Listen, there are two parts to this: 1. The horrible tragedy, and 2. The hopes to prevent this from happening again. If we are going to talk about this, we need to all fall under the assumption that we agree that this is both a very tragic act perpetrated by someone who is obviously disturbed/mentally ill, and that it is all of our desires to do what we can to make sure senseless acts of violence like this never happen again.
So where do we go from here? How do we prevent this from happening again? It seems that there are two schools of thought (generalizing obviously): 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. Regardless of which side you fall in, neither work perfectly unless they are complete (i.e. all weapons are gone thus criminals don't even have access, or everyone is armed and no one has the upper hand). The problem with both absolutes, is a deranged person will always find a means to carry out their ill will, whether that's a gun/knife/driving a car into a crowd.
The safest computer is encased in concrete, and buried 6 feet underground. Much in the same way, the safest society would have each of us locked in a room, with no interaction. What we have to figure out is this: How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few?
> 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons.
Nice strawmen. There are obviously options in the middle, namely, increasing traceability of weapons and ammo and shutting down channels that where weapons are allowed to change hands anonymously.
The proliferation of weapons is one thing, but the fact that these tragedies occur and we don't have a way to follow the chain back to the disreputable dealer who sold these armaments - and shut them down - is just non-sensical.
The 2nd amendment fundamentalists who don't even want question how these weapons can get in the wrong hands - often use that same strawman you pose above - which is rediculous - many folks support the 2nd amendment yet find the need for further action to prevent these events from happening.
Disreputable dealer? I absolutely agree, any car used in a drunk driving accident should be traced back to the dealer responsible, and they should be punished.
If you can determine in advance who the "wrong hands" are, I'm sure the TSA would love to speak to you and dump buckets of money over your head.
Or cars used in any accidents. Thousands of people die in car collisions every year, accidental and intentional, whether they were drunk or sober, reckless or diligent, or just an innocent pedestrian or cyclist who happened to have bad luck that day.
A few days ago someone posted a web site called http://www.banthecar.com where they laid out detailed arguments for banning all cars, because of all the problems they cause, including accidental deaths. Obviously banning cars is not reasonable or realistic.
We have a process for who is and is not allowed to drive a car, and we are fairly comfortable with it, even though it still fails to prevent thousands of deaths. The process of firearm ownership could use some adjustments, but ultimately we cannot prevent all deaths. The best we can do is prevent those who are obviously unsuitable(1) from owning firearms, and ensuring we have a system to remove the rights of those who abuse them.
(1) this is very dangerous due to the history of gun control being used to enable racism and genocide. The criteria must be objective, not subjective.
Ah, interesting, it does seem that gun control can be a tool for racism and genocide.
However, I'm only willing to take those as anecdotal evidence for promoting less gun control: they are all written by people and groups who are heavily invested against gun control, i.e. a very high risk of motivated thinking, research and writing.
(Sure, one might point at all the references and evidence they provide, but what are they not saying? What about a discussion of the countries around the world with gun control that has (as far as I can see) no racist or genocidal purpose (e.g. most of modern Europe, Australia, New Zealand)?)
The guy used basic handguns in this shooting. The problem is his mental health, not his access to guns. If he were motivated enough, and guns weren't available, he could use any manner of other means to kill a bunch of people - bombs, molotov cocktails, home-made flame throwers, samurai sword, vehicles, etc.
The solution is somewhere in the middle. It is never one or the other. Can you remove access to all weapons ? No. Can you treat all mentally ill ppl ? No. Can you make it harder for ppl to buy weapons especially if they could be mentally ill ? Yes, certainly. Will it always work ? No.
I am personally a fan of another a solution along another axis entirely: a complete overhaul of our medical system, notably in this case the way we detect and handle the mentally ill. (A part of that could be mental evaluations for those who want to buy guns.)
This seems like the right approach, but part of the overhaul needs to be a massive increase in research. We don't have a good way to treat the mentally ill, in most cases.
No, they're strawmen. Extreme positions that a very small percentage of people support - so you can knock them down and look like a reasonable figure as long as you don't support the extreme.
By reducing the argument to one extreme vs. another extreme, these are strawmen arguments... very few support either extreme, so the commenter can then knock down the arguments and look reasonable saying pretty much anything.
It's not a straw man. Go back and read JoeCortopassi's comment [0]. He didn't propose the argument then knock it down. He genuinely presented the argument as his own. He says neither will work unless implemented completely, then he recognizes that there are problems with either and that some crazy people will always be able to commit heinous crimes.
Your argument is that the two absolutes are not the only options, which is pointing out a false dichotomy. Of course, even that's not an appropriate response, since JoeCortopassi had already pointed out the potential problems (like excessive loss of personal liberty) with absolutes.
If you believe that the shooter in this case was disturbed or had mental illness (I've seen no reports to conclude this, btw) then the first thing you would demand is 1) better mental health care facilities and treatments for the public at large and 2) universal health care systems to provide the least possible friction in accessing those mental health care services.
Also, you don't have to be either for banning guns or having no regulations at all. Instead, a compromise of allowing regulated gun ownership would be better.
Is sanity really a possibility here? Sure, we don't have a diagnosis, at least yet, but I would say by definition this person was not sane. A mass shooting is no crime of passion.
It seems to me that there are two problems here. The first is that we suck at finding/handling the mentally ill. These mass shootings are rare, but the connection between crime and mental illness in this country is anything but.
The second issue is of course that we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns away from the people they need to be kept away from.
In order for someone to be considered "insane" in court they have to have a mental illness so severe it prevents them from comprehending the nature and consequences of their actions.
Serial killers in general are perfectly aware of what they are doing, they just don't care about the judgement imposed by society on such actions and at the same time the personal payoff is too great to ignore.
Court smourt, the law can do as it pleases, though the guy is dead so that doesn't really matter here.
What we should be concerned with is how we as a society handle mental health as a medical condition, not as a legal defense. I am talking about early detection, treatment, and if necessary preemptive detainment, not about how we handle the people we who have already gone Rambo.
I would say there is no way in hell serial killers are sane. Are there those who actually suggest otherwise?
I don't care if they are placed in prisons or mental hospitals, so long as they are not set free. People who are interested in revenge will likely prefer they be sent to prisons, and those interested in helping the individual will likely prefer they be sent to mental hospitals. I don't care, so long as there is a lock on the door.
I'd say for the insanity plea there would have to be a certain amount of spontaneity about it. Serial killers are mostly methodical people who do plan their actions ahead of time, which is why the insanity plea won't work.
From what I've heard, it doesn't seem like the shooter in this instance had things planned.
If this was a mental illness issue and we agreed to provide better or universal mental health care, how would one have everyone who needed treatment submit to evaluation and treatment? Assuming we agreed upon and used professional guidelines to evaluate people's mental health.
Would people be coerced? Would it be voluntary? If voluntary, I suspect only a fraction of those who had serious issues would seek help. On the other hand, there would be serious issues with legally compelling people to be treated involuntarily, if they have not violated nay other major laws which would make their treatment compulsory.
A consultation with a mental health professional could be ethically made mandatory in the same way that background checks or eye examinations are made mandatory in an ethical manner. Requiring everyone to get their eyes checked would be unethical and probably illegal, but requiring people to get their eyes checked before being licensed to pilot a giant piece of metal down city streets is a-okay.
It depends whether "disarm everyone" is meant to include exceptions government law enforcement and legitimate hunters. If so, then I do think most people (in the USA, at least) subscribe to one of those schools of though.
From that, a huge majority supports some new restrictions on gun ownership (background checks, no guns for felons or the mentally ill, require gun registration) but almost nobody supports "no guns, period".
Is it France that has some kid of law like this? Here in New Zealand papers have some kind of thing where suicides aren't usually reported where young people are concerned. I believe this relates to something the Ministry of Health organises.
We don't need to prevent this from happening again. We need to stop these things from happening again and again and again.
It's shocking but it's not surprising, because it's almost a predictable event in the US today. Hardly a year goes by in the US without a shooting spree, at schools and otherwise.
Some data: In the US, there are about 3.45 homicides with firearms per 100,000 population per year. In Germany (where I live), this figure is 0.19, that is roughly factor 18.
It is utterly fascinating to me how much discussion there is around this, here on this forum and in other places. In no other country in the world would this even be a debate...
Of course you want to disarm everyone!
That is the only sensible option! There is absolutely no need why anyone, save members of the executive branch enforcing the government's monopoly on violence, would ever need to carry a firearm.
"Self defense" and "liberty" are totally crazy arguments, that are only ever brought up in America and are based purely on historical reasons.
I'm genuinely interested—is this the consensus opinion of most of the developed world outside of the US?
I'm a US citizen, and generally consider myself liberal and progressive. I favor much stricter gun control laws. But I'm not sure I do favor complete disarmament of the citizenship. I do believe that the knowledge—not the use—of citizen's arms does provide a reminder to the government in times of crisis.
But am I simply experiencing large cultural bias? Is there any research on this? Any evidence I can look to? I'm very curious.
The problem is with the concept of "need". I think very few people, even in the US, think that citizens should be allowed to have guns because they "need" them. The only possible exception I can think of is people living or hiking in remote areas where safety from wildlife can be a concern. You will find people who think that guns ownership should be permitted because they are needed in that edge case.
You are arguing against something few, if any, people believe. Americans think they should be allowed to own guns despite a need to have guns.
If that is reasonable or not is frankly irrelevant. Politics and legal realities make the elimination of all guns impossible. You are not being realistic if that is what you propose.
The problem is that easy availability of guns amplify the destruction that can be perpetuated by mentally unstable individuals. A similar incident happened in China today where 22 kids were stabbed by one perpetrator but not one had life threatening injuries. What if Walmart China sold guns like the US one does? How many innocent kids would be dead today?
> How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few?
Liberty? What about the liberty not to get randomly shot down and you or your loved ones' life taken away from you and the people who know you? Isn't the gift of life the supreme liberty taking precedence over the need of some to worship guns?
The ability to take away someone right and liberty to live at a moment's notice borders on a superpower and should be handed out very sparingly to those who absolutely need it to do their job.
The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the government to continue broadening its scope of power at our expense is not likely to abate any time soon.
I ask you: if this trend continues, where do you think it leads?
Our guns are our final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime; they are our assurance that we will never become helpless, that we will always have the capability to fight if fighting ever becomes necessary. Though it is certainly a great tragedy that these children have died today, how much greater were the tragedies throughout human history that resulted from the excessive centralization of power and a populace that was unable to fight against it? You think that human nature has changed in the last half century; you think that something like that cannot happen again, that it won't happen here? People have not changed; sociopaths still seek power, and when they find it, if the masses have no way of fighting back, they will find themselves dealing with problems many orders of magnitude more horrific than the occasional school shooting. I am familiar with all of the arguments for disarming the people of the United States, and they are all fundamentally flawed, because nothing is worse than being at the mercy of tyrants.
The problem with this argument is that guns would do little to counteract an oppressive government. What about the airplanes, the navy, the artillery that our military possess? Guns are hardly a "final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime."
It is different in many other ways too. For example, the people American soldiers are shooting at (for the most part) speak another language, have a different religion, have a different culture, and look different.
Just one point. "Fundamental Rights" are not granted by government. We are born with them. Further, it is government's role -- some say only role -- to protect those rights.
Hear hear! I only wish the founding fathers had the foresight to anticipate advances in technology. It is my right to carry a nuclear weapon and I don't understand why that isn't more widely recognized.
The laws made more sense during the 1700s than now. No one really has any chance now. You discount the entire industrial and technological progress that happened in the past 200 years.
I assume you're making the argument that a ragtag bunch of rebels wouldn't have a chance standing against an empire armed to the teeth with the latest war machines. If that is indeed the case, have you been paying attention to the news for the last decade?
This is actually an argument for why an armed populace isn't necessary to defeat oppressive regimes; ultimately the rebels are armed by other interested nations (see: Syria, Libya, Afghanistan).
The US would still be under British rule if it weren't for the support of the French government during the American Revolution. It was not the muskets of American farmers which won that war (though they helped); it was a fleet of French ships, 6,000 French soldiers, a steady supply of French gunpowder and muskets, and approximately $13B (in today's dollars) of direct aid from the French--more if you count French defense spending.
I think you have missed the point. The US DoD, with all of its nukes, drones, intelligence, and cash is having trouble with a "fourth-world dictatorship".
Exclusively due to the political costs of waging real war. Modern first-world countries have become too "soft" for war. (Which is a good thing of course.)
This! nukes are not a serious weapon of war, their only use is deterrence because they completely rape any place where they're used so that that area is altogether off limits for the remaining life of humanity.
> "But it's not quite that bad. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem alright now."
This is literally the most callous justification for nuking someone I have ever seen.
"It's not that bad guys. It's habitable now, 70 years later! If you didn't know better you would swear 80,000 didn't get instantly incinerated in nuclear fire, with over 125,000 more who died in slow agony over a few weeks of burns and radiation poisoning!"
I know Stalin said that a million deaths is just a statistic - but you weren't supposed to take Stalin to heart. Just sayin'.
I wasn't at all, but I was unclear. I was pointing out that nuclear weapons don't cause places to be uninhabitable for eternity. It is quite clearly incorrect. This is not a reason to use them however. The atomic raids ands the firebombing of Japan are most definitely up there as war crimes.
So where do we go from here? How do we prevent this from happening again? It seems that there are two schools of thought (generalizing obviously): 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. Regardless of which side you fall in, neither work perfectly unless they are complete (i.e. all weapons are gone thus criminals don't even have access, or everyone is armed and no one has the upper hand). The problem with both absolutes, is a deranged person will always find a means to carry out their ill will, whether that's a gun/knife/driving a car into a crowd.
The safest computer is encased in concrete, and buried 6 feet underground. Much in the same way, the safest society would have each of us locked in a room, with no interaction. What we have to figure out is this: How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few?