COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

2 dead, including gunman, in school shooting near Seattle

121 Comments
By DOUG ESSER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

121 Comments
Login to comment

Just another week in the USA, and another pubic, random shooting.

-5 ( +11 / -16 )

Zero! How many people are in school cafeteria's in any one school day nationwide?

I am not excusing this disturbed jerk. I cannot justify your statement making US sound like an unorganized Banana Republic. I live here, proud to live here and know a somewhat large percentage of Humanity would want to live here from all over the world. USA is a great place to grow up in and live in.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

I cannot justify your statement making US sound like an unorganized Banana Republic.

I simply said just another week in the US, with another high-profile random shooting. If "banana republics" are at one end of the spectrum and civilized nations where this kind of violence is extremely rare are at the other end, I would say the US tilts closer to the banana republics.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Once in a month?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

1 we have a large country with many sub cultures. 2 we have the most guns per capita than any other nation in the world. 3 with #1 and #2 in consideration where does USA rank with other nations on a "per capita homicide" rate?

It's not as bad as the media leads you to believe.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

@ MarkG

USA ransk no 1 in first world countries for percent of population incarcerated and also for the highest gap between rich and poor of any first world nation.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Incarceration for drug offenses mostly.

And the Welfare State created generations of welfare recipient single parents. Blame the Democrats for that. As for the rich, it shows we have opportunity. It's not their fault we have poor. Unless they supported the growth of the Welfare State. This diversity supports the correctional facilities. Single parent welfare recipient children populate the jails in large numbers.

92 deaths daily by motor vehicle deaths in US.......ban the cars!

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

USA is a great place to grow up in and live in.

And to die in, prematurely, should you find yourself in the sights of an easily obtainable firearm being flaunted by an angry, suicidal person.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

And to die in, prematurely, should you find yourself in the sights of an easily obtainable firearm being flaunted by an angry, suicidal person.

Which is a very small percentage. You have more people in the US dying in vehicle accidents than gunfire. Making those kinds of outlandish statements is so over the top delusional. I have never seen anyone get shot or any heavy hard hitting violence and I know many police officers in California and the majority of them never had to use their firearm. Yes, there are cities in the US that you should be careful and heed with caution, but overall, it was a great place to grow up.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

And to die in, prematurely, should you find yourself in the sights of an easily obtainable firearm being flaunted by an angry, suicidal person.

Not hardly. I have no worries. I have more concern of major financial collapse of USA. Heck, I don't lock my front door half the time. Day-night, home or not. Riding motorcycle, some concern. Bicycle-have been hit, likely will be again.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I have never seen anyone get shot ...

Therein lies your problem: You believe the world revolves around you.

There are folksat Marysville-Pilchuck, VaTech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc, etc., etc., etc., who have seen people get shot. It's only a spin of the lottery wheel whose turn it will be next week.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Just another week in the USA, and another pubic, random shooting.

A bit unfair. I don't recall if they had one last week.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Therein lies your problem: You believe the world revolves around you.

Actually, NO. I leave that to Dems and liberals and the Sainted anointed one. I travel a lot, been to over 28 countries and have been to 38 US states and this myth that the US is some lawless place like Somalia is utterly ridiculous and without any merit. I think the crux of the problem is, the anti-US crowd WISH it to be a fire and danger zone so no one will go, but sadly, it's NOT working.

There are folksat Marysville-Pilchuck, VaTech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc, etc., etc., etc., who have seen people get shot. It's only a spin of the lottery wheel whose turn it will be next week.

You can say that about anything and anyone, you think tomorrow is promised to you? Think again, Yabits. We never know when or how we will check out.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

I am sure the usual people will get on this story and blast the GOP, NRA and all of the rest of the conservatives who believe in the US 2nd Amendment and blame "white male privilege" on this shooting. But just like in the Ferguson MO, case, this will soon drop of the news scope for a few reasons that don't fit the current media agenda.

Because:

The shooter was a Native American, a member of the Tulalip Native-American tribe. It's in their culture to hunt so he was introduced to hunting and guns at a young age. So much for the idea of the "peacful Native" who lives in harmony with nature that is up in arms about a mascot used for a sports team. By the way, the schools mascot is tomahawk, another piece of Native American culture. He was not bullied. He was recently voted as the "Homecoming King" for his high school. For those of you who don't know what that means, it means that since he was a "jock" (football player) and popular with the student body, he was elected by his peers to be on the Homecoming court for the Homecoming Football game. This is not an honor given to the slacker loosers who sit in their basements blaming the world for their problems.

I would say the US tilts closer to the banana republics.

Then why did over 60,000 kids from some so called banaa republics make a 3,000 mile trek alone to come to America if some of them were supposedly fleeing from such violence in their home countries and requesting asylum?

This is a tragic event, but before I blamethe US gun culture, I would blame the "entitlement" culture that is growing in the US. The kid got upset because his girlfriend rejected him supposedly. This boy needed to learn how to deal with real life and get off the idea of being entitled in my opinion. He was a football player, and yet he was suspended off the team recently for fighting. That tells me his issues had more to deal with himself than the availability of guns.

Of course since he is not a "white male" they will use the fact that since he played football, maybe it was because of one too many hits to the head that caused him to think this way. Neve mind the fact that he was probably just a hot head.

RIP to the one whowas killed and I hope that injured will heal mentally and physically well. So much for a "Blue" state with leagal pot being a more mellow place.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The shooter was a member of the Tulalip Indian tribe. At least he was not white, so this site can be spared of that lecture.....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I'm wondering if it's another spoiled/self-centered/middle~upper class/ bullied emo kid that thinks he'll get back at the world by shooting people he don't like? How many of the school shooters have been female? How many of them have not been of Caucasian descent? How many of them got the weapons from "lawful owning" gun owner parent's or relatives? Some statistics should point out a pattern of what we really need to focus on. Some suburbia communities really have some societal problems that need to be addressed.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

bass4funk: "Which is a very small percentage. You have more people in the US dying in vehicle accidents than gunfire. Making those kinds of outlandish statements is so over the top delusional"

It's funny, because on other topics you will take an ENTIRE group of people to task for the acts of a few extremists, but when it comes to guns you insist the US is no worse than... Somalia, for example. With guns, though, you absolutely canNOT deny there is a problem in the US. Just look at the frequency of gun-related deaths compared to other nations -- and not just Somalia or war zones, but nations at peace and with relatively little crime and no access to guns like the US has. But no, when faced with those facts, you destroy what little credibility you had with responses like: "I leave that to Dems and liberals and the Sainted anointed one.... I think the crux of the problem is, the anti-US crowd WISH it to be a fire and danger zone so no one will go, but sadly, it's NOT working."

You cannot see that a person who is against lax gun control laws is not 'Anti-US', which invalidates your arguments on the whole. People are spot on when they say "this is not news", or, "Just another day in the US", etc. -- because this kind of thing happens there on an almost daily basis, when it should not. You simply cannot deny it. Period.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

'I travel a lot, been to over 28 countries and have been to 38 US states and this myth that the US is some lawless place like Somalia is utterly ridiculous and without any merit.'

You're reduced to a comparison with Somalia? Nobody is saying the US is a third-world failed state. Compare it to other advanced countries. Check the stats on gun-related deaths in developed countries. I lived in gun-lovin' Texas and while it was far from lawless, the love people had for these devices and the inability to listen to criticism of them was truly disturbing.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

It's funny, because on other topics you will take an ENTIRE group of people to task for the acts of a few extremists,

Just as equally as you guys attack conservatives over certain issues and here we go once again with the hypocrisy speech.

but when it comes to guns you insist the US is no worse than... Somalia, for example.

If the US were on the same level as Somalia, you would need a cable News Channel 24/7 dedicated ONLY to gunshot victims

With guns, though, you absolutely canNOT deny there is a problem in the US. Just look at the frequency of gun-related deaths compared to other nations -- and not just Somalia or war zones, but nations at peace and with relatively little crime and no access to guns like the US has.

Ok and you have in other countries without guns knife attacks, clubbing, beatings and other physical assaults, so we should NOW ban people as well.

But no, when faced with those facts, you destroy what little credibility you had with responses like: "I leave that to Dems and liberals and the Sainted anointed one.... I think the crux of the problem is, the anti-US crowd WISH it to be a fire and danger zone so no one will go, but sadly, it's NOT working."

No, sorry. I'm not destroying anything, all I am saying is, when you have a maniac on the loose, if they can't get their hands on a gun, they could use other weapons to inflict damage, like let's say....oh, a hatchet for example.

Also, NOW all of a sudden the Anti-US crowd cares? Well, you know what they can do with that care...

You cannot see that a person who is against lax gun control laws is not 'Anti-US', which invalidates your arguments on the whole.

And how does it invalidates my argument? I'm a law-abiding citizen, if you want to change the law for the people that violate some of the gun laws fine, but leave me and my guns alone, it doesn't and shouldn't apply to me.

People are spot on when they say "this is not news", or, "Just another day in the US", etc. -- because this kind of thing happens there on an almost daily basis, when it should not. You simply cannot deny it. Period.

Not denying it, but how many knife and beatings go unreported? Why the media doesn't cover how many people have died through the act of physical violence? But we can shift the focus to guns? What a convenient scapegoat.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

This is a tragic event, but before I blamethe US gun culture, I would blame the "entitlement" culture that is growing in the US.

This happened on an Indian reservation so potentially pathological social conditions are going to turn up under every stone but from a few of the tweets that have been reposted it looks more personal, more like a kid driven to the edge of the cliff of despair by the breakup of his first relationship. Possibly a girl who left him for another close friend....which is some of the worst pain a person of any age can experience. A young teenager in tremendous agony flies off the handle, shooting friends and family, completely ill-equipped to handle that level of rage. I would bet anything he was also on psychiatric meds.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

People are spot on when they say "this is not news", or, "Just another day in the US", etc. -- because this kind of thing happens there on an almost daily basis, when it should not. You simply cannot deny it. Period.

Actually, this sort of thing happens daily all over the world. People kill people. It jus so happens that in this case a gun was used and the nut job went on a spree before killing himself. Just do a search on how many other people were killed in "sprees" without guns used and you will see cases of people being attacked with knives,bats, etc. Tell me smithinjapan, if you saw someone going on a wild stabbing spree like the case in Akihabra a few years ago, would you step in and try to stop him? I mean after all, he is not using a gun and since Japan has made it very hard for one to get one, the people should be willing to be reasonable and just surrender?

This case as tragic as it is has nothing to do with gun laws. As I have pointed out, he was from a local Indian tribe and he lived on a reservation as some have said. So actually, he would probably be able to even skirt some of the US gun laws since his him is considered to be on a "seperate nation" and governed by tribal laws. So instead of going down the "bad gun control in the USA" how about looking at the real issue probably to do with his narcisstic personality as evidenced by his various online postings as has been reported, or the fact that he may have been just a loon. He was not bullied, he was popular enough to be the Homecoming King.

He was probably just a a nut job that was going to go off sometime soon, and he just did it this time.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Tell me smithinjapan, if you saw someone going on a wild stabbing spree like the case in Akihabra a few years ago

More mindlessness. The gap between a "stabbing spree" like the case in Akihabara is measured in a fair number of years. The same is true of mass-killings in other modern, industrialized societies. However, in the US, the gap between such incidents can be measured in days -- often in single digits.

So instead of going down the "bad gun control in the USA" how about looking at the real issue probably to do with his narcisstic personality as evidenced by his various online postings as has been reported, or the fact that he may have been just a loon.

So, how many other modern, industrialized societies make it so easy for a 15-year-old "narcissistic loon" to obtain a gun? That's a very large part of the issue.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

when will the USA wake and realise that they have a major gun attitude problem? they have vertualy no gun control you can buy anything you want have sh*t loads of ammo without regulation? wow, how insane !! yet again another high school shooting when will they wake up and say enough is enough or is the government spineless to stand up to the National rifle association and the gun groups. I have begun to dislike the TV programs that we import from the USA, why? well 90% of them have gun or violence in them, or sometimes both!! The UK has become more aggressive and violent over the last decade, could it be that we follow trends on TV? or game consoles? it seems that way.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Another PUBIC random shooting, Yabits?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Happened on the same day as a fatal stabbing of a student at a Finnish High School.

RIP to the students who were taken prematurely.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Re: Texas A&M" "The shooter was a member of the Tulalip Indian tribe. At least he was not white," Why bring ethnicity/race into this forum? What matters is that lives were lost and somewhere along the lines someone or a system/ program dropped the ball in recognizing a problem was brewing. The gun was the tool used to commit this sad event. In any other country it could have been a knife, ax or some other tool used as a weapon as media has reported from other countries.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The price we pay for our guns....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

this may be said as game-related issue. CoD and the likes. But still this is sad!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's really sad to see the way the comments section of Japan Today has been co opted by the extreme right wing of the United States. As usual, their talking points on gun violence are so canned and predictable I wrote down what I thought would appear in the comments section before reading it, and, by gosh, I was right. It was all the there, the same old nonsense, that obstructs constructive gun control legislation in the United States.

Every mass shooting death in the U.S. is on the heads of these gun apologist obstructionist.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Yabits

More mindlessness. The gap between a "stabbing spree" like the case in Akihabara is measured in a fair number of years. The same is true of mass-killings in other modern, industrialized societies. However, in the US, the gap between such incidents can be measured in days -- often in single digits.

Well, it depends which country and what crime we are all talking about. You are mixing (as usual) apples and oranges, not surprising. Japan has more suicides, Europe has more assaults and knife attacks, it's all relevant to your environment.

So, how many other modern, industrialized societies make it so easy for a 15-year-old "narcissistic loon" to obtain a gun? That's a very large part of the issue.

And back to you, How many loons can get a knife in many industrialized countries?

@brian

when will the USA wake and realise that they have a major gun attitude problem? they have vertualy no gun control you can buy anything you want have sh*t loads of ammo without regulation?

I'm from California, we have very strict gun rules and gun control, the same goes for Chicago, however many gangs obtain guns through robbery because almost all the guns that are confiscated are STOLEN, so it's NOT like they can go down the street to their local 7-11 and purchase a firearm.

wow, how insane !! yet again another high school shooting when will they wake up and say enough is enough or is the government spineless to stand up to the National rifle association and the gun groups.

Never will happen. Too many Democrats are gun holders themselves as well as their constituents.

I have begun to dislike the TV programs that we import from the USA, why? well 90% of them have gun or violence in them, or sometimes both!! The UK has become more aggressive and violent over the last decade, could it be that we follow trends on TV? or game consoles? it seems that way.

You can dislike anything you want, but many people do love watching US shows, if not, the UK and other countries wouldn't get them-PERIOD. But they demand and the networks provide. If you don't like it, you can watch something else or turn off the TV. The same goes for gaming. There is a reason Grand Theft Auto is THE most popular game around. But the many of the programs in some relation reflect todays culture and the way we live worldwide and crime shows, action and medical shows are a big hit among the public. We don't live in the days of Gilligan's Island or Leave it to Beaver anymore.

@Ivy

Every mass shooting death in the U.S. is on the heads of these gun apologist obstructionist.

Actually, you are wrong on all points, with all due respect. The problems are not the guns. The problem lies with the individuals. If you look at the crime stats of people that perpetrate crimes using other weapons, you would be just as amazed. So should we band knives, ropes, bottles and bats? It's the crazy people that get their hands on these things. It's NOT on my head, I have nothing to do with these idiots that do these crimes.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@ Bass Funk

Actually, you are wrong on all points, with all due respect. The problems are not the guns. The problem lies with the individuals. If you look at the crime stats of people that perpetrate crimes using other weapons, you would be just as amazed. So should we band knives, ropes, bottles and bats? It's the crazy people that get their hands on these things. It's NOT on my head, I have nothing to do with these idiots that do these crimes.

Same old rhetoric you people always spout: so spare me your talking points. Have you no shame? There is no equivalency between semi automatic weapons and knives, ropes, bottles or bats.

The problems are not the guns. The problem lies with the individuals....It's the crazy people that get their hands on these things.

Do you hear yourself? I wonder why it is so easy for "crazy people" ( your words not mine) to get their hands on guns? You sound like some Medieval theologian debating how many angels dance on the head of pin?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Same old rhetoric you people always spout: so spare me your talking points. Have you no shame? There is no equivalency between semi automatic weapons and knives, ropes, bottles or bats.

Of course there is. You can use these items to kill. Deal with reality.

Do you hear yourself? I wonder why it is so easy for "crazy people" ( your words not mine) to get their hands on guns? You sound like some Medieval theologian debating how many angels dance on the head of pin?

Yeah, when people are confronted with the truth, they tend to say things like that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@bass4fluff

Same old rhetoric you people always spout: so spare me your talking points. Have you no shame? There is no equivalency between semi automatic weapons and knives, ropes, bottles or bats. Of course there is. You can use these items to kill. Deal with reality.

Really! You can kill as many people with a rope in five minutes as you can with a semi automatic weapon?

bass (May I call you bass?) -- You failed to answer the question. How do these people get guns? Could it possibly be because they are just so available? Be specific -- don't answer with some Charlton Heston talking point about "truth." By the way do you have any views about this that are your own? Or do you just go the National Rifle Association's web site to get your views?

You do realize you are being duped into spending your hard earned dollars on guns by the fire arms manufacturing sector for whom the NRA is a shill?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The latest school shooting in the region ....

OIA.

The problem lies with the individuals. If you look at the crime stats of people that perpetrate crimes using other weapons, you would be just as amazed

So Bass, what is America doing wrong in your opinion, that it produces so many broken individuals?

It seems his parents gave him firearms as a birthday present and encouraged him to kill wildlife.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Bass Wouldn't you admit that a culture where people love guns is unhealthy? You yourself told us you were brought up around guns and love them, but thankfully you don't have psychopathic tendencies. I know there are many gun-lovers in the US but most don't have your level of honesty. These people are not debating from the position of guns as a necessary evil for self-defence, the second Amendment or the sub-Hollywood barking mad notion of defending themselves from a government armed with tanks, stealth bombers and nukes. You paint a picture of the US as a country with serious problems dealing with mental health issues. Is it a good idea to have a country like this awash with guns along with a culture in which they are glorified and loved?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ivy

Really! You can kill as many people with a rope in five minutes as you can with a semi automatic weapon?

Strange analogy. It's comparing that to a beheading, how many heads can you chop off with one knife in a certain amount of time. Regardless a rope, a gun, a knife, cyanide, doesn't matter, dead is dead. Guns are not the real problem. If you want to take care of the problem, you need to build or actually rebuild mental asylums and check in the loons that could have the propensity to engage in a violent act, first off. Second, some states could use tighter gun restrictions like my home state that would also curb some of the violence, but just flat out taking all the guns away wouldn't do anything to curb the violence in some people that want to go on a killing spree. I don't care if one life is taken, murder is muder, that is the underlining issue.

bass (May I call you basss?)

Yes, you may.

-- You failed to answer the question. How do these people get guns?

I already said, most are stolen, from various places, the serial numbers are filed off making thrm alsmost impossible to find. There is your answer

Could it possibly be because they are just so available? Be specific -- don't answer with some Charlton Heston talking point about "truth." By the way do you have any views about this that are your own? Or do you just go the National Rifle Association's web site to get your views?

I love guns!! I own a few and I take my kids hunting and they also know how to shoot and use the firearm responsibly and if people aren't happy with that, well......

You do realize you are being duped into spending your hard earned dollars on guns by the fire arms manufacturing sector for whom the NRA is a shill?

Fine by me.

@cleo

So Bass, what is America doing wrong in your opinion, that it produces so many broken individuals?

I just gave a brief explanation to Ivy.

It seems his parents gave him firearms as a birthday present and encouraged him to kill wildlife.

Maybe there was something inherently mentally wrong with the kid. If so, then he should have had a firearm and if his parents knew of his mental problem, they should have taken him to a shrink and be evaluated, they should also be held responsible to a point if they knew or were negligent.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So Bass, what is America doing wrong in your opinion, that it produces so many broken individuals?

I just gave a brief explanation to Ivy.

Erm, no you didn't. All you said was that you need to build or actually rebuild mental asylums and check in the loons. That doesn't explain how or why they turn into loons in the first place, or why there are (you would have us believe) so many of them in America. Again I ask, what, in your opinion, is America doing (or not doing) that is producing so many more murderous loons than other similar (developed, advanced) countries?

And once you've built all these asylums, how are you going to find the people to put in them? It seems all these folk are considered normal until they start shooting people. The parents of this boy apparently thought he was so well-balanced they even put lethal firearms into his hands. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Looks like the parents were bonkers, too.

As is the law of the land that says it's perfectly OK to put firearms in the hands of teenagers - not considered old enough to hold their drink or vote, but old enough to hold a gun? That's where your crazy is, bass. In the very fabric of your society. In the minds of parents who think it's jes' fine, responsible even, to teach kids how to kill. And then throw their hands up in horror when the kids do jes' that.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Really! You can kill as many people with a rope in five minutes as you can with a semi automatic weapon?

The "reality" that we have to deal with is that there are utter morons out there who can't or won't admit that a person with a gun can do a lot more damage to human life in a shorter period of time than a person with a knife. Fewer children at Sandy Hook would have lost their lives if the only weapon Lanza had access to was a knife.

Fools will try to tell us that "If you want to take care of the problem, you need to build or actually rebuild mental asylums and check in the loons..."

That will not "take care of the problem," especially when so many of the people who have gone on rampages -- like this current case -- seemed pretty normal prior to, other than the bouts of angst that nearly every teenager experiences. Next, we'll hear the solution is to lock up every moody teenager. (Who is going to pay for all of this housing and mental health treatment? The same people who are opposed to affordable health care?)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'I love guns!! I own a few and I take my kids hunting and they also know how to shoot and use the firearm responsibly and if people aren't happy with that, well....'

If knives, rope and bats can also kill other living things, why are guns your chosen tool when you hunt? Why don't you chase down your prey with a broken Budweiser bottle in hand? Could it be that guns are a far more effective and efficient of causing fatal injuries?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@cleo

Erm, no you didn't.

Yeah, I did. But allow me to retort....

All you said was that you need to build or actually rebuild mental asylums and check in the loons. That doesn't explain how or why they turn into loons in the first place, or why there are (you would have us believe) so many of them in America.

There are hundreds of reasons as to why a person becomes mental, I'm not going to jot them all down, but if you look it up yourself, you see the hundreds of different types of mental illness.

Again I ask, what, in your opinion, is America doing (or not doing) that is producing so many more murderous loons than other similar (developed, advanced) countries?

The US is not doing enough. The US isn't producing anything, it has nothing to do with the geography. Again, we have guns, you guys have knives and assaults.

And once you've built all these asylums, how are you going to find the people to put in them?

Put an ad on the paper and hire, train or recruit staff. That's what I would do at least.

It seems all these folk are considered normal until they start shooting people. The parents of this boy apparently thought he was so well-balanced they even put lethal firearms into his hands. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Looks like the parents were bonkers, too.

Well, that's not true, you can't psycho analyze ever persons behavior pattern and what happens in the home. We just don't know.

As is the law of the land that says it's perfectly OK to put firearms in the hands of teenagers - not considered old enough to hold their drink or vote, but old enough to hold a gun?

Not on my state. We have very, very strict gun controls.

That's where your crazy is, bass. In the very fabric of your society. In the minds of parents who think it's jes' fine, responsible even, to teach kids how to kill. And then throw their hands up in horror when the kids do jes' that.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I love guns, grew up with them, love to shoot them and love to hunt and love to kill my food. If you don't like it and think it's wrong, fine. But to me, it's what I've known and the fun and experience, I have have gotten over the years taught me a lot about the power and respect of the weapon. I also teach my kids and they're crack shots, my daughter is almost a marksman then I am. The thing is, I'm not pushing my values and beliefs on you, I'm not in your face, I'm just telling you what I like and you calling me names is not going to change that. I'm not a vegetarian, I will never be, I hate that kind of lifestyle and enjoy my wild protein and lots of it. To each his own.

@yabits

The "reality" that we have to deal with is that there are utter morons out there who can't or won't admit that a person with a gun can do a lot more damage to human life in a shorter period of time than a person with a knife.

Murder is murder, regardless of the weapon.

Fewer children at Sandy Hook would have lost their lives if the only weapon Lanza had access to was a knife.

Better yet, had he'd been locked up, no one would have been killed regardless of one or ten or with a gun or with a knife.

Fools will try to tell us that "If you want to take care of the problem, you need to build or actually rebuild mental asylums and check in the loons..."

Fools will make excuses to make the guns the central issue when it's not. It's much deeper than that.

That will not "take care of the problem," especially when so many of the people who have gone on rampages

Of course it would, lock them up, drug them up, they're happy and relaxed and everyone else is happy.

-- like this current case -- seemed pretty normal prior to, other than the bouts of angst that nearly every teenager experiences. Next, we'll hear the solution is to lock up every moody teenager. (Who is going to pay for all of this housing and mental health treatment? The same people who are opposed to affordable health care?)

We don't know what or how this persons life was. We didn't live in their home. Something happened and I'm not just to take the parents story as their son being a model citizen. I think there is more then meets the eye.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

There are hundreds of reasons as to why a person becomes mental, I'm not going to jot them all down, but if you look it up yourself, you see the hundreds of different types of mental illness

That's not what I asked. My question to you was why you think there are so many loons in America compared to other developed countries that don't have regular school shootings.

The US isn't producing anything, it has nothing to do with the geography.

It's a fact that the US is producing more school shootings, mall shootings, workplace shootings, on a regular basis, than any other comparable country. No one is suggesting it's the geography, bass.

And once you've built all these asylums, how are you going to find the people to put in them?

Put an ad on the paper and hire, train or recruit staff. That's what I would do at least.

Cute. Not the staff, the inmates. Like I said, they all appear normal until they snap, and then it's too late. Now by my standards, anyone who wanted to own a gun, or wanted to put a gun in the hands of a teenager or child, would be a good candidate. But then you'd have nearly half the population locked up in asylums.

we have guns, you guys have knives and assaults

The US has an intentional homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000. If by 'you guys' you mean us Brits, the UK rate, with all dem knives, is 1.17 per 100,000. If you mean Japan, the rate is 0.35 per 100,000, even with all those huge mean kitchen cleavers anyone can buy in a supermarket or home centre. Looks like guns trumps 'knives and assaults' hands down.

We have very, very strict gun controls

Obviously not strict enough if they allow you to give your children guns and take them out shooting wildlife.

you can't psycho analyze ever persons behavior pattern and what happens in the home. We just don't know

It doesn't need any psychoanalysis. We do know that his parents gave him a lethal firearm as a birthday present. Proof enough that they were/are bonkers.

you calling me names is not going to change that

I don't recall calling you any names, bass.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That's not what I asked. My question to you was why you think there are so many loons in America compared to other developed countries that don't have regular school shootings.

I have NO idea.

It's a fact that the US is producing more school shootings, mall shootings, workplace shootings, on a regular basis, than any other comparable country. No one is suggesting it's the geography, bass.

So what's your point, my dear?

Cute. Not the staff, the inmates. Like I said, they all appear normal until they snap, and then it's too late. Now by my standards, anyone who wanted to own a gun, or wanted to put a gun in the hands of a teenager or child, would be a good candidate. But then you'd have nearly half the population locked up in asylums.

But we are not going by your standards. We are going with reality and the reality is, the more mental asylums we would have, the better we could lock up potential loons, once it has been determined that they have a mental problem. Before we got rid of the majority of our mental institutions, we didn't have so many loons in the street shooting up people.

The US has an intentional homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000. If by 'you guys' you mean us Brits, the UK rate, with all dem knives, is 1.17 per 100,000. If you mean Japan, the rate is 0.35 per 100,000, even with all those huge mean kitchen cleavers anyone can buy in a supermarket or home centre. Looks like guns trumps 'knives and assaults' hands down.

Doesn't matter, murder is murder.

Growing up half of my life in Los Angeles, the only time I saw a gun was either on a in a gun store, a cop, film set or a shooting range. So I never witnessed any violence from guns and I was out a lot. Point is, if someone wants to kill you, it doesn't have to necessarily be a gun. Once your dead, who cares how the person died. The person is dead.

Obviously not strict enough if they allow you to give your children guns and take them out shooting wildlife.

They can't buy it, so the laws are strict. Also they handle firearms very well.

It doesn't need any psychoanalysis. We do know that his parents gave him a lethal firearm as a birthday present. Proof enough that they were/are bonkers.

That's your opinion, you don't know anything about the parents, but I respect your opinion anyway.

I don't recall calling you any names, bass.

Sorry, my bad. I meant someone else.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I have NO idea.

The obvious answer isn't just staring you in the face, it's hitting you over the head and pummelling you in the chest.

Raising whole generations of kids to believe that guns are a good thing, their gawd-gibbun right and the answer to everything, wouldn't have anything to do with it, yer think?

So what's your point, my dear?

Whenever you start losing an argument you start telling us that we weren't there, we don't know the facts and so can't reach any conclusions. My point is that we can understand a lot from what we do know, from the facts that are out there. Those facts being that this kid was given access to lethal weapons by his parents, and the law allowed this.

We are going with reality and the reality is,....

..that Americans are shooting each other like there was no tomorrow. (A self-fulfilling prophesy...)

the more mental asylums we would have, the better we could lock up potential loons, once it has been determined that they have a mental problem

Once it's been determined a person has a mental problem, the word potential is surely no longer appropriate. So in your ideal America, you'd have these institutions all over the place to lock up people who have done no wrong, but potentially might? How are you going to find them? Compulsory regular mental health testing? Folk telling on their non-conformist neighbours? How does that fit with that much-vaunted idea of the 'Land of the Free'?

Doesn't matter, murder is murder.

Shooting up a whole school is no different from a single stabbing? Seriously??

if someone wants to kill you, it doesn't have to necessarily be a gun.

It's like a broken record, same daft arguments over and over. So, to repeat Jimizo's question, why take a gun with you when you go hunting? Why not kill that wildlife with a broken beer bottle? Why not arm your kids with a potato peeler instead of a firearm? After all, if they really want to kill Bambi, it doesn't matter what they use, right?

Also they handle firearms very well.

So apparently did the teenager who shot up his school.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So, to repeat Jimizo's question, why take a gun with you when you go hunting? Why not kill that wildlife with a broken beer bottle? Why not arm your kids with a potato peeler instead of a firearm? After all, if they really want to kill Bambi, it doesn't matter what they use, right?

Unless you have the strength of a bear or the speed and huniting skill of a mountain lion, then you can carry those items to go hunting. But if not, you need to take some weapon, like a bow and arrow, or a gun. After all, man has hunted animals since the beginning, and those ancients realized that animals have a bit more of an advantage in their own environment, and they need a way to compete. And for the record, "bambi" (deers) can cause quite a bit of damage, especially if you have ever been stabbed by a buck with those horns.

As for this case, it is coming out that the shooter was upset that his girlfriend was going out with his cousin. So he shot one of his family members in the melee. So this is a bad situation all around in regards to the personal tragedy for the community and all the families involved. Just based on this bit of information, he was probably bound to use a tomahawk, knife or a bat to probably kill his cousin and ex.

If you don't like guns, don't buy them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Unless you have the strength of a bear or the speed and huniting skill of a mountain lion, then you can carry those items to go hunting. But if not, you need to take some weapon, like a bow and arrow, or a gun.

Or in other words, guns make great killing machines, more than bottles or ropes. Or even bows and arrows for that matter, or else all hunters would be bow-hunting.

Just based on this bit of information, he was probably bound to use a tomahawk, knife or a bat to probably kill his cousin and ex.

Which would have saved the other people who also got shot in the melee.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's truly bizarre to see intelligent people unable to state the simple fact that guns are more efficient killing tools than knives, rope or bottles. Have these people never considered why soldiers are not armed with fish forks? Would they rather be faced by a nutter with a semi-automatic firearm or one with a broken beer bottle?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

or else all hunters would be bow-hunting.

Actually, in many areas in the US you do have hunting seasons that are open for just those types of weapons. But, people do get killed by those very types of weapons also. Not in the news much, but it does happen.

Which would have saved the other people who also got shot in the melee.

Maybe not, since those require up close contact, and if someone was really determined they would be able to kill quickly and sad to say more quietly and move on to their next targets. If it is indeed a premeditated kill and he knew who he wanted to kill, then he probably would have been able to kill just as many.

Bottom line, he was a nutcase and he was intent on killing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Actually, in many areas in the US you do have hunting seasons that are open for just those types of weapons. But, people do get killed by those very types of weapons also. Not in the news much, but it does happen.

What does this have to do with anything? My comment was regarding the efficacy of bow and arrow vs. guns. Your reply had nothing to do with my comment whatsoever.

Which would have saved the other people who also got shot in the melee.

Maybe not

Maybe not, but almost definitely so. As has been agreed by you, guns are much more efficient a killing machine than other methods. It's almost impossible to cause the same level of damage in the same period of time using a tomahawk vs. a gun. Plain and simple. It doesn't even take much intelligence to recognize this on an intellectual level, so disagreeing with it means one is either really low down on the intelligence scale, or just being purposely stupid to back up a love of guns.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If you don't like guns, don't buy them.

I wonder how many guns the people who got shot had bought.

Bottom line, he was a nutcase and he was intent on killing.

More likely he was a normal teenager with normal teenager raging hormones who had been gleefully handed a permanent solution to a temporary problem. If his parents and society at large had spent a bit more time helping him get through the normal problems every teenager goes through instead of telling him guns are the answer to everything the outcome would probably have been very, very different. Maybe the girl-stealing cousin and/or the jilted boy may have ended up with a bloody nose and/or a black eye, nothing more.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's almost impossible to cause the same level of damage in the same period of time using a tomahawk vs. a gun.

@ Strangerland: Houston TX 2013, 12 wounded in mass knife attack. Calgary Canda 2014: 5 students (college aged) killed in a matter of mintues in a mass stabbing attacj China, 2014: 29 killed, 130 wounded in mass stabbing attacks (ok, this was not a "lone gunman" but even in cases where there have been two shooters, not that many have been killed or injured). Osaka Japan 2001: 8 killed, 13 wounded.

In all of these cases, the tragic events were not prolonged attacks but happened rather quickly. According to your thinking, these types of events should not have such high numbes of casualties since it takes more time to do killing with a knife versus a gun.

Knives, and guns don't have intent to kill. The people who use them do. If a crazed person is bent on killing as many as possible, they are going to use whatever device is handy to do so. This was not a case of a "hot gun" bought off the streets used to kill. This was a licensed legal firearm, that the boys family had grone through the proper gun control measures to purchase used. More restrictions than those in place to buy a knife.

If you don't like guns, then if you live in the USA, then it is your right to not have one. But taking away the rights of the majority to own a weapon that you have to buy legally and withing the guidlines because you don't like them and you have feeling against them is not a viable option in my opinon. The root cause of this killing was the fact that a kid was messed up in the head.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I'm not sure what your point is alphaape. Had guns been used in any of those cases you can guarantee there would have been a lot more casualties. The fact is that guns kill faster, and unlike knives, have no value to society whatsoever.

taking away the rights of the majority to own a weapon that you have to buy legally and withing the guidlines because you don't like them and you have feeling against them is not a viable option in my opinon.

And that's why your country is broken. The problem isn't just the poison, it's the fact that you have no willingness to get rid of that poison.

It's like trying to tell an alcoholic that they shouldn't drink.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

taking away the rights of the majority to own a weapon that you have to buy legally and withing the guidlines

...blah blah blah blah.

The root cause of this killing was the fact that a kid was messed up in the head.

And he killed using a legally-obtained, licensed firearm that you think he should be allowed to have. In any non-crazy country not awash with guns he and the cousin may have resorted to fisticuffs over the girl, all over and done with and the bruises healed within a week. Instead.....

It's crazy, simply crazy. Like Strangerland says, we're trying to reason with a bunch of alcoholics ...who have been let loose at a free, all-you-can-drink party.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What does this have to do with anything? My comment was regarding the efficacy of bow and arrow vs. guns. Your reply had nothing to do with my comment whatsoever.

It is a relevant question though.

Maybe not, but almost definitely so. As has been agreed by you, guns are much more efficient a killing machine than other methods. It's almost impossible to cause the same level of damage in the same period of time using a tomahawk vs. a gun. Plain and simple. It doesn't even take much intelligence to recognize this on an intellectual level, so disagreeing with it means one is either really low down on the intelligence scale, or just being purposely stupid to back up a love of guns.

The amount doesn't matter. Who's counting? 1 body or 30 bodies. "Dead is dead."

@cleo

..blah blah blah blah

So say the people that hate the truth.

And he killed using a legally-obtained, licensed firearm that you think he should be allowed to have. In any non-crazy country not awash with guns he and the cousin may have resorted to fisticuffs over the girl, all over and done with and the bruises healed within a week. Instead.....

Again, you would make a compelling argument if the US were Somalia, but it's not even close, but it tickles me always about people (outsiders) that have never lived in the States trying to lecture us about guns. I have lived both in the US and Europe and I still feel safer in the US, even without my guns.

It's crazy, simply crazy. Like Strangerland says, we're trying to reason with a bunch of alcoholics ...who have been let loose at a free, all-you-can-drink party.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Who's counting? 1 body or 30 bodies.

The families of the 29?

I still feel safer in the US, even without my guns.

Maybe the kids in that classroom felt safe too - until they weren't.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The amount doesn't matter. Who's counting? 1 body or 30 bodies. "Dead is dead."

Wow. That doesn't even need a response (though Cleo gave a good one). I don't even know if I could have made that statement up in a parody of you.

it tickles me always about people (outsiders) that have never lived in the States trying to lecture us about guns.

I've lived in the US.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

'The amount doesn't matter. Who's counting? 1 body or 30 bodies. "Dead is dead."'

Now I see why those on the right find it easier to stomach soldiers coming home in body bags from war zones. I appreciate your honesty.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The obvious answer isn't just staring you in the face, it's hitting you over the head and pummelling you in the chest.

Actually, it's not because I'm not a shrink, that not my field line of work.

Raising whole generations of kids to believe that guns are a good thing, their gawd-gibbun right and the answer to everything, wouldn't have anything to do with it, yer think?

Don't think so, but It is their right, I fail to see any correlation.

Whenever you start losing an argument you start telling us that we weren't there, we don't know the facts and so can't reach any conclusions.

If I were losing an argument? I'm not even arguing, just stating the facts. Again, hate the message, NOT the messenger.

My point is that we can understand a lot from what we do know, from the facts that are out there. Those facts being that this kid was given access to lethal weapons by his parents, and the law allowed this.

Yes, it's true, but the real problem was probably overlooked and that his parents didn't notice or failed to address it, so they are to a point culpable for this tragic tragedy.

..that Americans are shooting each other like there was no tomorrow. (A self-fulfilling prophesy...)

if that were even remotely true, I'd be dead already. Lol

I worry more about the knives and assaults in Europe.

Once it's been determined a person has a mental problem, the word potential is surely no longer appropriate. So in your ideal America, you'd have these institutions all over the place to lock up people who have done no wrong, but potentially might?

If there is a strong evidence that an individual is a possible risk to others, by all means, lock them up and put them in a padded cell, with a concoction of strong meds.

How are you going to find them? Compulsory regular mental health testing? Folk telling on their non-conformist neighbours? How does that fit with that much-vaunted idea of the 'Land of the Free'?

Don't have to find them, we didn't before. It would be up to the family or care official to make that determination and once the facts are in, then the person should be committed. Has nothing to do with the land of the free. They are free, that's why No one is banging at their door and schlepping them off to the looney house.

Shooting up a whole school is no different from a single stabbing? Seriously??

Murder is murder, regardless of the weapon used.

if someone wants to kill you, it doesn't have to necessarily be a gun.

It's like a broken record, same daft arguments over and over.

Because you are asking the same questions.

So, to repeat Jimizo's question, why take a gun with you when you go hunting? Why not kill that wildlife with a broken beer bottle?

Because usually animals have 4 legs and could easily outrun me. But if I'm ever cornered by a deer, I might have to resort to street fighting, whatever it takes to bring the buck down.

Why not arm your kids with a potato peeler instead of a firearm? After all, if they really want to kill Bambi, it doesn't matter what they use, right?

Come on now, leave the emotion out of the debate.

So apparently did the teenager who shot up his school.

Who had a mental problem, which doesn't apply to me or any other law abiding citizen.

The families of the 29?

Again. Who's counting. Murder is murder, regardless of the weapon used.

Maybe the kids in that classroom felt safe too - until they weren't.

Well, I can't speak for them. I feel safe with mine, that's all I care about.

@stranger

Wow. That doesn't even need a response (though Cleo gave a good one). I don't even know if I could have made that statement up in a parody of you.

I don't think so, in the end. When a person commits a crime, regardless of the weapon, once you are laying in a morgue with a toe tag, dead is dead.

@jim

Now I see why those on the right find it easier to stomach soldiers coming home in body bags from war zones. I appreciate your honesty.

No, it's just that we know what a soldiers job is and we know that a soldier could be called into battle and that there is a possibility that the soldier could be killed. Every soldier knows this before they enlist. No soldier wants to die and NO family wants to see a flag draped coffin in any country, but everyone knows that there is always that chance.... By the way, there are many liberals that serve as well, this is not a right or left issue. The only difference is that the conservatives see and understand the realities of war, that's probably why they can cope with the situation better than with the people that are afraid to deal with reality.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I feel exactly the same way when I talk to libs.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The amount doesn't matter. Who's counting? 1 body or 30 bodies. "Dead is dead."

Yes, someone has indeed "lost it" here. Imagine someone standing before the families of Sandy Hook and making that exact statement, and then, when the crowd expresses their natural shock and outrage, tells them they "can't accept the truth." (See why I am so relieved that a person like this is attracted to the conservatives?)

As to who is counting, why not start with the first responders and the local emergency rooms? In just a matter of minutes, a high-powered rifle with large capacity clips can create tremendous carnage. People who work in those roles are used to seeing individual victims, but over 20 kids at a time? Ever see what's left of a 6-year old kid shot multiple times at close range with a high-power rifle?

And you claim "the solution" is to completely take away the freedoms of anyone you and your experts deem to be "crazy" -- rather than making an attempt to control their access to guns prior to their diagnosis. Or, are you saying the solution is for every American to undergo psychological screening as a requirement before purchasing a firearm? And if such a screening takes place, and the mental health professionals deem them unfit to own a firearm, they should be immediately locked up?

This is what you have suggested, and it will be fun to try to watch you wriggle and slither around it -- because it's absolutely crazy.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I think this debate is reaching a impasse. See you all back here the next time a nutter decides to live out his fantasies with those much loved killing devices. I doubt we'll make it until Christmas. Just make sure you don't put one of these things in your child's Christmas stocking.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The U.S. needs to tighten up and enforce gun laws so that high school students can't bring hand guns to school.

And they need to find out what made this student do what he did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I doubt we'll make it until Christmas.

Christmas? I would bet we'll see at least two more before Thanksgiving (end of November).

And they need to find out what made this student do what he did.

What did they learn from Columbine, Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook that could have had any impact on this? They could have learned -- "We need to make sure any person who can't practice self-discipline at all times doesn't get their hands on guns in the first place" -- but that would drastically impact gun sales. And the gun lobby/NRA can't have that.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yes, someone has indeed "lost it" here. Imagine someone standing before the families of Sandy Hook and making that exact statement, and then, when the crowd expresses their natural shock and outrage, tells them they "can't accept the truth." (See why I am so relieved that a person like this is attracted to the conservatives?)

Pure ignorance to even think that this is an Conservative ONLY issue. NO one in their right mind of a tragedy would say to ANY parent, let alone to their face what you just uttered. When you make statements like that, it completely disqualifies you from the discourse. You and others will not change my mind on firearms and I'm not trying to change yours and let's leave it at that.

As to who is counting, why not start with the first responders and the local emergency rooms? In just a matter of minutes, a high-powered rifle with large capacity clips can create tremendous carnage. People who work in those roles are used to seeing individual victims, but over 20 kids at a time? Ever see what's left of a 6-year old kid shot multiple times at close range with a high-power rifle?

As a matter of fact, yes. I covered quite a few crime scenes, but the majority of them were people that died through other means.

And you claim "the solution" is to completely take away the freedoms of anyone you and your experts deem to be "crazy" -- rather than making an attempt to control their access to guns prior to their diagnosis.

I'm from California, we have strict gun rules.

Or, are you saying the solution is for every American to undergo psychological screening as a requirement before purchasing a firearm?

They should. Many countries have that as a requirement.

And if such a screening takes place, and the mental health professionals deem them unfit to own a firearm, they should be immediately locked up?

They should carefully monitored for any negative behavriol signs that would pose a problem to society.

This is what you have suggested, and it will be fun to try to watch you wriggle and slither around it -- because it's absolutely crazy.

Actually, No, it's not. Quite logical really.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The U.S. needs to tighten up and enforce gun laws so that high school students can't bring hand guns to school.

Students already cannot bring hand guns to school. That doesn't stop the ones who want to do it anyways. So the logical step would be to get rid of hand guns altogether... but you know, that's being logical, which doesn't fly with the American public.

And they need to find out what made this student do what he did.

As he is dead, they can't find out. So again, the logical step would be to get rid of hand guns.

Actually, No, it's not. Quite logical really.

Only in your world.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

NO one in their right mind of a tragedy would say to ANY parent, let alone to their face what you just uttered. When you make statements like that, it completely disqualifies you from the discourse.

Readers will note that I was quoting your statements, which you have uttered here in the public forum, where ANY parent can read. Really, you can't see that?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

NO one in their right mind of a tragedy would say to ANY parent, let alone to their face what you just uttered. When you make statements like that, it completely disqualifies you from the discourse.

The amount doesn't matter. Who's counting? 1 body or 30 bodies. "Dead is dead."

Regardless a rope, a gun, a knife, cyanide, doesn't matter, dead is dead. Guns are not the real problem

Once your dead, who cares how the person died.

Your words, bass. And you are correct, it does disqualify you from rational discussion.

Ever see what's left of a 6-year old kid shot multiple times at close range with a high-power rifle?

As a matter of fact, yes.

And you still say it's OK to have guns in the hands of anyone who hasn't been officially declared insane? I note that higher up the thread you also say. I have never seen anyone get shot. and I never witnessed any violence from guns. Which is it, bass? You inspecting the remains of a kid shot at close range, or you never having seen anyone shot, never seen anyone use a gun in a violent manner?

I'm from California, we have strict gun rules.

Not strict enough, it would seem. The gun murder rate in California is 3.4 per 100,000 (all murders, 4.9), which places it 12th out of the 50 states plus DC. Seems the law does little or nothing to stop people shooting each other.

What is your definition of strict gun laws? Cos if the laws allow kids and the mentally unstable to have access to guns, there is no way they can be considered strict.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And that's why your country is broken. The problem isn't just the poison, it's the fact that you have no willingness to get rid of that poison.

The USA is not broken, if so why are people trying to get there illegally. Speaking of that, on the same day two sheriff deputies were killed by a gunman in Sacramento, CA. One of those killed died on the same day his father died in the line of duty being a deputy.

But taking a look at this shooting a few things come out. 1) If has now been shown that the shooter was an illegal alien. Who had been deported back to Mexico twice from the US for selling drugs and other crimes. But for some reason he manages to come back to America and commit more crimes and sell more drugs. 2) According to the strict gun laws in place in CA, he should not be allowed to own a weapon. But, he got them from wherever he did. Probably using the various alias that he had, so many that even his father-in-law didn't know that the name he knew him by was not his real name.

So in a way, you may be correct the USA is broken in regards to our immigration policy where a person who has been deported twice has no fear to come back and commit crimes and kill two sheriff deputies. While people like you who don't live there, think we are bad because people who are law abiding have the right to own guns, and sadly some abuse that privilege.

Where ever you are from, I can bet you this with reasonable certainty. If this "bad seed" illegal immigrant had been deported from your country twice and made it back in and continued to sell drugs, I imagine that he would be able to have a fire arm purchased illegally in your country to commit his crimes. Just a hunch, but if someone has blatant disregard for a country's laws, I am sure that they will do what they want.

So Cleo, you are saying that just let them "duke it out" until the last man is standing. Don't you think it would have been just as tragic for the school to see one of their popular students either kill someone by hand? Who says just a knock on the head would have satisfied him?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The USA is not broken

"I'm not an alcoholic"

if so why are people trying to get there illegally

Usually because they are from countries that are even more broken.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Students already cannot bring hand guns to school. That doesn't stop the ones who want to do it anyways. So the logical step would be to get rid of hand guns altogether... but you know, that's being logical, which doesn't fly with the American public.

Far from it. pat downs or metal detectors and or better screening. We are talking about mostly PUBLIC inner city schools in "neighborhoods with high crime" rate, I am all for that, but that's the only way and would be the most sensible.

As he is dead, they can't find out. So again, the logical step would be to get rid of hand guns.

Don't conflate the argument. Yes, he is dead. I am talking MORE about future incidents. Yes, the system needs to change in these crime ridden areas and also areas where you have more gang activity.

But that has nothing to do with MY PERSONAL rights, so we don't need to address that issue. One has nothing to do with the other.

Only in your world.

And right back at you Stranger.

"I'm not an alcoholic"

??? I'm just gonna gloss over that one....

Usually because they are from countries that are even more broken.

That and a better life, freedom, opportunities, education and of course entitlements.

@yabits

Readers will note that I was quoting your statements, which you have uttered here in the public forum, where ANY parent can read. Really, you can't see that?

And why are you throwing in the emotion factor?

@cleo

our words, bass. And you are correct, it does disqualify you from rational discussion.

Actually, I am rational as always, you are getting too emotional, there is no need, relax. We all have our opinions.

And you still say it's OK to have guns in the hands of anyone who hasn't been officially declared insane?

If you are mentally fit and your state allows you and pass the proper rules and guidelines, why not?

I note that higher up the thread you also say. I have never seen anyone get shot. and I never witnessed any violence from guns. Which is it, bass?

I have not seen anyone in MY city get shot or seen ANY hardcore violence. I do hope that clarifies your confusion.

You inspecting the remains of a kid shot at close range, or you never having seen anyone shot, never seen anyone use a gun in a violent manner?

Hmmm, heard of the aftermath? Also, that was NOT in MY neighborhood and I come from a very large city.

Not strict enough, it would seem. The gun murder rate in California is 3.4 per 100,000 (all murders, 4.9), which places it 12th out of the 50 states plus DC. Seems the law does little or nothing to stop people shooting each other.

Also California has one of the highest populations in the union, so it depends on where you go. There are areas where I just would not go at night. I know where all the trouble lives and I don't go there, don't see it, therefore it doesn't affect me. Where I am from, I have not seen any violence, so I can't relate to any of it.

What is your definition of strict gun laws? Cos if the laws allow kids and the mentally unstable to have access to guns, there is no way they can be considered strict.

Not in California, you will not be able to purchase a gun if you are mentally unstable, I can't speak for the other states, I am not familiar with their gun laws.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And why are you throwing in the emotion factor?

You made the assertion that the number of deaths doesn't matter. "Who's counting?", you said. You make such statements that obviously show little regard for human life, and then, when others point out the obvious, you accuse them of being "emotional?"

I am not being emotional at all. I just wanted to know if you could stand behind your own words about the number of deaths not mattering -- in front of any audience. You are certainly have asserted it here on a public forum.

What this brings home is how so many who support these so-called "gun rights" have so little regard for human life.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

the love people had for these devices and the inability to listen to criticism of them was truly disturbing.

@Jimizio I think the reason for that is those making the criticism usually have a tone or attitude of being sanctimonious to gun owners.

What this brings home is how so many who support these so-called "gun rights" have so little regard for human life.

Oh come on that is not fair. Alcohol kills more people on a per capita basis in UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, USA than guns do on a per capita basis in the USA.

How much should I bet Yabits that you condone or in fact participate in recreational consumption of Alcohol that is responsible for more deaths on a per capita basis than guns are in the USA. How much should I bet that Cleo, Stranger, Smith, SuperLib all engage or have engage or at the very least condone the activity of recreational alcohol consumption?

If a government in any one of those listed countries above wanted to pass laws stating the customer had to go through a background check for each sale of alcohol to prevent the legal sale of Alcohol to people who have been convicted of crimes like drunken assault, drunk driving, etc. What if they wanted to pass a registry of alcoholic beverage sales that way they could track those who are supplying minors. What if they wanted to pass a law that says you could only purchase one alcoholic beverage per hour or ever two hours or heck what if they just limited you to one alcoholic beverage per day. What if they wanted to raise the minimum drinking age to 25 or 30.

Would you be for those laws being passed or would you say that the resulting lives that could have been saved are an acceptable cost not to have those laws passed?

I don't think it would be fair of me, I'm not a gun owner by the way, to say those that condone recreational consumption of alcohol and would be oppose to the above proposed laws would have little regard for human life and quite frankly I think it is very hypocritical to act like they care more about human lives than gun owners simply because they don't approve of guns and yet completely ignore the fact that Alcohol kills more than guns and or are unwilling to give up Alcohol or at the very least support measures to more heavily restrict the sale of Alcohol to save just as many lives if more lives than guns.

The truth of the matter is that in order to enjoy the pleasures of life means you will have to accept a daily death toll, if the only acceptable number for a daily death toll to enjoy the pleasures of life is zero than quite frankly that means we are all going to have very boring lives.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oh come on that is not fair

It's not fair to address a comment that the number of innocent people killed by guns in a single incident (like Sandy Hook) doesn't matter? Oh come on yourself; you are defending what is indefensible.

Alcohol kills more people on a per capita basis in UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, USA than guns do on a per capita basis in the USA

That's 100 proof stupidity. And I don't need 2-3 inches of column space to show just how stupid it is: The next time a kid goes into a high school and kills a bunch of people armed only with alcohol, tell us about it.

Or, how about this one: A man goes into a Wal-Mart and takes a rifle right off the display rack. He then makes a cell phone call, oblivious to the fact that police have surrounded him and are ready to blow him away -- which they do. The next time someone gets blown away by the police for taking a bottle of Jack Daniels off the shelf, tell us about it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

1) If has now been shown that the shooter was an illegal alien. Who had been deported back to Mexico twice from the US for selling drugs and other crimes.

I thought he was a member of a Native American tribe? More right to be there than any of the white boys.

According to the strict gun laws in place in CA, he should not be allowed to own a weapon. But, he got them from wherever he did. Probably using the various alias that he had, so many that even his father-in-law didn't know that the name he knew him by was not his real name

You're on the wrong page, Alpha. He was a school kid. His parents gave him guns. No father-in-law in the picture.

So Cleo, you are saying that just let them "duke it out" until the last man is standing. Don't you think it would have been just as tragic for the school to see one of their popular students either kill someone by hand? Who says just a knock on the head would have satisfied him?

Oh come on, grow up. That's not what I'm saying at all. Two teenagers 'slugging it out' in the classroom or school yard would soon be stopped by a teacher if not by the other kids, with much less harm done (a couple of bloody noses and battered egos) than actually occurred in this case (3 dead now, and several more critical). Maybe it's a reflection of your society that you cannot see any alternative to people killing and being killed.

It's sad, very, very, sad.

If you are mentally fit and your state allows you and pass the proper rules and guidelines, why not?

This boy was considered mentally fit (or as mentally fit as any teenage boy), his state allowed him and he seems to have passed the proper rules and guidelines. Then he went to school and shot people dead. That's why not.

I have not seen anyone in MY city get shot or seen ANY hardcore violence. I do hope that clarifies your confusion.

Yes thank you, it clarifies that you will write whatever you think makes your point at the time, regardless of whether it's fact or fiction.

California has one of the highest populations in the union, so it depends on where you go. There are areas where I just would not go at night.

You do understand that the murder rate is independent of population size?

So, let's get this straight, in spite of its ever-so-strict gun laws, California is a place where its citizens are afraid to walk at night (in some areas) because of the high crime rate, is that what you're telling us? So the strict gun laws only work in places where people are nice to each other anyway? Not very effective laws, are they?

in California, you will not be able to purchase a gun if you are mentally unstable

That's the definition of 'strict'? You can't buy a gun if you're certified? That's it??

Alcohol kills more people on a per capita basis in UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, USA than guns do on a per capita basis in the USA

First of all, while I enjoy a tipple, I see a huge difference between social or recreational drinking and alcoholism, which is a disease. If alcohol killed schoolchildren like guns do, I'd be more than happy to forsake my 'right' to drink myself silly to protect the kids.

So now let's look at some figures.

Alcohol-related deaths in the UK, 2012: 12 per 100,000, most being habitual drinkers in middle to old age.

Gun-related deaths in the US, 2011: 10.3 per 100,000, 10% of those being children and 48% young adults.

http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/alcohol-related-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom/2012/stb---alcohol-related-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom--registered-in-2012.html#tab-Summary

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

One more point: a drinker drinks himself (or herself) into that early grave; a person with a gun points it at others before or instead of himself.

And before someone comes up with the old 'but what about drunk-driving, that kills innocent people' - DUI is illegal. As should owning and/or allowing children to handle a lethal weapon be.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

All readers back on topic please. Alcohol-related deaths are not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You made the assertion that the number of deaths doesn't matter. "Who's counting?", you said. You make such statements that obviously show little regard for human life, and then, when others point out the obvious, you accuse them of being "emotional?"

This is what always gets me about you, Yabits. You love to shapeshifter the truth to fit your skewed viewpoint. I care about life just as much as you or anyone else. I was just saying, it doesn't matter what was used to kill a person. A gun or knife, or club or whatever object a person uses to take a life, one or many, the result is the same, severe injury or death. Stop making it a gun issue that if you get rid of the guns, the problem will be solved, it will NOT.

I am not being emotional at all. I just wanted to know if you could stand behind your own words about the number of deaths not mattering -- in front of any audience. You are certainly have asserted it here on a public forum.

Any right minded thinking person would know that I was talking guns not being the main issue.

What this brings home is how so many who support these so-called "gun rights" have so little regard for human life.

And again, we are making things up for sheer entertainment.

Yes thank you, it clarifies that you will write whatever you think makes your point at the time, regardless of whether it's fact or fiction.

I leave that to you and the other liberals.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You're on the wrong page, Alpha. He was a school kid. His parents gave him guns. No father-in-law in the picture.

@ cleo: You missed my point. I pointed out that on the same day as this shooting, in CA an illegal alien killed two sheriff deputies. The pont I made was we have gun laws in the USA, and the teen shooter in this case had his guns from legit sources. The twice deported illegal alien obiviously got his guns from illegal means.

If this illegal alien guy would be in your country after twice being deported for criminal activity, I would place a reasonable bet with you that he would also have a gun since he isn't bothered with following laws.

This shooting case is not about gun control, the proper steps were followed, but the individual shooter wasn't rational enough to know you don't use guns to solve problems. There has been talk about his online postings, and I wonder how many "shooter" games this kid was playing. That may be one of the reasons why he thought he could solve his problems with violence, but the US gun laws had nothing to do with this case.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's not fair to address a comment that the number of innocent people killed by guns in a single incident (like Sandy Hook) doesn't matter? Oh come on yourself; you are defending what is indefensible.

What are you talking about? The comment you made that I quoted was not about a single incident, the comment you made was that gun owners as a whole in general have less regard for human life than non-gun owners regardless of a single incident. That is not a fair comment and quite frankly is hypocritical of you to claim when you condone and participate in a recreational activity that kills more people on a per capita basis than firearms do. BTW I'm not defending the sandy hook massacre or any other massacre.

That's 100 proof stupidity. And I don't need 2-3 inches of column space to show just how stupid it is: The next time a kid goes into a high school and kills a bunch of people armed only with alcohol, tell us about it.

So basically the argument is that if the alcohol deaths are not as "sensational" as gun deaths they don't count the same?

Or, how about this one: A man goes into a Wal-Mart and takes a rifle right off the display rack. He then makes a cell phone call, oblivious to the fact that police have surrounded him and are ready to blow him away -- which they do. The next time someone gets blown away by the police for taking a bottle of Jack Daniels off the shelf, tell us about it.

What difference does it make Yabits if the death is caused by a drunk driver or a drunken fist fight or law enforcement shooting someone for taking something off of a store shelf to look at it. They are all pre-mature deaths and they are all just as needless.

Note to the Moderator: The reason why I brought up Alcohol related deaths was because of Yabits sanctimonious post. If he is going to make the claim that gun owners in general have less regard for human life than non gun owners than they better not participate or condone a recreational activity that kills just as many people and if not more people than firearms. That is entirely relevant to the comment Yabits made about gun owners and the larger discussion relating to firearms.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This shooting case is not about gun control, the proper steps were followed, but the individual shooter wasn't rational enough to know you don't use guns to solve problems. There has been talk about his online postings, and I wonder how many "shooter" games this kid was playing. That may be one of the reasons why he thought he could solve his problems with violence, but the US gun laws had nothing to do with this case.

Ridiculous. If the kid didn't have access to guns, he could not have shot anyone. If the gun laws were not slack, he would not have had guns. So the gun laws are directly responsible for this case, and it most definitely is about gun control.

You're right however that the proper steps were followed - his guns appear to have been legal. And that's why America is broken.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alpha -

This shooting case is not about gun control, the proper steps were followed, but the individual shooter wasn't rational enough to know you don't use guns to solve problems.

Then take the guns away. It might not stop your twice-deported-but-still-coming-back hardened criminals, but it would stop hormone-guided teenagers from blowing their schoolfriends away. If the 'proper steps' were followed, and still a teenager was allowed to shoot his friends dead, then could it just possibly be that the proper steps aren't working?

bass -

I care about life just as much as you or anyone else.

Not when you can't see the difference between 30 deaths and one death, you don't.

I was just saying, it doesn't matter what was used to kill a person. A gun or knife, or club or whatever object a person uses to take a life, one or many, the result is the same

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

(1) Who's counting? Is an utterance claiming that it doesn't matter how many people die. It has nothing to do with how they die. You asked, Who's counting?

(2) Do you seriously, truthfully, honestly believe, that if this teenager had walked into the school canteen (after asking his friends to meet him there) armed with nothing more than his fists or even a knife, that the result would have been the same? Three dead, several others critically injured? A whole school and community traumatised? Be honest with yourself, bass, if you cannot be honest with the rest of us. Remember why you don't go hunting armed with just your fists and an elastic band.

Stop making it a gun issue that if you get rid of the guns, the problem will be solved, it will NOT.

It would solve a good nine-tenths of the problem.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ridiculous. If the kid didn't have access to guns, he could not have shot anyone.

Or more importantly, WHY did this happen, but the gun debate aside. WHAT made this kid go off? That is really the more important question in all of this. Again, this problem didn't just manifest itself all on its on, there must have been signs that this kid was a little bit out there. It goes back to the parents first, start there.

If the gun laws were not slack, he would not have had guns. So the gun laws are directly responsible for this case, and it most definitely is about gun control.

Or maybe, his parents shouldn't have given him the guns, making it again, the parents responsibility. All my guns are locked up and there is NO WAY they can just take it go out and shoot whatever and whenever they like. Once they are around 16 with supervision, then it's ok and I wouldn't object to it, but I would never leave my kids out of sight, also we talk and have a very good relationship and they know how to handle a gun, safety precautions and what to do and what NOT to do.

You're right however that the proper steps were followed - his guns appear to have been legal. And that's why America is broken.

It's broken NOT because of the guns, never has been, what's breaking America is the current admin.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

WHAT made this kid go off? That is really the more important question in all of this.

Girl trouble. Which in any other civilised society would have been worked out in a way that did not involve killing and maiming. He used guns because guns were there to be used.

there must have been signs that this kid was a little bit out there.

Of course there were signs. He was a teenager. It's exceptional for a teenager not to show signs of being a bit deranged. A good few years' growing to do before he became rational and fully responsible for his actions. That's why they're called minors, not fit to marry, vote, drink or sign a legal contract, and that's why the law is supposed to protect them, not to say it's OK to have lethal weapons put in their hands.

It's broken NOT because of the guns, never has been, what's breaking America is the current admin.

Heavens above, why didn't the rest of us see that?? It's so obvious, starin' us in the face, there was not a single school shooting in America before Obama got himself elected.

Oh hang on.......

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Girl trouble. Which in any other civilised society would have been worked out in a way that did not involve killing and maiming. He used guns because guns were there to be used.

@ cleo: I am surprised that you posted that comment, since you have been on this site many times and have seen the numerous cases here in Japan on the jilted lover going off and killing the object of their desire or hariming their family members. It happens and that is a sad fact of life. Not having a gun around will not stop it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you have been on this site many times and have seen the numerous cases here in Japan on the jilted lover going off and killing the object of their desire or hariming their family members. It happens and that is a sad fact of life.

How many of those jilted Japanese lovers were teenagers? How many of them went off and killed a whole group of people sitting at a table? Now compare the total number of incidents in Japan with the number of shootings in America.

How many people do you think the Seattle boy would have been able to kill without access to a firearm? Yes, if he was intent on killing he would have found a way, but in how many instances is it likely he would have calmed down while considering his options, and decided it was a stupid thing to do?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How many of those jilted Japanese lovers were teenagers? How many of them went off and killed a whole group of people sitting at a table? Now compare the total number of incidents in Japan with the number of shootings in America.

@ cleo: I am sure that there are many since JT doesn't post all of them, just like they don't post all of the killings by other methods than guns in America. My point is, if a person was killed by a nut job with a legal right to own a gun, or some guy who goes on a random stabbing spree, the end result is the same a dead person. If it was a person close to me, I frankly wouldn't care how many others were killed in the attack, since my only concern would be for the person involved that I cared about.

As I have said, you don't like guns, then don't use them or buy one if available in your area. However, if I am law abiding and they are legal in my area, what right do you have to tell me that I can't own one if I am following the rules and taking responsibilty for ownership.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

they don't post all of the killings by other methods than guns in America

With a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000 (that's 14,827 murders in 2012) posting them all would smother all the cats on the Internet. The murder rate in Japan is 0.3, less than 500 a year. That's including all the jilted lovers and raging teenagers.

the end result is the same a dead person

No Alpha, in this particular case the end result is at least three dead and several more in a critical condition.

If it was a person close to me, I frankly wouldn't care how many others were killed in the attack, since my only concern would be for the person involved that I cared about.

No point continuing the discussion then, perhaps you should go and sit in that cold, dark corner bass has been occupying. You and I aren't even on the same planet.

(shivers)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The comment you made that I quoted was not about a single incident, the comment you made was that gun owners as a whole in general have less regard for human life than non-gun owners regardless of a single incident.

When confronted with a gun-rights advocate who obviously displays less regard for human life with his "Who's counting?" comment -- a comment doubtless shared by many -- you proved my point by choosing to confront the person who points it out. Anyone who chooses not to own a gun because they fear for the safety of others if it is ever stolen or misused obviously has far higher regard for human life than someone who keeps defending the "right" of the general population to own guns.

BTW I'm not defending the sandy hook massacre or any other massacre

You actually have to make that disclaimer?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Girl trouble. Which in any other civilised society would have been worked out in a way that did not involve killing and maiming. He used guns because guns were there to be used.

there must have been signs that this kid was a little bit out there.

Of course there were signs. He was a teenager. It's exceptional for a teenager not to show signs of being a bit deranged.

But NOT that deranged.

A good few years' growing to do before he became rational and fully responsible for his actions. That's why they're called minors, not fit to marry, vote, drink or sign a legal contract, and that's why the law is supposed to protect them, not to say it's OK to have lethal weapons put in their hands.

It's broken NOT because of the guns, never has been, what's breaking America is the current admin.

Heavens above, why didn't the rest of us see that?? It's so obvious, starin' us in the face, there was not a single school shooting in America before Obama got himself elected.

There were, but I'm not talking about ONLY guns. The country is falling apart because of his radical leftist policies. Far more dangerous than the guns IMHO.

No point continuing the discussion then, perhaps you should go and sit in that cold, dark corner bass has been occupying. You and I aren't even on the same planet.

After you.

@yabits

When confronted with a gun-rights advocate who obviously displays less regard for human life with his "Who's counting?" comment -- a comment doubtless shared by many -- you proved my point by choosing to confront the person who points it out. Anyone who chooses not to own a gun because they fear for the safety of others if it is ever stolen or misused obviously has far higher regard for human life than someone who keeps defending the "right" of the general population to own guns.

You were referring to me, YES, I said it. And I meant it! I love how you and Cleo always get viewpoints skewed. Owning a gun doesn't make me have less respect for life. That is just plain liberal gobly crap! The only difference between you and me is, I'd rather hunt for my deer chili and you'd rather buy your meat in the store. I respect your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion, but I will always love my guns and that's ok as well.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

But NOT that deranged.

It's the free and ready access to guns that puts the sparkly edge on the derangement, bass.

I'm not talking about ONLY guns. The country is falling apart because of his radical leftist policies

And that is at all relevant to this discussion because why? if you want to bring the Obama administration into this please explain what effect it has had on gun murder rates, because that's the subject under discussion.

After you

Ha! No way you're getting me in that nasty dark corner with you two.

Owning a gun doesn't make me have less respect for life.

Lemme see, someone who's quite prepared to take life and has equipped himself to do so, even taught his kids to do the same, against someone who isn't and hasn't....

I'd rather hunt for my deer chili and you'd rather buy your meat in the store.

Can't remember the last time I bought or indeed obtained any meat anywhere. Why? Because I respect life and see no need to take it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Emotional meltdowns plus the ease of obtaining guns leads to mass killings.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It's the free and ready access to guns that puts the sparkly edge on the derangement, bass.

I wouldn't know, I paid for mine and again, it's not that easy to purchase a gun in the state of California, let alone and God forbid you are daughter with a gun on your person. Unless you're going to a shooting range or a gun shop, just carrying it on you can land you in the slammer for up to 10 years.

And that is at all relevant to this discussion because why? if you want to bring the Obama administration into this please explain what effect it has had on gun murder rates, because that's the subject under discussion.

It's all relevant

Ha! No way you're getting me in that nasty dark corner with you two.

That was cute.

Lemme see, someone who's quite prepared to take life and has equipped himself to do so, even taught his kids to do the same, against someone who isn't and hasn't....

We're talking about animals. Which I am happy to go hunting for.

Can't remember the last time I bought or indeed obtained any meat anywhere. Why? Because I respect life and see no need to take it.

Killing meat for consumption is different than taking a human life indiscriminately just for the sheer pleasure. Whatever I kill, I eat.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

You were referring to me, YES, I said it. And I meant it! I love how you and Cleo always get viewpoints skewed. Owning a gun doesn't make me have less respect for life.

It is not necessarily owning a gun that gives a person less respect for life, but owning a gun gives a person a feeling of tremendous power over life and death -- whether imagining a hunting situation or one involving needing to use the gun against another human being. Let me tie this back to this topic:

Like the young man in this story, there were guns in my family, as some of my family were hunters. I came to know where they were and where the ammunition was. As a teenager, I went through some personal trauma and bullying, and, I will admit, I spent some time fantasizing about what I could do to "solve" my problems with those who tormented me. Young people will have these thoughts and, if guns are present, it is a crap shoot as to who does and who doesn't cross over the line. (It is the blithe, ignorant confrontation of that reality that separates those who value human life more highly than those who do not. I can imagine some craven gun-lovers spouting out that the only one who can stop a bad student with a gun is a good student with a gun.)

The simple, common sense approach, would be to get guns out of the equation. It is you who skew my viewpoint when you assert that I want to remove all guns from all citizens. In my scenario, the guns could have still been there in my family's possession, but if they were securely locked up -- and the ammunition locked up in a separate place -- thinking about using my family's guns would have been a non-starter, as I would not have been able to get to them and the ammo.

This is why I strongly advocate the private sector, via the insurance industry, to be involved -- and to require that all gun owners have liability policies with rates set by private inspectors who are experts at gun safety.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@MarkG "And the Welfare State created generations of welfare recipient single parents. Blame the Democrats for that. As for the rich, it shows we have opportunity. It's not their fault we have poor. Unless they supported the growth of the Welfare State. This diversity supports the correctional facilities. Single parent welfare recipient children populate the jails in large numbers."

Very good points Mark and true. However liberals don't like facts, so your talking to a wall. But it is time to ban guns in America. This way we won't have a gun problem anymore. Just like we don't have a drug problem.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It is not necessarily owning a gun that gives a person less respect for life, but owning a gun gives a person a feeling of tremendous power over life and death -- whether imagining a hunting situation or one involving needing to use the gun against another human being. Let me tie this back to this topic:

Actually, the gun gives me the feeling of:

1) I can protect my family in and on my property from any lethal intruder

2) I can hunt larger and more dangerous quarry

That's the satisfaction I get, nothing more, nothing less. I feel safe, NOT a sense of overpowering an opponent because of some internal insecurity.

Your argument is at best weak, to in any way suggest that a person that owns guns has less respect for life is ludicrous. I and mony other guns owners respect life, even more so. Because I have a family, I just always want to have that security there for them. Just in case.

The simple, common sense approach, would be to get guns out of the equation. It is you who skew my viewpoint when you assert that I want to remove all guns from all citizens.

By your usual rant on guns, I would have thought so.

In my scenario, the guns could have still been there in my family's possession, but if they were securely locked up -- and the ammunition locked up in a separate place -- thinking about using my family's guns would have been a non-starter, as I would not have been able to get to them and the ammo.

Most people do keep their firearm and ammo seperate.

This is why I strongly advocate the private sector, via the insurance industry, to be involved -- and to require that all gun owners have liability policies with rates set by private inspectors who are experts at gun safety.

I don't want the government coming anywhere near me and my guns. Keep them out of my life. I took all the necessary steps, classes and honor any and alll laws related to guns in my state, accounted, licensed and practice safety first and always.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Most people do keep their firearm and ammo seperate.

I don't believe you have the slightest clue what "most people" do. It's pretty well established you'll make things up to support your points.

I can protect my family in and on my property from any lethal intruder

In my language, which is English, the term "lethal intruder" is gibberish nonsense.

Your argument is at best weak, to in any way suggest that a person that owns guns has less respect for life is ludicrous. I and mony other guns owners respect life, even more so. Because I have a family, I just always want to have that security there for them. Just in case.

The people who own guns who make statements like "Who's counting?" and "I frankly wouldn't care how many others were killed in the attack.," reveal clearly a very low regard for life. (Pacifist Quakers, for example, practice a regard for life that is at the high end of the scale.) The people who make statements like those quoted are self-centered and narcissistic. They believe they have more respect than others, but it is abundantly clear to everyone but themselves that they do not.

If the killer in this case was mentally imbalanced, the adults who gave him his weapon were also mentally unfit. The person who sold those mentally unfit people their weapons also has to be considered unfit too. Unless, that is, the entire system in the U.S. can be blamed -- which is very much the point.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

1) I can protect my family in and on my property from any lethal intruder

Without guns so freely available in your society making it so easy for any potential burglar to be a lethal intruder, all you would need to protect your family is a good lock on the door. And maybe a dog with a big bark. That's all I have or need, and I feel perfectly safe. But then I live in a nice civilised society that isn't awash with guns and where school massacres do not occur so frequently that they evoke nothing more than a tired 'What, again?' response.

2) I can hunt larger and more dangerous quarry

There you have your feeling of tremendous power over life and death. (Ever read the comments on JT about the cat mutilators that pop up now and again? What appears to be the natural progression from taking pleasure in the killing of furry creatures?)

So it seems gun ownership either fosters, or is an expression of, abject fearfulness plus bloodthirsty megalomania. A bit of a chicken-and-egg situation; is it the underlying psychopathy that leads people to want guns, or is it the presence of guns in society that creates the mental disorder? Probably a bit of both.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I don't believe you have the slightest clue what "most people" do. It's pretty well established you'll make things up to support your points.

Yabits, give it up, I know you want to make it seem that people that carry firearms are all irresponsible, but that shovel you are using is wearing down a bit, time to get a new one.

In my language, which is English, the term "lethal intruder" is gibberish nonsense.

Not in mine. That's all what counts.

The people who own guns who make statements like "Who's counting?" and "I frankly wouldn't care how many others were killed in the attack.," reveal clearly a very low regard for life. (Pacifist Quakers, for example, practice a regard for life that is at the high end of the scale.)

That's your opinion, you know nothing of me or my life, but to clear the record, I'm not a Quaker or Amish, I have nothing to do with them. I answer to what I think is right for my life or my families and I really don't care what another person does as long as they abide by the laws of the land, why should I care. That's my libertarian stance on the issue.

The people who make statements like those quoted are self-centered and narcissistic. They believe they have more respect than others, but it is abundantly clear to everyone but themselves that they do not.

Then please try and heed your own words.

If the killer in this case was mentally imbalanced, the adults who gave him his weapon were also mentally unfit.

So now you know the mental status of the kids parents? Geez, Yabits! Lol

The person who sold those mentally unfit people their weapons also has to be considered unfit too. Unless, that is, the entire system in the U.S. can be blamed -- which is very much the point.

Not even an exploding cigar.

Without guns so freely available in your society making it so easy for any potential burglar to be a lethal intruder, all you would need to protect your family is a good lock on the door.

You can break a lock, even the strongest as I have seen in my line of work. Nice tip, but I'll stick with gun as an EXTRA layer of safety precaution.

And maybe a dog with a big bark. That's all I have or need, and I feel perfectly safe.

That's you. Maybe some people cannot or are not allowed to have a dog.

But then I live in a nice civilised society that isn't awash with guns and where school massacres do not occur so frequently that they evoke nothing more than a tired 'What, again?' response.

I too, live in a civilized society, and yes, I like my guns, I've always had a good life, and thankfully, I have never had to use my weapon and if you think just because you have more stabbings and NO guns and if that equates to you as living in a civilized world, so be it. I'm happy where I live and I love my country.

2) I can hunt larger and more dangerous quarry

There you have your feeling of tremendous power over life and death. (Ever read the comments on JT about the cat mutilators that pop up now and again? What appears to be the natural progression from taking pleasure in the killing of furry creatures?)

Ahhh...No, I feel like, I'm going to eat some delicious Venison (salivating)

So it seems gun ownership either fosters, or is an expression of, abject fearfulness plus bloodthirsty megalomania. A bit of a chicken-and-egg situation; is it the underlying psychopathy that leads people to want guns, or is it the presence of guns in society that creates the mental disorder? Probably a bit of both.

Nope, it just gives me the ability to hunt deers and squirrels and other animals that I love to eat in a quicker more efficient way

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I think each to his own. I love the hunt am proud of it and nothing will change that. Me loving guns has nothing to do whether I respect life or have less regard over it. Me hunting for food and protecting my family has no bearing if I value life more or less.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Without guns so freely available in your society making it so easy for any potential burglar to be a lethal intruder, all you would need to protect your family is a good lock on the door. And maybe a dog with a big bark.

I seem to remember a few stories here in JT where a crook has broken into an apartment or house and robbed and killed without a gun.

@MarkG "And the Welfare State created generations of welfare recipient single parents.

Probably not in this case. For those who don't know, the tribe he was a member of is awash in money. They have one of the biggest Indian casinos in the area, and if anything, they are having issues of removing people who "claim" to be members so that the other members will gain a bit more.

All of the social outcryig about being poor and gun control have nothing to do with this case. This is just a sad story of a boy who acted out his fantasy on how he perceived reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if you think just because you have more stabbings and NO guns and if that equates to you as living in a civilized world, so be it

Again your journalistic skills seem to have mangled that sentence beyond recognition, but I take it to mean that you think that I think Japan has more stabbings than the US. It's very difficult to find meaningful information on this (google seems to bring up reports on specific newsworthy incidences, not national statistics) but one figure I did find was 5000 violations of the law prohibiting the carrying of a knife with a blade in excess of 6cm without good reason. That's not 5,000 stabbings, but 5,000 people carrying blades they shouldn't be carrying. And including the stabbings, of course. 5,000 in a population of less than 150 million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7508418.stm

Compare that with the US where there are over 32,000 incidences of knife crime (defined as *assault or attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a knife) annually. That's over six times as many incidences of actual violent knife crime, including stabbings, in a population twice the size. Do the maths; you're well over three times more likely to get stabbed or threatened with a knife in the US than you are in Japan. http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/ (Scroll down to 'Knife Crime')

So, fewer stabbings, no guns - yes that is much more civilised, and life here is good.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Again your journalistic skills seem to have mangled that sentence beyond recognition, but I take it to mean that you think that I think Japan has more stabbings than the US.

Nothing got mangled, it's just how you want to view the subject.

It's very difficult to find meaningful information on this (google seems to bring up reports on specific newsworthy incidences, not national statistics) but one figure I did find was 5000 violations of the law prohibiting the carrying of a knife with a blade in excess of 6cm without good reason. That's not 5,000 stabbings, but 5,000 people carrying blades they shouldn't be carrying. And including the stabbings, of course. 5,000 in a population of less than 150 million.

Very meaningless indeed.

So, fewer stabbings, no guns - yes that is much more civilised, and life here is good.

That's nice and the same goes for my life as well, which means, we are both doing well, then that is good news for the both of us. You live well and so do I. I love my life and my country. I think it's a great thing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Very meaningless indeed.

How is it meaningless? The figures show that Japan has a much lower rate of people caught just carrying knives than the US has of people actually using knives to commit violent crime. Seems pretty obvious then that Japan has very much lower knife crime than the US has. So your statement (I think it was a statement, your grammar is ...... unique) that (Japan has) more stabbings is a complete falsity. Interesting that you find facts and figures 'meaningless'. Especially when they show that you were wrong.

we are both doing well, then that is good news for the both of us.

And I hope it continues that way, and that your love of lethal weaponry does not backfire on you or your family. Good luck. (Though I don't wish you any luck at all with your killing of wildlife. May your hunting barrel be forever bent and your sights forever skew-whiff. Bambi Banzai!)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

How is it meaningless? The figures show that Japan has a much lower rate of people caught just carrying knives than the US has of people actually using knives to commit violent crime.

Ok, yes. I am aware of that, but that doesn't mean it's a better more comfortable place to be in, meaning, the home is where the heart is at. Look, whatever you say, doesn't change the fact, I have never seen violence around me or my friends growing up, in our neighborhood, we never locked our cars and sometimes our doors. So for all the violence out there, I didn't see. Japan is less violent, but that doesn't mean it's a utopia by any sense of the meaning.

Seems pretty obvious then that Japan has very much lower knife crime than the US has.

Good for Japan, but I still love the States better.

So your statement (I think it was a statement, your grammar is ...... unique) that (Japan has) more stabbings is a complete falsity. Interesting that you find facts and figures 'meaningless'. Especially when they show that you were wrong

Well, actually....No. It's my experience that gives me the facts in years of travel and interaction with people and being content knowing that having lived in many countries, the US (for me) beats any other country, hands down. With or without my guns.

But nice try, cleo.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

bass4funk and cleo, please do not address each other any further on this thread.

When confronted with a gun-rights advocate who obviously displays less regard for human life with his "Who's counting?" comment -- a comment doubtless shared by many -- you proved my point by choosing to confront the person who points it out. Anyone who chooses not to own a gun because they fear for the safety of others if it is ever stolen or misused obviously has far higher regard for human life than someone who keeps defending the "right" of the general population to own guns.

Yabits if you had made that comment and it was only directed at the person who made that comment I would not have taken issue with what you said. The issue I have is that you strongly implied that gun owners as a whole in general have less respect for human life than non-gun owners. That just simply isn't true and you know it. not to mention the fact that it is hypocritical of you to make such as statement when you condone and engage in a recreational activity that kills more people than firearms do on a per capita basis. Confronting you on that point is not proving your point.

Someone who chooses to not own a gun because they don't trust themselves does not have a higher regard for human life than those who own firearms but keep them secured when not in use and follow safe handling guidelines when they are being used.

Would you claim that someone who chooses not drink alcohol has a higher regard for human life than people like you or Cleo or Stranger who either condone recreational drinking and or engage in it and would defend it from prohibitionists?

Would you claim those that choose not engage in casual sex for fear of getting an STD and then spreading it to a partner have more regard for human life than those who do engage in casual sex but use protection?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will try to address some of Noliving's points while staying on the topic of this "gun event" in the Pacific Northwest. I was informed today that a high school north of Bremerton was put on alert because a kid made a threat to "shoot up the school." Yet we see these gun fetishists dismissing the notion that guns are any different from knives, baseball bats, stones, etc. "Yes, they all kill -- just don't pay any attention to the number of deaths or the time required to inflict the damage."

Are parents of kids going to those schools going to be more terrified when they hear of a kid running loose with a gun? -- of if they hear of a kid running loose with a baseball bat? Only the mindless gun-nut would claim they'd be equally terrified.

The issue I have is that you strongly implied that gun owners as a whole in general have less respect for human life than non-gun owners

Strongly implied? Why not ask a question and confirm that assumption? Among gun owners, there are some who have more respect for life than others. I can't speak for all gun-owners, but if a person has consciously made the decision not to own a gun because of the risks involved, for me, that person has FAR higher regard for life than any gun defender I have ever encountered.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Strongly implied? Why not ask a question and confirm that assumption? Among gun owners, there are some who have more respect for life than others. I can't speak for all gun-owners, but if a person has consciously made the decision not to own a gun because of the risks involved, for me, that person has FAR higher regard for life than any gun defender I have ever encountered.

I didn't think it was necessary to ask the question and confirm the assumption, and it appears I was right not to.

Alcohol is not the issue here, as you've been reminded. Stop grasping at straws.

I'm not grasping at straws Yabits I'm proving a point that a person who chooses not to own or engage in an activity does not have a higher regard for human life than someone who does but takes precautions to manage the risk. Nor does a person who defends said object or activity have a lower regard for human life than someone who is actively trying to heavily restrict if not prohibit said object or activity. I think that is entirely relevant to what we are discussing and that is do gun owners or gun defenders have a lower regard for human life than non-gun owners.

It is a fallacious argument to say those that refuse to own an object or engage in a certain activity have a higher regard for human life than those who decide to own or engage in such things. If you honestly believed said argument you would have no trouble being able to apply it yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not grasping at straws Yabits I'm proving a point that a person who chooses not to own or engage in an activity does not have a higher regard for human life than someone who does but takes precautions to manage the risk.

There is simply no way to prove that. No risk can be "managed" perfectly, that therein lies your egregious error. If I, as an adult parent, do not own a firearm, the "risk" is managed with 100% certainty that someone would not be able to take it to use to kill others. (As was done in this tragic event.) The only reason you persist in this is because, deep down, you know you are wrong.

If you honestly believed said argument you would have no trouble being able to apply it yourself.

LOL, and how do you come to the assumption that I don't apply it to myself? There are others who have higher regard for life than I do, for the record. None of them would ever feel the need for a firearm.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There is simply no way to prove that. No risk can be "managed" perfectly, that therein lies your egregious error. If I, as an adult parent, do not own a firearm, the "risk" is managed with 100% certainty that someone would not be able to take it to use to kill others. (As was done in this tragic event.) The only reason you persist in this is because, deep down, you know you are wrong.

You are right you can't manage risk perfectly but simply taking a risk but managing it very carefully doesn't mean they don't care as much as the person who doesn't want to take that risk. They care and they believe that the steps they have taken to manage that risk mean that the risk is low enough that it will most likely not occur in their life time so why should they deny themselves or others of that experience. In fact one might argue that by forcefully denying yourself or others of that experience you in fact have a lower regard for their life by not letting them "live/taking risks".

Does a person who takes absolutely no risk, and I mean absolutely no risk so that they never take a risk in their life and lets say that is possible to do, have the highest regard for human life?

Does the parent who never lets their child bike or walk to school and only take the school bus have a higher regard for their child's life than the parent who lets them walk or bike to school?

Does the parent who gets a swimming pool in their back yard so they and their children can swim in it have less regard for their own life and their own child's than the parent who doesn't get a swimming pool?

Lets say there is a difference in regard for their child's life, how much less does the parent who takes that risk care and is the difference large enough to even make an ethical or moral judgement about that parent?

The only reason you persist in this is because, deep down, you know you are wrong.

No it is because of your hypocrisy, you have strongly implied that non-gun owners(including yourself) care about human life more than gun owners do and yet you ignore the fact that you engage in recreational activities that kill more people and more children on a per capita basis than guns do in the USA. I'm still trying to figure out how you can condone and or participate in an activity that kills more people than guns means that you care more about human life than gun owners all because you don't own a gun. The only answer that I have received is that because their deaths are not as sensational as gun deaths mean that their deaths don't count as much. I find that interesting because if you cared about human life as much as you claim you do than it wouldn't matter how the person died as long as the death was a pre-mature death but instead you rank how much their death means by how sensationally they died.

LOL, and how do you come to the assumption that I don't apply it to myself?

Because you evaded the question, if you applied it to your self you would have no trouble just simply saying that yes those who don't drink and or want to stop others from drinking alcohol have a higher regard for human life than I do.

You would have no trouble saying that those who own guns and keep them secure when not in use and follow the safety guidelines when in use but don't drink alcohol have a higher regard for human life than you do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@cleo

Alcohol used as it is meant to be used, harms no one. Taken immoderately, over time it harms the person who takes it, no one else.

If only that were true, this world would be a much happier place.... : (

Agree re firearms though....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is simply no way to prove that. No risk can be "managed" perfectly, that therein lies your egregious error. If I, as an adult parent, do not own a firearm, the "risk" is managed with 100% certainty that someone would not be able to take it to use to kill others. (As was done in this tragic event.) The only reason you persist in this is because, deep down, you know you are wrong.

And there is NO way you can prove that a gun cannot save your life. My uncle who lives in a different state had to shoot 3 guys that broke into his house and tried to rob him and his wife. He had the upper hand, gave them a few warnings, they tried to take him on a gun fight ensued in the house with him killing one of the assailants and wounding the other 2. My aunt told us, had they NOT had their firearms, there is no mistaking that she feels, they would have been murdered. So IMHO I think you wrong, a gun is not for everyone, maybe NOT for you, but for me it is and always will be my passion and there is nothing wrong with that. My uncle is still with us because he had his gun. I think the truth is you just don't want to accept that for some people guns are an absolute necessity, let alone right (for law abiding citizens)

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I think the truth is you just don't want to accept that for some people guns are an absolute necessity, let alone right (for law abiding citizens)

Well, it's pretty obvious the parents and family of this kid in Washington felt much the same way, prior to this event. (As did Adam Lanza's mom.)

Ask them today.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This wasn't a case of some crazy loner with purple hair and a trench coat walking around his school murdering his tormentors and anyone else that got in the way. In this case Jaylen Fryberg was a popular kid who asked his victims to meet him. His victims were his cousins and friends.

He could have been carrying any type of weapon and the result would have been the same. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and have been doing so since we were able to pick up a stick.

The left and their persistent rage against guns will not stop people from finding a way to murder other people. Guns aren't the only weapon people kill each other with knives, axes, a pool sticks, chairs, pillows (yes pillows), fists, elbows, tables, heights, cars, bikes, motor bikes, nails, chainsaws, needles, ice picks etc etc etc etc etc........The list goes on and on.

Here are some numbers from around the world...Sorry, but only free nations actually provide their true numbers. The others hide the facts and fudge their true numbers.

http://www.unodc.org/gsh/

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5

You can't stop people from murdering other people, never going to happen. The only thing you can do is teach future generations the value of life and hope for the best.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

He could have been carrying any type of weapon and the result would have been the same...people kill each other with..pillows.

Gun fetishists say the craziest things.

I have a feeling if Fryberg brought a pillow to school, the result would have been different.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You can't stop people from murdering other people, never going to happen. The only thing you can do is teach future generations the value of life and hope for the best.

Excellent point and that's the main crux of the overall problem.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Anti-gun crowd, what's your solution to the gun problem? Do you want to ban guns altogether, or something else?

Pro-gun crowd, what's your solution to the gun problem? Do you want teachers carrying guns in school, dismantling the welfare state (I'm not sure how you'd do that.), or something else?

Please keep it simple. As far as I can tell, y'all are just going in circles.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Anti-gun crowd, what's your solution to the gun problem? Do you want to ban guns altogether, or something else?

1) Absolutely no gun sales without background checks.

Note: There's a great video of a team going to gun shows and purchasing weapons. The buyer is filmed asking one seller -- who is selling "assault-type" rifles if he needs to have a background check. The seller says, "No." The buyer says, "Good, because I probably wouldn't pass one." The seller sells him the guns anyway, actually saying: "I probably couldn't pass one either."

2) A key part of the background check has the prospective buyer providing signed affidavits from three character references. If an American citizen can't get three other adult Americans to vouch for his or her character, they shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm.

3) The requirement of liability insurance, with rates determined by private sector insurance inspectors -- just as there are laws requiring drivers and homeowners to carry liability insurance.

These three steps would: 1) Ensure "bad people" can't purchase weapons at gun shows -- the source of a great many weapons used in crimes; 2) help ensure the people who want to purchase a weapon are vetted by those who know them best; and 3) have expert inspectors in the private sector ensuring that the right things are in place so that "accidents" and thefts remain at a minimum.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

He could have been carrying any type of weapon and the result would have been the same. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and have been doing so since we were able to pick up a stick. ....Guns aren't the only weapon people kill each other with.... pillows (yes pillows)

You're saying that if the boy had gathered his friends and cousins in the dining room, pointed a pillow at them and squeezed it, the result would have been the same? Three dead and three critical? With a pillow?

Crazy is not the word.

Do you want to ban guns altogether

That would be a start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Do you want to ban guns altogether?"

"That would be a start."

Next would be knives and baseball bats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're saying that if the boy had gathered his friends and cousins in the dining room, pointed a pillow at them and squeezed it, the result would have been the same? Three dead and three critical? With a pillow?

They will try to convince people that the result would be the same. More importantly, that we now all consider pillows to be dangerous weapons justifying the use of a gun to stop any and all pillow-wielding assailants in their tracks. Just as some argue that a man's "girth" even from 100 feet away is a dangerous weapon.

While at the same time they proclaim their "respect for life."

Clearly, we are witnessing those who've gone off the deep end.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There is simply no way to prove that. No risk can be "managed" perfectly, that therein lies your egregious error. If I, as an adult parent, do not own a firearm, the "risk" is managed with 100% certainty that someone would not be able to take it to use to kill others. (As was done in this tragic event.) The only reason you persist in this is because, deep down, you know you are wrong.

Ya actually you can prove that, you can do cost benefit analysis. For example all medications have serious side effects and all medications can have a lethal overdose. Those that prescribe medications to treat illnesses run the risk that the medication will kill the patient. As long as the medication saves more lives than it kills you claim that those that prescribe, make, and or take medications have as much regard for life as those that refuse to take medications because of the risk of serious side effects.

Recreational activities are harder to determine a cost benefit analysis. Everyone needs recreation in order to have good mental health. Without recreation people would become depressed and either become agitated, suicidal, etc..

If a recreational activity and the subsets of that activity help more people than they harm you can claim that those who participate in such activities have as much regard human life than those who don't participate in such activities.

Obviously not everyone gains the same benefit or even enjoys the same recreational activities as other people.

The reason why I persist in this Yabits is because of your hypocrisy. A person who condones a recreational activity that kills more people than guns on a per capita basis cannot claim they have a higher regard for human life than gun owners. The only argument you have made is that because Alcohol deaths are not as sensational means they don't count as much.

LOL, and how do you come to the assumption that I don't apply it to myself? There are others who have higher regard for life than I do, for the record. None of them would ever feel the need for a firearm.

Because you evaded all the questions I asked and because if you were applying it to yourself honestly than there is no way you can claim that as someone who condones a recreational activity that kills more people on a per capita basis than recreational gun ownership has higher regard for human life than them.

Really there are others? Who are they and how do they act with more regard for life than you do?

Are you ashamed or embarrassed by the fact they have more regard for human life than you do? Lets say you are not ashamed and or embarrassed about it than if gun owners have less regard for human life than you do as you claim should they be ashamed or embarrassed by that?

While at the same time they proclaim their "respect for life."

Well seeing as firearms are you used 500,000-3 millions times for self defense in the USA and there are an estimated 300,000 crimes committed each year with firearms in the USA. It is not a surprise why they would argue that they have respect for life. They look at firearms and see them being used more often to protect human life than taking it.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A cost-benefit analysis is not a proof. It is a way of articulating assumptions and putting metrics to them.

Yes it is proof, it is not always a definitive proof but it is proof, it is not assumptions, it's statistical evidence gathered over a period of time from animal and human trials.

Again if I have medication that you know with over 90% certainty will save 50,000 lives, all of which will make a full recovery with no last side effects, a year but results in 10,000 deaths and you have the alternative which is no medication/no medical treatment that results in more than 10,000 deaths can the person who decides to take no risk on the medication have more regard for human life than the person who does take the risk?

Again, we bear witness to the overly-simplistic and fatally flawed thinking of the conservative. You are using "death" as the metric when there can be many other horrendous side-effects that fall short of death. Conservatives will sell us on their wonderful bladder control medication while putting the side-effect of explosive diarrhea in small print.

Ah I voted for Obama and other democrats in the 2008, 2012, 2014 elections. I thought it would have been a little obvious in my example that those who survived would have gone on to make a complete recovery. Should have used Vaccines as a better example. Nonetheless you are correct that there are serious side-effects that fall short of death but then again that argument can also be made that those that have less gun assaults have less deaths but that doesn't mean those who are victims of non gun assaults don't suffer serious injuries that fall just short of death.

No, Noliving.

Yes, Yabits.

The reason you persist is because there's at least one complete dimension missing in your two-dimensional thinking. Let me ask you a very simple question: I had a relative who died at age 90 due to complications after many years spent in a "recreational activity." Had she not engaged in it, she might have lived to 92 or 95. Are you counting her death in your assertions?

Depends. Was her life up until that point one on life support, in a coma?

I can tell you that the government/law enforcement and the medical community will say it is if it is what ultimately caused her death. Kind of like how you read about people who sustain an injury in an assault, recover but not completely but go on to lead a happy life and start a family and then die twenty or thirty years later from a health condition that was sustained in that attack, such as a heart attack or stroke, as determined by a health official and then law enforcement sends out an arrest warrant on the charge of homicide on the person who committed the assault twenty or thirty years ago.

If we look at the "recreational activity" and see that the distribution of "age at death" tends to cluster past age 55, and so we might be able to reasonably claim that most of these people lived nice long lives and enjoyed doing what they did. That's quite a benefit. However, on the gun side, we're going to find relatively fewer deaths of victims past the age of 55, and more between the ages of 18 and 40. (We'll find many more between 1 and 18.)

You will find even more deaths in that age range 1-18 for alcohol than you will for firearms. For example Cleo's child gun study is from Yale University, I believe it is Yale, and it includes the ages of 1-19, possibly even 20 year olds, and it comes to the conclusion that around ~3000 children between the ages of 1-19 die from guns and additional 7000 are wounded on an annual basis. These figures is from the combined homicide, suicide, and accidents number.

Alcohol drinking in the age range of 15-19 results in around 4,700 deaths each year according to MADD, not all of those mean the drinker died but that the drinker might have killed someone and the CDC estimates that for those 1-20 the deaths from alcohol is at least 4,300 and it sends over 189,000 minors to the emergency room. John Hopkins shows that around 45% of rapes, 44% of robberies, and 37% of all assaults are committed by people under the age of 21 and nearly half of all those are committed by people who are intoxicated at the time of the crime.

Basically on a statistically/per capita basis Alcohol kills more people between the ages of 1-20 than guns do and well the number of minors it sends to the emergency room for that age range alone is far more than the entire grand total of all gun deaths and wounding combined from all age groups.

Also if a person is dying from Alcohol at the age of 55 that strongly implies they were a heavy drinker, possibly an Alcoholic, meanings the odds are they did not live a happy nor a full life and they probably suffered greatly physically health wise in the months if not year or two before their death and they probably alienated much of their family and friends because of it during their life.

We might be able to say that guns are far more likely to rob more people out of the prime of their lives than the "recreational activity." The primary purpose of the recreational activity is joy, celebration, sociability, and relief of pain. The primary purpose of guns is to cause death and damage, many times with the ostensible motivation to protect life. Nevertheless, there is no comparison as to who, in my opinion, respects life more. There are countless cases of people without guns who have been able to defuse situations without killing anyone. The person who has the gun will necessarily view that as the primary solution to the immediate threat.

You could say that about guns but the statistics for same age range for Alcohol is worse than guns for robbing people of the prime of their lives. Most of the young people who die from guns that are homicides are basically high school drop-outs, they have past criminal convictions including assault if not aggravated assault, and other felonies. Most of the young people who commit homicides with firearms also have extensive criminal conviction histories. Meaning that even if they didn't die they probably wouldn't have a very happy or successful life as their past criminal convictions will be a massive hindrance on them being able to find steady employment that pays more than minimum wage and it is also a major predictor of future violence from them with or without a gun meaning they will most likely be in out of prison for most of their young adult lives serving sentences for violent crimes or drug offenses they committed. I don't know about you but I consider sitting in prison for most of your youth and young adults lives as robing the prime of their life.

Primary purpose is irrelevant seeing as there are countless products that are not used for which they were intended. What is relevant is how it is primarily being used. Firearms are primarily used for recreation and hunting. Statistically speaking with the available evidence that we do have suggests firearms are either used just as many times if not more so to protect people than they are to hurt people in the USA. There are countless cases where people with firearms have been able to defuse situations without killing people as well.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites