So there's been another school shooting in the US

[DaveW]

In that PUA thread you mentioned Iran's nuclear development as a threat.

That's because it is - that doesn't mean I'm suggesting immediate military intervention as you seemed to imply.

Iran isn't really a threat to anyone as of now, and the only real reason it's perceived as one is because of the States desire to control that region. The economic blockade on Iran is nothing short of bullying and provocation.

If Iran could demonstrate that it could be responsible, that would be fine. But it's trying to enrich Uranium without the consent of the rest of the world, which is a problem because we don't know what they're doing it for. Considering Ahmadinejad's almost comical hatred of Jews down to 'Jews did 9/11' - yeah, that is a threat.

And while that's taking a very complex issue and simplifying it - seeing as you're just saying 'US is evil lolz' I guess don't see any harm in that.

Does come across as bullying though, why doesn't N.K get this treatment?

Er, it does.

[gamer0004]

I was talkign about homicide rates, not crimes in general, but here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... urder-data

These data represent "death by violence". Looking at all available categories in the original source, this includes government violence. That might be an explanation. That or starving people are violent. I can imagine both are true.

Also, do you have a link to the relationship between gun ownership and violence?

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html

This might interest you as well: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

The research by Gary Kleck is interesting. According to his Wikipedia page, there is some discussion about both the methods used by him and by those who come to different conclusions. I guess this more or less means we can't draw any definitive conclusions on the topic.

As to the cato one: I'm not going to waste my time reading a paper published by a libertarian think tank. I'm open to new and different ideas, but in most cases the ideas proposed by libertarians are not new, they're just stupid. Time is too short.

[AEmer]

Ok, so here's something.

I've seen people arguing that this tragic mass murder is an event that shouldn't be politicized...and I've seen people arguing that it should be, like this discussion of gun control.

On one hand, it seems like some people refusing to talk politics on top of a tragedy might do so because using a tragedy for a political agenda you already had before makes you rhetorically profit off of the tragedy (and that seems wrong), on the other some people refusing to talk politics clearly do so because the tragedy rhetorically hamper them.

So what do you do? Just go 'fuck you, I will talk politics whenever I damn well please' ? Because that actually seems like the most reasonable thing you can do........

[DaveW]

The argument that it shouldn't be politicized is deceptive and dishonest.

[...]the air was thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”
Let’s be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.

Link

[AEmer]

Well, presumably, it's politicizing it. The argument that you don't want bickering over the cause of someones death - that you don't want posturing, and that you don't want people claiming to understand something without any kind of authority - that's pretty compelling.

If this is the reason you don't want it politicized, then that's not politicizing it.

If the the reason you don't want it politicized is because you like the status quo, that _is_ politicizing it. I don't think it's fair to assume that everybody makes this argument for the same reason.

[Cybernetic pig]

Guns aren't the main issue, it's bad parenting. Imo.

[DaveW]

Guns aren't the main issue, it's bad parenting. Imo.

I'm pretty sure the shooter didn't use 'bad parenting' to kill people.

[bobby 55]

If you're old enough to form your own opinions and make your own decisions then the only one to blame for your actions is *you. Mental aberrations aside.


* That's the inclusive you

[Cybernetic pig]

Guns aren't the main issue, it's bad parenting. Imo.

I'm pretty sure the shooter didn't use 'bad parenting' to kill people.

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people"

Take away the guns, then you'll just get makeshift bombs or knifes used by the psychopaths.
Instead of gun control, enforce parenting control*. This (ideally) would raise children to an acceptable social level.

*Sounds extreme, I know. But it doesn't have to be like that.

All the victims were shot multiple times, said H. Wayne Carver II, Connecticut's chief medical examiner. Their deaths -- as well as that of Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother who suffered "multiple gunshot wounds" at their Newtown home -- are classified as homicides.

Note that he killed his mother before going to the school.
Clearly there were issues at home.

If you're old enough to form your own opinions and make your own decisions then the only one to blame for your actions is *you. Mental aberrations aside.

Who you are is mostly determined by the first 20 or so yrs of your life. If the boy was raised with constant beatings, trauma or whatever, there are going to be psychological issues.

Maybe some are just born evil, but relentless attempts by the parents to raise the child properly, with love, affection, education and dominance would at least change the child for the better.

Just so you know I am not pro gun freedom or whatever. But they are not the main issue here, like the majority of the internet/media/politicians so strongly believes.

@Dave refering back to your mention of the U.K: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/five-chi ... 98840.html
I had a friend who grew up in Ealing, London. The stories he used to tell...
It's the psychological issues derived from bad parenting and the social stigma why these people behave in such a way. Banning guns aint gonna save London youth cos they are already banned, and stabbings are more common in London than shootings anyway.

The statistics show that in the eight-month period:

• A total of 321 children were injured in shootings, 39 of them seriously.

• Eighty-eight children were shot in armed muggings and two were injured in gunpoint rapes.

• A total of 952 children were stabbed, 188 of them seriously.

• Some 288 children were hurt in knifepoint robberies and 10 were stabbed in rapes.

Those are some insane statistics (from 2008, not that it matters). Gun control would most likely reduce a great amount of premature deaths in america though, I cannot deny that, since they are such effective killing tools.

[DDL]

But if you read that link, it suggests that 27 people were killed that year (the highest number EVER). That's the same as this one US school shooting.
Hell, you could also reference the recent school stabbing rampage in china: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

Crazy dude rampages through school with a knife, stabs 22 people. Kills....zero.

Crazy people are crazy, we get that. But crazy people with knives are vastly less dangerous than crazy people with guns. And crazy people with assault rifles are even worse. Pipebombs require at least rudimentary chemistry knowledge, and are really not that effective anyway. Knives require you to get up close and are really not that effective anyway. Nothing quite has the sheer cathartic thrill of the "point and click, BAM: YOU DED" character of guns.

Taking the guns away is not the answer, clearly, but it's the best instant-fix patchup job available. Furthermore, the more you disincentivise gun ownership, the more you'll reduce the fetish status that guns occupy in the american psyche. Seriously, I don't think there's another civilised nation on this planet that views guns in such an insanely entitled fashion.

[Cybernetic pig]

Well, I cannot argue with that.

[DaveW]

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people"

Take away the guns, then you'll just get makeshift bombs or knifes used by the psychopaths.
Instead of gun control, enforce parenting control*. This (ideally) would raise children to an acceptable social level.

*Sounds extreme, I know. But it doesn't have to be like that.

That phrase is so dumb it makes my head hurt. I'm not aiming that at you, but that phrase (in general) is very misguided. Aside from stating the obvious (many people are aware guns are not sentient beings that fire themselves at innocent people), it seems to suggest that guns are a somehow meaningless part of a mass shooting. By that logic and venturing to hyperbole, chemical weapons should be legal - because, you know: Sarin gas doesn't kill people, people kill people.

You're still going to get maniacs who want to inflict damage on a lot of innocent people - and they will do so. Makeshift bombs? Have a look at how many of the Columbine pipe bombs exploded. Knives? See DDL's post. Guns are unequalled for accessability and effectiveness, even when used by an amateur.

While it would be fantastic to have a society where people don't want to do this stuff, that isn't going to happen. As a society, we've never had that and there's no reason to suspect we will in the future. So with that fact in place - that this shooter couldn't have been stopped from wanting to murder people - you have to look at what could have been done to stop him. Not having access to weapons.

Hence, gun control.

[Jaedar]

Nukes don't kill people, people do.

[Jane_Denton]

It pisses me off every time something horrible like this happens, fingers get pointed at video games and the violence in them.

It makes me virtually wanna kill someone... *launches DE with New Vision mod*

Seriously though... it does piss me off when I hear some attention seeking journalist or interviewee blaming games for this just because the unstable person played games. It wasn't the game that made them unstable, it was their genetics and/or upbringing that did. It scares the hell out of me every time I hear of something like this happening. I'm also aware that there is senseless tragedy and loss of life happening all over the world at the same time that may not ever be heard of on front page news.

When it comes to these school shootings though... I've never once heard in the media say that gamers play games to escape or take a break from reality, to have fun, meet new people when there are millions of us that play games for that very reason! I see an average of 4-6 million gamers on Steam in a 48 period. There aren't millions of gamers going out and shooting people in real life!

Media needs to stop with the "after the fact blame game", and start implementing proper prevention! What that prevention is doesn't matter as long as it works. Each community/neighborhood needs to take responsibility for themselves, and start coming up with prevention methods.

It's not the games we play fault! [-X

[Cybernetic pig]

Media needs to stop with the "after the fact blame game", and start implementing proper prevention! What that prevention is doesn't matter as long as it works.

Watch what you say, they'll enforce game control