-
@mrbee: I think the violence now a day is more senseless than ever. People (especially young people) seem to be unaffected by it. And the same applies to how people value life in general. if anything I believe the only reason why violence is lower now in numbers is because of the improved forensics, cameras etc and people are aware that it will be harder to get away with it, I dont think the violence is lower because people are just getting better morally. I think we are much worse morally than ever.
-
@mrbee: I guess I'm thinking about the more subtle changes in behavior and the overall societal fabric that perhaps aren't making the paper? I'm just not sure its the best thing for young children, regardless of whether or not statics are showing a particular trend. Just a thought...I'm certainly no expert!
-
I hope so, but I doubt it will. I've already seen more than a few pro-gun image quotes on my feed and it's only Monday.
-
I know that some people say that guns aren't the issue, its the people behind it. I have to disagree with that though. It's an awful, awful comparison (because you would never want to chose how tragedy befalls children) - but look at the knife attacks in China. There was not the same loss of life. If some people really are hell bent on causing harm, we should make sure they don't have the most harmful methods available to them.
-
@mediagirl: Good point about collectors. I know there are a lot of people who like to shoot guns for sport, so my idea would be that certain guns you can shoot at a gun range and that's it. Like, the gun range owns it. You check it out for an hour and shoot it on-site at the target or whatever, then that's it.
-
@Mrsbells: I agree that things are worse in a lot of ways!
But I haven't seen research suggesting that enhanced crimesolving is having a deterrent effect. Could be, but my experience with police is that they are still not all that great at solving crimes.
-
@Dapple Grey: @mrbee: DH and i were talking about that, and how violence would be at an all time high in Asian countries since kids are obsessed with violent video games (but it isn't). (Also, did we read the same NYT article where they talked about how car regulations are even more strict than gun laws?)
-
@caffeinated: Yah agreed on violence in video games. I actually have seen research suggesting that the opposite is true for movies: that when a violent movie comes out, violent crime actually goes down.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18045578
-
@blackbird: Mass shootings do not only happen in America. Anders Behring Breivik (July 2011) and Mohammed Merah (March 2012) murdered many people in Norway and France. As you and others noted, mass killings are not limited to guns. Recall the Tokyo subway attack in 1995.
***
@mediagirl: This particular shooting was not carried out with an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic weapons do not "spray" bullets if you keep the trigger depressed; you have to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot a bullet. There are semi-automatic handguns as well, in fact, the Connecticut man had one (the Glock; I'm not sure if his Sig Sauer was semi-automatic, but it could have been).****
I do not know what effect these horrific murders will have on the regulation of gun ownership in this country, but I have not yet heard a proposal to regulate guns that would likely have spared these children or most of the others who have been killed in similar attacks. For instance, banning semi-automatic assault rifles would appear to have had little impact here--this shooter could have done exactly the same thing with the handguns he carried. Those particular handguns are fairly common choices for self-defense, so there does not seem to be an easy answer here. -
I hope it will, but I certainly have my doubts. I don't think we need to ban guns altogether, but some sensible regulations are absolutely necessary. Something like in Israel, where you can only have one gun and there is a limit on ammo. Also, banning high-capacity magazines and assault weapons. You don't need those to go hunting, which I think should be the only reason someone has a gun. Numerous studies have shown having a gun in the home is more dangerous than not. A gun in the home is seven times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide than in self-defense. (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/crime?s=1)
I also don't see the second amendment as a reason to be so lax with gun control. First of all, as I said, reasonable people are not trying to take away your guns altogether. Second, the intent of the second amendment was to defend against a tyrannical government, which is certainly not the way it is applied today. Third, Thomas Jefferson himself said a constitution should be revised every 19 years. Times change, technology changes, and a country that cannot change with it will not survive.
I've seen lots of people saying that criminals will still have access to illegal guns. That is true, but the fact is that the vast majority of mass shootings have happened with legal guns, as did this one. Imagine, if the shooter's mother had only been permitted to own one gun, a limited amount of ammo, and no high-capacity magazines. This would have turned out a lot differently. Sure, people can kill with other implements like knives, but they are not nearly as deadly. Criminals will always find ways to access guns, but let's not make it so easy.
Finally, I do think that a massive overhaul of the way mental health is handled in this country is absolutely necessary. However, that will not solve this problem. People with severe psychiatric disorders go off their medication all the time, thinking they are "cured." Clearly, they are not, and it's only a matter of time before they suffer another psychotic episode that makes them a danger to themselves and/or others. Please do prescribe medication for all who need it, but that's not a cure all. No one can make them take medication.
-
@honeybear, well, there are still only one instance, in different countries, and only one time. Out of the last 20 some odd big gun spree killings, something like 18 of them were in the U.S. It's just far more common here....definitely a bad trend. It's just far more rare in other countries, to the point you could consider them an outlier. I couldn't think of an instance off the top of my head where I heard about it occurring in another country, but could think of 5+ instances in the US. It just seems like it's become an american thing
-
As sad as this tragedy was, unfortunately, it does need to be politicized. I understand where people are coming from when they say we should focus 100% on the victims, but I don't necessarily agree with it. What about the countless innocent children who die in our cities every year due to gun violence? You never hear any discussion about them. They are just as sad, just as innocent, and just as deserving of honor and respect. Sadly, they don't get it. It's not fair, but it takes a situation like this to bring the issue of stricter gun control regulation into the limelight. We should be mourning the loss of ALL innocent life lost due to gun violence, not just the tragedies in suburbia.
-
I wanted to clarify my remarks above a bit. There IS a policy that would clearly have an effect on the number of murders (because @rahlyrah is correct in noting that this is not the first time children have been killed): Banning guns. I think we can all agree that implementing a complete ban on civilian gun ownership in America would be ... a challenge.
The other arguments in favor of lesser forms of "gun control" are fairly hollow, particularly if the goal is reducing the body count in mass shootings, because as I alluded to above, in those situations ANY access to a gun is the problem. As for other murders committed with guns, the proposals such as banning large magazines or assault-style weapons are obviously not narrowly tailored enough to solve that problem.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
52 comments