So why do these shootings happen so often in the United States?

[Politico]

A diverse population of 330 million people combined with serious mental health issues that most people would rather ignore or marginalize than anything else.

If somebody wants to prevent these tragedies, they should be advocating for a national discussion about mental illness. It is the common denominator. Even if all guns could be taken away, which they cannot, we've seen with 9/11 that planes can be turned into WMDs, and we all recall the Oklahoma City Bombing. In other words, preventing access to guns is not only unfeasible but it alone could not prevent sick people from finding ways to kill a lot of people (e.g., it is not a stretch to imagine somebody sick like the Newton killer deciding to drive their car into a crowd of dozens of children if they were unable to find guns; would we attempt to outlaw cars after such a tragedy?).

Why in God's name is this being constructed as an either/or proposition by so many people? A 'national discussion about mental illness' isn't a panacea any more than restricting access to firearms would be. For that matter, where were the Republicans giving any thought to the subject before their precious came under threat?

Clearly mental illness is a serious problem. Guns do not cause somebody to decide to walk into a school and start shooting children. That behavior is caused by mental illness, not guns. We should be talking about mental illness rather than sweeping it under the rug like we have the past few decades (part of the reason why mental illness has grown as a problem recently). Should we treat the cause of tragedies like this, or should we exploit these tragedies in an attempt to further control people by restricting their access to firearms?

Well, people who don't have access to semi-automatic weapons generally can't mow down dozens of people in a matter of minutes, whether they're crazy enough to want to or not. (They can and do kill people in other ways, but it tends to be at least incrementally more difficult.)

Not true. For example, somebody can easily enter a full-size SUV and start mowing down pedestrians on a busy street in any major city in America. Truth be told, doing this would usually kill more people than the Aurora shooter.

And no amount of assault rifles could have created the havoc of 9/11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing.

If assault rifles are good enough for the government, they are good enough for free, law-abiding, mentally stable people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are discussing the shooting spree killers of recent history, all of whom suffered from mental illness in one way or another.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No culture causes somebody to enter a school and start shooting children. Guns do not cause this behavior; culture does not cause this behavior; severe mental illness causes this behavior. Why do you want to sweep a national discussion about mental illness under the rug? The time has come for a national discussion about mental illness, not another counterproductive culture battle. Had this discussion taken place after Columbine or even Aurora, for example, perhaps the mother of the Newton killer would have faced the hard realities about her son rather than trying to sweep the problem under the rug.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not true. For example, somebody can easily enter a full-size SUV and start mowing down pedestrians on a busy street in any major city in America. Truth be told, doing this would usually kill more people than the Aurora shooter.

SUVs have nonviolent purposes and many people rely on them for everyday life; you'll note that far fewer people choose them as murder weapons than choose guns, of which between zero and one of these things is true depending upon how one defines 'many'. You haven't explained why making it harder to commit murder, without preventing people from going about their daily lives, is in any way a bad thing. (Guns have no purpose other than to kill, wound, or simulate killing or wounding. Except for hunters and people in dangerous occupations nobody actually needs them in a peaceful society; pretty much every other society in which guns are thought necessary to secure the freedoms of everyday existence has the decency to consider this fact a problem.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When people use vehicles or bombs of various kinds to kill large numbers of people at once it is of course horrible. A national tragedy. Something that you'll note doesn't happen with any particular frequency and is all the more salient when it does. The fact that somebody was able to kill a reasonably large fraction of the number of victims from the events you mention with something that it was perfectly legal for his mother to have lying around, and that similar events happen many times a year (plus numerous similar but smaller horrors that destroy lives in this country countless times a day), makes one wonder if we should perhaps not apply at least the same level of diligence to keeping such objects out of the wrong hands as we do to making sure people who aren't licensed pilots don't hijack airplanes and people aren't technically allowed to make most kinds of explosives on their own.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not at all clear to me why truly a free, law-abiding, mentally stable person would want one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Often diagnosed after the fact. Did you know that one can actually hide mental illness (or, conversely, feign it)? It's true! Also, 'shooting spree killers of recent history' make up a minuscule proportion of the firearm carnage visited upon American streets and homes every day.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As somebody with two separate mental illnesses, I don't and never have, you fatuous, two-faced jackass.

[Politico]

A diverse population of 330 million people combined with serious mental health issues that most people would rather ignore or marginalize than anything else.

If somebody wants to prevent these tragedies, they should be advocating for a national discussion about mental illness. It is the common denominator. Even if all guns could be taken away, which they cannot, we've seen with 9/11 that planes can be turned into WMDs, and we all recall the Oklahoma City Bombing. In other words, preventing access to guns is not only unfeasible but it alone could not prevent sick people from finding ways to kill a lot of people (e.g., it is not a stretch to imagine somebody sick like the Newton killer deciding to drive their car into a crowd of dozens of children if they were unable to find guns; would we attempt to outlaw cars after such a tragedy?).

Why in God's name is this being constructed as an either/or proposition by so many people? A 'national discussion about mental illness' isn't a panacea any more than restricting access to firearms would be. For that matter, where were the Republicans giving any thought to the subject before their precious came under threat?

Clearly mental illness is a serious problem. Guns do not cause somebody to decide to walk into a school and start shooting children. That behavior is caused by mental illness, not guns. We should be talking about mental illness rather than sweeping it under the rug like we have the past few decades (part of the reason why mental illness has grown as a problem recently). Should we treat the cause of tragedies like this, or should we exploit these tragedies in an attempt to further control people by restricting their access to firearms?

Well, people who don't have access to semi-automatic weapons generally can't mow down dozens of people in a matter of minutes, whether they're crazy enough to want to or not. (They can and do kill people in other ways, but it tends to be at least incrementally more difficult.)

Not true. For example, somebody can easily enter a full-size SUV and start mowing down pedestrians on a busy street in any major city in America. Truth be told, doing this would usually kill more people than the Aurora shooter.

SUVs have nonviolent purposes. You haven't explained why making it harder to commit murder, without preventing people from going about their daily lives, is in any way a bad thing. (Guns have no purpose other than to kill. Except for hunters and people in dangerous occupations nobody actually needs them in a peaceful society; pretty much every other society in which guns are thought necessary to secure the freedoms of everyday existence has the decency to consider this fact a problem.)

The United States of America exists because our Founding Fathers had firearms to combat the tyranny of the British government. The Founding Fathers created the second amendment as a check against such tyranny. Contrary to popular opinion, it is easy to go from a democratic government to a tyrannical government, especially when the populace is unarmed. I've met enough power-hungry politicians to know this all too well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Battles within the illicit drug markets are responsible for the vast majority of other incidents involving firearms. We have done a lot over the past thirty years to educate people to "say no" to drugs, putting somewhat of a damper on the demand for drugs. We can do more, but the situation is a lot better relative to the 1980s. Guns do not cause people to shoot one another over turf for drugs; the characteristics of the drug markets cause this behavior. We are trying to lower the incidence of such violence, but it is not easy. Of course, criminals involved in illicit drugs are not going to shun guns if they become illegal. They are by definition criminals.

BTW, if somebody comes after your family with a firearm, would you not prefer to have a firearm to defend yourself with?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I apologize if you are offended, but you must agree that the nation would be better served by a national discussion about mental illness (e.g., the importance of getting treatment rather than coddling a sick person as the mother of the Newton killer did) rather than another pointless battle over gun control, which never seems to get us anywhere. At least a national discussion about mental illness may actually help people, and perhaps help prevent some these type of tragedies in the future. Another pointless battle over gun control is definitely not going to get us there (e.g., look at where the debates after Columbine got us).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The United States of America exists because our Founding Fathers had firearms to combat the tyranny of the British government. The Founding Fathers created the second amendment as a check against such tyranny. Contrary to popular opinion, it is easy to go from a democratic government to a tyrannical government, especially when the populace is unarmed. I've met enough power-hungry politicians to know this all too well.

If you think the government is concerned with the types of weapons that civilians are allowed to have when they have thousands of atomic bombs at their disposal as well as a bewildering variety of conventional ordnance you're significantly stupider than I thought. And no, the correct solution to this is not to allow private ownership of ICBMs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would prefer to make the possibility that that would even have to be considered less likely. Additionally I don't think anybody is disputing the castle doctrine at this time outside the imaginations of phallus worshipers such as yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Criminal or otherwise, it is significantly harder to obtain something--anything--when it is not manufactured in large numbers, not legal to possess, or very difficult to legally possess.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The nation would be best served by both, you odious, disingenuous weasel.

[Politico]

The United States of America exists because our Founding Fathers had firearms to combat the tyranny of the British government. The Founding Fathers created the second amendment as a check against such tyranny. Contrary to popular opinion, it is easy to go from a democratic government to a tyrannical government, especially when the populace is unarmed. I've met enough power-hungry politicians to know this all too well.

If you think the government is concerned with the types of weapons that civilians are allowed to have when they have thousands of atomic bombs at their disposal as well as a bewildering variety of conventional ordnance you're significantly stupider than I thought. And no, the correct solution to this is not to allow private ownership of ICBMs.

Do you know why Hitler did not invade Switzerland despite the clear-cut superiority of Nazi Germany's ordnance?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are probably more firearms than people in the country. There are literally tens of millions of firearm owners who have the personal philosophy "from my cold, dead hands." The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the right to bear arms. You are delusional if you think there will ever be a day in America when firearms are illegal to possess.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The gun control debate has never produced a positive outcome in America, and it never will. The freaking country was founded because of revolutionaries who bared arms against a tyrannical government, and now you want to disarm free people in this country? Do you really think a debate like that is going to be productive? Makes far more sense to me to simply get everybody discussing mental health issues, which may actually produce some positive benefits. For example, I feel like maybe if we had, had a national discussion about mental illness after Aurora, perhaps the mother of the Sandy Hook killer would have put her son in a proper institution and Sandy Hook never would have happened. Clearly it is foolish to envision a discussion about gun control after Aurora leading to a similar outcome.

It is time for a national discussion about mental illness, not another counterproductive culture battle.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't care about our nation's frankly slightly perverse founding mythology, Politico, and I don't particularly care about the current plausibility of my beliefs or your somewhat odd interpretation of World War II history either. I hold my positions because I believe them to be right. You're not saying anything that I haven't heard mindlessly parroted from a whole litany of violence junkies, survivalists, phallogocentrists, and industry lobbyists a million times before. I see no point in engaging you further since you won't admit of even the remote possibility that widespread public access to high-grade weapons is not always a good idea.

[Politico]

I don't care about our nation's frankly slightly perverse founding mythology, Politico, and I don't particularly care about the current plausibility of my beliefs or your somewhat odd interpretation of World War II history either. I hold my positions because I believe them to be right. You're not saying anything that I haven't heard mindlessly parroted from a whole litany of violence junkies, survivalists, phallogocentrists, and industry lobbyists a million times before. I see no point in engaging you further since you won't admit of even the remote possibility that widespread public access to high-grade weapons is not always a good idea.

If an individual only intends on having the high-grade weapons for defensive purposes, I fail to see the problem. If a lot of people engage in such behavior, as is the case right now, there is a positive spillover effect for the rest of us: A powerful deterrent against tyrannical government (contrary to popular opinion, it can happen anywhere including here). That said, obviously the penalties should be severe for using high-grade weapons for offensive purposes (e.g., robberies, murder, etc.). Lastly, senseless shooting sprees are best prevented by raising awareness of mental illness. Again, a discussion about gun control after Aurora would not have prevented Sandy Hook, but perhaps a discussion about mental illness would have led to the mother of the Sandy Hook killer properly taking care of business?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not disputing that. (Although I can think of a myriad of ways for a national discussion of mental illness to go downhill fast.)

[Politico]

I'm not disputing that. (Although I can think of a myriad of ways for a national discussion of mental illness to go downhill fast.)

Such as?

I definitely feel we need a national discussion of mental illness. A serious one that erases all of the stigmas. I think it is a tragedy how many people try to hide an illness in their family, and then eventually it leads to people getting seriously hurt. I see no shame in pointing out that there are people who are ill, need treatment, and perhaps in some cases that involves being institutionalized (e.g., clearly the Sandy Hook killer should have been in an institution).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I definitely feel we need a national discussion of mental illness. A serious one that erases all of the stigmas.

I entirely agree. My main concern is that it wouldn't erase all of the stigmas and could perhaps be used to exacerbate them. The 'myriad of ways' are mostly variants on that theme.

[Politico]

I definitely feel we need a national discussion of mental illness. A serious one that erases all of the stigmas.

I entirely agree. My main concern is that it wouldn't erase all of the stigmas and could perhaps be used to exacerbate them. The 'myriad of ways' are mostly variants on that theme.

Well, I think the vast, vast majority of mental illnesses are not the type of illnesses that left untreated could spiral into shooting sprees. Maybe that would need to be stressed abundantly given some stigmas.

I would like to see the president's advisers consult with psychologists/psychiatrists, and see how to best bring about a national discussion on the matter without exacerbating stigmas (If Mitt Romney had won, I think that is what we would be seeing right now rather than talk of gun control). If the president did that, I would regain a lot of respect I have lost for him over the last couple of years. I do feel like it would better serve the public interest compared to this gun control rhetoric from the left thus far. Even the NRA would fully support the president in an attempt to have a national discussion about mental illness. Who could oppose that, really? It might bring together the two sides to accomplish something worthwhile. Frankly, I do not see talk about gun control creating anything other than more division and resentment. That may be the whole point, I suppose.

[Gamecock]

The rotten culture of course.

I'm not one to argue that easy access to guns doesn't worsen the problem, and I probably wouldn't be too broken up about banning assault rifles or something (though I do think that most gun control should be done locally, with maybe the feds relying as a support system of local laws) but mass killings will never go away for a decadent culture even without guns, we'll just start killing each other with knives and sticks.

Progressive Realist's argument is a good one too.

[Link]

The rotten culture of course.

In the Netherlands you can legally pay a woman to have sex with you and legally do illicit drugs while partaking of her services... they don't seem to have the mind boggling number of shootings we have.  Is drug dealing and prostitution your idea of a culture we should all aspire to?

Japan has a neglible number of shootings compared to us.  Here is a picture of a Japanese vending machine that sells the used panties of school girls.

I do think that most gun control should be done locally...

Good idea.  It's working out well in Chicago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Almost 10% of the guns found in Chicago came from Mississippi!  Good luck with making a dent with just local laws.

[Paul Kemp]

In the Netherlands you can legally pay a woman to have sex with you and legally do illicit drugs while partaking of her services... they don't seem to have the mind boggling number of shootings we have.  Is drug dealing and prostitution your idea of a culture we should all aspire to?

Sounds OK with me.

[Gamecock]

Are you claiming that the only things wrong in a culture can be drugs and prostitution? While I don't like either, I think I made pretty clear that I am sympathetic to Progressive Realist's view that America's self-indulgent and isolated citizenry is a potent contribution to gun violence. Don't know how you got drugs or prostitution out of that other than just making sh**t up. Culture is not just what the culture warriors make it to be.

As per the guns statement, I'm also pretty sure I made clear that I think the Feds can and should do something to help enforce local laws, If Chicago doesn't want handguns in their city, I think Chicago should be able to partner up with the Feds to make sure that out of area handguns cannot be brought in.

Are you seriously claiming that Japan's culture is decadent?

[Link]

Are you claiming that the only things wrong in a culture can be drugs and prostitution? While I don't like either, I think I made pretty clear that I am sympathetic to Progressive Realist's view that America's self-indulgent and isolated citizenry is a potent contribution to gun violence.

I think regularly abusing drugs and visiting prostitutes constitutes self indulgence.  Yet the Netherlands doesn't seem to have the same shooting issues as we do.  Ever wonder why?

Are you seriously claiming that Japan's culture is decadent?

They have school girl used panty vending machines.

[Gamecock]

Well, I guess I'm not one to throw an entire culture away because of a silly vending machine. Continue on with your Kulturkampf.

I think I see how you respond to posters. You don't actually read what people say, and instead scan for certain keywords in order to somehow prop up your own post.

So, I'll help you out and give you something to work with.

Purple
Green
Apricot
Bang
Gun
Flag
Tears
Trees
Playgrounds
Children
Monkeys
Shovel
Happy
Pool
Puppies
Rainbows
Snakes
Trains
Microsoft
China
Oatmeal
Crossword Puzzles
Volkswagen
Trustifarian
Lawyers
Coal Miners
Happy Days


Please, by all means, use as many words as you want.

[Link]

Well, I guess I'm not one to throw an entire culture away because of a silly vending machine.

No one is "throwing an entire culture away."  Your hyperbole enforces the assessment your argument is invalid.

The vending machine is a canary in the coal mine.  Can you think of what it would take to install such a machine in any American community?  Do you think by normal community standards it would be considered totally okay or decadent?

Continue on with your Kulturkampf.

You need to look up the definition of that word.  I don't think you know what it means.  Merely making a factual statement about the existence of something in a particular country does not constitute a "struggle."  Whatever Japan is doing in this regard seems to be working for them.  Frankly the whole point of mentioning Japan was to say maybe we should honestly examine what seems to be working in countries that are doing far better than us with this gun garbage.  How that is a "struggle" is something you will have to explain.

[opebo]

Link makes a good point that visiting prostitutes and taking drugs would do a lot to curb gun violence.  Most of the young fellows who go on shooting sprees do so because of a lack of ability to get laid.

[Link]

Link makes a good point that visiting prostitutes and taking drugs would do a lot to curb gun violence.

That may have been your point but it certainly wasn't mine.  My point was I am sick of hearing about how all these other things are problems when other countries have them and they don't have a bunch of mass shootings.  Instead of looking at "decadence" first why don't we look at guns and them move outwards from there.

[memphis]

By "these shootings" do you mean the random crazy shootings of 20 people at once or the much more common murders for reasons of drugs sex or money? They are two completely different problems.

[Franzl]

By "these shootings" do you mean the random crazy shootings of 20 people at once or the much more common murders for reasons of drugs sex or money? They are two completely different problems.

This question is directed towards the random spree shootings. They also seem to be a good deal more common than elsewhere.

I agree with you, of course, that the everyday shootings that never get reported are the bigger issue.

[Torie]

Doesn't Europe have stricter rules on showing violence in the media, in part because they don't have as robust "free speech" clauses in their laws or Constitutions? And the US probably has a higher percentage still of its population in the "underclass" I would think. How does Europe handle those with psychosis?  Hopefully, far better than in the U.S.

[Maxwell]

Many things, it's hard to pinpoint what we could do to fix it imo. If we ban semi-autos, it wouldn't go down much because, frankly, not that many killings are with semi-autos. If we do more mental health stuff, well, there are still a lot of people in the streets who kill each other any who. It's a complicated issue with more possible solutions than "lets ban all the guns".

[King]

Loneliness and sensationalism driven anger.