with everything you wrote except for the bolded part.
[/QUOTE]

Serious question here…no snark…are you under the impression that guns aren’t regulated in the US? And that steps aren’t taken wrt guns to mitigate their negative impact on society?

But we don’t have to register to do every risky thing in society. Thus my ‘stupid’ alcohol analogy. Tobacco also works. You don’t need a license to buy or use alcohol or tobacco. So, it’s a better analogy to guns than driving is, which serves multiple purposes. Guns, so the argument on this board goes, are useless for anything except shooting people (which leaves aside the literally hundreds of millions of guns and 10’s of millions of owners, yet the relative small handful of actual deaths due to guns in the US). Well, alcohol and tobacco use are also fairly basic…you drink and smoke to alter your mood. Both activities carry potential risk to society in the form of the number of deaths they cause each year in the US or throughout the world. Both are regulated…JUST LIKE GUNS ARE IN THE US…and attempts to mitigate their damage is attempted…AGAIN, JUST LIKE GUNS IN THE US.

So, the analogy seems pretty solid to me. It’s not 1 to 1, obviously, but to me it’s a good baseline for comparison.

There are some regulations in place to mitigate the impact of fire arms as well. And in both cases, there are LAWS in place for illegal usage. I’m not proposing more in either case, though if we were talking about alcohol I’d say that there is more slack in the system there that COULD be taken up by tougher drunk driving laws…but they would have only a minor effect, comparatively speaking, on deaths due to alcohol in the US each year.

17

I’d be extremely surprised if the grieving families gave a shit about my personal opinon, whatever it was.

Do you have specific suggestions of policies that would prevent incidents such as this? Toss them out here, and let’s discuss how the balance tips. But just about everything I have heard suggested over the years in terms of gun control impresses me as little more than “feel good” efforts.

And speaking of anthrax, just last week the gov’t hearing office in which I work had a “suspicious white powder” issue in our mailroom. Turned out to be drywall dust. I’m confirdent our clientele would be far more likely to resort to deer rifles, than chemical agents.

18

No, I am not under that impression. But you stated that we take the steps “to the extent that we can” to mitigate the dangers a large number of guns pose. I think a more accurate statement would be “to the minimal extent the NRA will allow”. There are myriad other steps we could take to reduce the risk. But to even mention, for example, requiring background checks for all sales, including private ones, becomes equivalent to calling for a wholesale gun ban. It’s annoying and absolutist and makes discussion impossible.

19

The alchohol and car analogies are beyond stupid. How many people acquire alcohol or automobiles with the specific intent of killing as many people as possible? Deaths by alcohol or cars are accidents, although often the result of negligence. If guns only caused deaths when negligence was involved that would be a different story, but they are too conveniently used to intentionally murder many people in a short period of time.

20

By XT logic, alcohol is more dangerous than firearms, since more people die per year due to alcohol.

Using the same logic:

Bungee jumping is safer than playing on a playground (since only 1 person per year dies from bungee jumping while about 14 die in playground accidents).

Tigers are less dangerous than elevators (1 death versus approximately 20).

Skydiving is less dangerous than going to the bathroom (56 vs. 9,000).

Walking is more dangerous than playing football (565 tripping or stumbling deaths versus 9).

Eating is more dangerous than ultimate fighting (approximately 2,500 choking deaths versus 1).

Poisonous snakes are safer than household buckets (approximately 6 versus 10 to 40).

And anthrax is safer than all of these things, since there are generally 0 anthrax deaths per year in the US.
[Note: not all stats above have been fully vetted. I gathered them from a few minutes of internet searching.]