School shooting

Nevertheless, the sorts of weaponry people have access to is a factor. It’s true that deranged people can also drive vans into crowds of people, as happened in Japan. But, hey, you can only do so much. I think we’re better off with strict regulations governing access to guns and high-capacity clips, but maybe that’s just me.

Maybe we should ban schools. These concentrations of defenceless children are just enabling these massacres. Lets strictly regulate miniskirts too.

“Do you really believe the average US gun owner could take on the US army if it were deployed to suppress its own people?”

I consider the scenario 100% impossible (US soldiers attacking their own people). Taking guns away is difficult because of the culture of gun ownership, and the idea that it is a right, which is ingrained into the minds of many people; especially those who take an oath to the Constitution (peace keepers and military servicemen). To change America’s gun laws, you’d really have to change the culture and change people’s minds about guns. You have to convince them that being able to use firearms for lawful, legal purposes, is not acceptable and should not be acceptable. Those who favor stricter gun laws and those who don’t are about dead even, with those who don’t favor stricter gun laws being a slight majority:

No doubt incidents like this can push people either way, but it only seems now to embolden both sides.

“What would be wrong with modernizing some aspects of the US constitution? How can people assume that a document written more than 200 years ago can be the right foundation for a modern country in the 21 century?”

The assumption that the Constitution has remained completely unchanged for 200 years is totally erroneous. It’s been modernized plenty and adjusted according to the needs of Americans. Did you miss the Affordable Care Act? And just because it was written 200 years ago doesn’t mean everything in it is irrelevant. The Magna Carta and many holy books are much older and relate common sense rules of decency that remain true today.“Thou shalt not kill” is good and always will be no matter when it was first written. The Constitution was never intended to remain a permanently fixed document. Here are the changes to just the 2A alone, and this is only at the federal level. All 50 states have their own laws as well:

1934 National Firearms Act
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act
1986 Law Enforcement Officer’s Protection Act
1990 Crime Control Act
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act


“Your privilege, your sense of entitlement amid such slaughter is mind boggling.”

Your inability to place the blame on the human that did it instead of an inanimate object is mind boggling to me as well. The person that did this was a very sick, sick person. No normally functioning human being acts like this. Yet instead of placing the blame on the murderer that did this to those innocent kids (like any logical person would do), you take the opportunity to turn it into a political talking point and blame an inanimate object that you don’t agree with. Let me ask you a question:

What right do you have to infringe on the rights of others who merely peacefully possess something that you hate and fear?

If you have something that I don’t agree with, like alcohol, and I get the majority of society to agree with me that you shouldn’t have alcohol (considering alcohol use is dangerous, and affects society as a whole and not just the individual consuming that alcohol), does that give me the right to initiate force against you to take it from you?

What are the limits to the “greater good of society” mentality? Does any individual have a right at all if the greater good is the concern? If an individual has no right to defend himself or his rights, then what right does he truly have at all?

“Maybe we should ban schools. These concentrations of defenceless children are just enabling these massacres. Lets strictly regulate miniskirts too.”

What an unmitigated nonsense.

“What an unmitigated nonsense.”

What a stupid and arrogant claim. But I am not surprised considering the source.

@ unravelingmind

I know there have been amendments/modifications to the original document, still, I feel too many outdated elements remain such as the electoral system and many others.

Someone who owns a gun may or may not harm another human being with that gun. But someone who does not have access to a gun will not shoot someone, that is a fact. The US has 5 percent of the world’s population and 50 percent of the guns and it spends more on its military than all other countries combined, yet its influence and capacity to solve international conflicts is waning. It’s time for the US to disarm, both its citizens as well as its military.

The gun lobby says that more guns would make the US safer. Applied to the case at hand, who should then be given guns to prevent such a massacre, 5 years old children?

"Someone who owns a gun may or may not harm another human being with that gun. But someone who does not have access to a gun will not shoot someone, that is a fact. " Brilliant!

Actually, nothing short of revolution in human nature will prevent these massacres from happening in the future. Non-sequiturs concerning gun control and the role of the US in the world notwithstanding.


If the shooter hadn’t had access to a gun, this shooting wouldn’t have happened and those children would probably still be with their parents. I hope none of the people affected by this incident read your cynical comments.

Where there are more guns there is more homicide.

Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
In the US, across states, more guns = more homicide


Do you have any thought process beyond sanctimoniously standing your ground?

If I were affected by this shooting, I imagine I would have wished the office staff had access to some kind weapon to quickly take a man out of commission, and were trained to use it, as this would have been the only way to safely stop this man. Level of access to weapons of any sort has not been a big impediment to this kind of rampage in the past.


that’s an interesting link, thanks for posting.


given your temper I am not sure I’d feel safe around you if you were armed, in your classroom or elsewhere…

“If the shooter hadn’t had access to a gun, this shooting wouldn’t have happened and those children would probably still be with their parents.”

If free will never existed, he’d never make the choice to shoot someone. Are we to blame the individual or the inanimate object?

Friedmann, if you and I were both in that school and you were armed, I don’t care if you’ve never fired a gun in your life, I’d still rather take the chance of you shooting the assailant and saving both of our lives versus curling up in a ball and waiting to be executed. Can you honestly tell me that you’d rather wait 15-20 minutes for help to arrive (ironically enough, men with guns to arrive), and that if you were armed you would not defend yourself and the children? I mean, if you knew that you had the opportunity to save lives, would you take the shot and save lives or would you just let the shooter keep going? You seem very passionate about this, so I find it hard to believe you’d stand by watching as kids are assaulted, instead of doing what it takes to protect them.

“In the US, across states, more guns = more homicide”

Conflating city data with rural and suburban data is the worst possible way to look at this. Gun ownership is highest in rural and suburban communities, but far less gun crime & crime in general actually happens in rural and suburban communities. Odiernod has talked about this extensively before in other threads. The notion that more guns equals more crime is fallacious and totally unsupported by the evidence. Surely if merely possessing guns leads to more crime, rural areas with the highest gun ownership would be the deadliest places to live. That is not the case. Where do gun deaths and violence occur most? In the cities. Who commits them? It’s not rural and suburban gun owners or law-abiding city dwelling gun owners. In fact, more than 90 percent of those who commit homicide with a weapon have a prior criminal record, usually extensive and including felonious charges:

In cities like Chicago where lawmakers have made it as difficult as possible for a good citizens to defend themselves against criminal thugs, crime rates and gun related crime and homicide has increased, once again proving that criminals don’t obey gun laws (as if we needed the reminder):

Convicted felons, the mentally unstable, and those with a history of domestic violence are already barred from use of firearms, so this isn’t a lack of appropriate laws on the book, it’s a lack of enforcement. Infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens only empowers the criminals and gives them a monopoly on small arms.

Thankfully, the unconstitutional ban on carry in Illinois has been overturned by the courts, so citizens may be able to once again appropriately defend themselves against the thuggery:

“I think the main issue here is the much more complex yet dull issue of how the mentally unbalanced are handled by societal institutions like schools.”

Spot on. How is it that we only see the glaringly obvious signs that things were not normal in retrospect? Why are younger men in particular (as this seems to be the profile of most of these shooters) so often taking to cruel acts of barbarity as the only means of solving their problems? Where is the school, the family, the community and why aren’t they intervening when the red flags come up? Intervention really needs to take place sooner and at the local level to prevent this kind of thing happening. This guy had to be frustrated with life and feel that death was the only way out of his problems. In situations like this, a school counselor or therapist, or even a friend or family member can make a world of a difference. I’m not blaming anyone for not doing anything, but I am saying we should learn from this and figure out how we can spot these kinds of people before they do these kinds of things and do so in a way that does not infringe on the rights of law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens.

I didn’t mention that the majority of those who are killed in gun homicides (between 75-95 percent depending on the city) are criminals with a previous criminal record also. I couldn’t find the statistics on it until now, but it’s still not the one I was looking for with data for multiple cities. Below is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article which mentions Boston and Philadelphia:

People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims.[12] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[36] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[12][37] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[38]


So what we’re talking about here are criminals who are not legally allowed to own guns killing other criminals who are not legally allowed to own guns either. The majority of these people are inner city gang members who live in the inner city, where there is a gang culture that younger, poorer people are attracted to. I believe it is a lack of much opportunity, combined with bad education, and a culture of drug use and violence, which leads to young folks joining gangs. Many young kids in the cities think violence and drugs are cool and until they’re convinced it’s not, they’ll keep robbing and killing people.

@Steve: I totally disagree. Civil disobedience is very important and does impact policy. It’s what led to the Civil Rights Act. People should always exercise civil disobedience when the government is not recognizing their rights. Civil disobedience in this case would be simply ignoring any unconstitutional gun laws. My “it would be a suicide mission” comment was referring to a foreign army coming to the US to try to take guns. It is unrealistic to expect US soldiers & sheriffs to take guns when they’re among the most ardent supporters of the 2A. A roundup of sorts is logistically impossible and could never occur.


I would not like to live in a society where armed citizens are responsible for crime prevention. I would not like to live in a society where it is easy to purchase military attack weapons.

I would not like to live in a society where armed civil disobedience is considered an important way to express disapproval of laws or government. That is just plain anarchy or civil war. This usually occurs where there is no rule of law, no democracy. It makes no sense in the US. I think your position is simply delusional. Sorry.

ad doo: (…) Dumb-ass,

Do you have any thought process beyond sanctimoniously standing your ground? (…)

Wow, I wonder how much ruder you can get? Your agressive tone certainly ruins the quality of this thread. Since this is not the first time you have done this I guess this is some sort of character trait of yours. Your language reminds me of some bullies in the school yard. For somebody involved in teaching, you certainly show an astounding lack of respect when dealing with people who don’t share your opinion. Sad, very sad.

ad unravelingmind:
I disagree with most of your arguments and we have different standpoints BUT I very much appreciate the fact that you do not resort to name calling in this thread like others do when they run out of arguments. You make a lot of efforts to back up your arguments with facts and figures and you obviously are a well-informed person when it comes to this issue. Again, I still think people in your country or any other country for that matter would be much better off if military-style assault weapons were not available to the general public.

I might be wrong, but since there are many countries where such incidents hardly ever happen and I don’t believe that American society per se is worse than the societies in those countries, the fact that these automatic and semi-automatic weapons are freely available in the US seems to be one of the major reasons why these massacres are so much more common in the US than in any other country I know.

Whatever the underlying reasons may be, whatever your politicians and/or any other decision-makers will do to prevent such things from happening in the future, I honestly wish for them to be successful in their endeavours. While any similar act of violence is tragic, this specific mass killing is simply heart breaking.

Friedmann, I am not sure what you are talking about. I guess it is yet another one of your non-sequitur strawmen.


Is it possible to expect a polyglot like yourself to understand anything beyond explicit meaning? The target of my epithet deserved it based on his previous sneering, clueless remarks which veer completely away from debate.

It is actually the first time I have used such a term in this forum so I challenge you to provide evidence for this “character trait”. However, it is not the first time I have been attacked without provocation by Friedemen. I can provide evidence on request.

By the way, you make no attempt to seriously engage the topic of gun control by providing evidence to counter unravelingminds arguments or to even address my main point. Did you bother to even figure out what my main point is?


There were plenty of people who thought African Americans peacefully demonstrating would cause anarchy and civil war as well, but it didn’t. Dissenters (even within the oppressed communities themselves) thought that demonstrating would lead to more division, increased hatred towards oppressed groups, and cause more violent crime directed at them. It did indeed cause some turbulence, and some people did try to resist the oppressed and act out in violence against them, but in the end the oppressed peoples won the moral victory and justice was served.

I stand by my statement that oppressed people should always peacefully resist government infringement on their rights. I do not advocate violence and I’m actually a very peaceful person and very anti-war which anyone who has seen any of my previous posts or talked to me personally knows. Sanctioned government killing is still unjust in my book, especially when the justifications for such sanctioned killings are dubious at best, and outright false in many other cases.

Also, what qualifies as an attack weapon? I always keep loaded guns in my house and none of them have ever fired without someone pulling the trigger. None of them are “attack” weapons until a human being uses them to attack with. None of my firearms have ever been used in the commission of a crime or used to kill (with the exception of any military surplus rifles I own that were used in WWI and WWII, which may or may not have killed prior to my purchase).

A lot of the interest in guns for me is the history and as I’ve said in previous posts, I prefer the older rifles (bolt actions) over newer ones (semi-auto), but there are many ways in which newer rifles are far better; ergonomics, accuracy, fire rate, easier cleaning, easier reloading, more ammo availability in stores, etc. This is one reason I disagree with your argument that nobody needs a semi-auto or full auto weapon. It’s like telling a race car driver that he can use an old engine from the 30s and accomplish the same task. An engine is an engine, right? I think we should let the person who actually uses guns on a regular basis determine for themselves what is necessary for their needs in sporting or home defense, since they have the most experience with guns and know their own needs better than we do.


I think these discussions are important for both sides. I understand the sentiment that we should limit guns to prevent crime like this. I can’t disagree that a total disarmament of everything and everyone would prevent gun deaths; it’s obvious that no guns means no gun deaths. My argument is that the implementation of a strategy that attempts to ban weapons, or certain types of weapons, will fall short of its goal when Americans simply refuse to comply and I believe the likelihood of non-compliance is certain and would occur in high numbers.

Should we forcefully seize their arms if they refuse to turn them in? Should people’s homes be raided and their belongings confiscated for peacefully possessing something that an authoritarian force has its sights set on? Should upstanding, law-abiding citizens be converted to felonious criminals by the mark of a pen and shot down if they refuse to relinquish their basic human right to self defense?

What about the gangbangers in the inner city who will most certainly attack anyone who tries to take their weapons since their weapons are illegally acquired in the first place? Does it make sense to send huge brigades of armed men into impoverished neighborhoods to engage in gun battles with local gangbangers so they can confiscate their arms? What about all of the unregistered guns? How do we find those and disarm those carrying them?

In my opinion (and I feel very strongly about this), it is never right to initiate force against another human being when your life or someone else’s life is not in mortal danger. Initiating force on another human for mere peaceful possession of something that someone else doesn’t agree with is immoral. It’s even worse when you are using said force to infringe on a fundamental human right; the right to defend yourself.

And what about independent manufacturers? What about technology like 3D printing that could potentially make firearm ownership possible by simply downloading blueprints and clicking print? Limiting supply does nothing to the demand side of the equation. The demand will always be there. Wherever there is a demand, the market will fill the need. Those motivated by profit will see the opportunity and seize it. See the War on Drugs for plenty proof that prohibited items are easy to come by if there is a demand.

So to the advocates for gun control, I ask you; what measures should be taken against those who peacefully refuse to turn in prohibited items if a law were ever to be passed to that extent? I want to know if you really think forcefully seizing things from peaceful people, and even killing them if necessary, is the moral thing to do.