Philosophy Discussion Forums

Maia wrote: I already pointed out that the population of the USA is only five times that of the UK, which means that if it had the same rate of gun killing, only about 1000 people each year would be killed. In fact it's 32,000. In other words, you are 32 times more likely to be shot and killed in the USA than in the UK.

Maia, you are correct, I got that part. What I was trying communicate is that 32,000 out of 300 million is not as impressive a number as 32,000 standing alone, or as maybe 32,000 might be relative to the population size of the United Kingdom (ignore the differences in geographical sizes per square mile or kilometers).

But having rethought my position I now think 32,000 is a lot given that more or less similar numbers occur every year in the United States. Those casualty figures most add up over decades to be something pretty darn impressive or tragic, whichever word one might prefer to use.

To put my former proposition in context, I read in the past, more than one person online suggest, with some warrant I think, that as a population passes a certain threshold in population size human beings in that population begin take on less value. There are certain lines of evidence that supports this proposition I think. But there are also other lines of evidence that contradicts it. Nations like Mexico, Brazil, and the United States with enormous population sizes seem to be able to bear a lot of homicides. But it does not explain why all three of these nations have far more homicidal citizens than India seems to have. It's been noted that even the poor in India tend to be far more civil than the poor in Brazil or the United States (e.g., a rich persons car breaking down in a slum and a slum mother putting her small son on watch to ensure no one damages or still the car - such a thing would be unheard of in Brazil and the U.S., in Latin America the wealthy person would probably be kidnapped and held for ransom, possibly disfigured in the process).

So much for guns providing safety. There are between 300 million and 400 million guns in the USA, roughly one per citizen, so is it any wonder criminals can get hold of them so easily?

I think you are assessing the potential "safety" a firearm can provide from one direction.

Look at the direction of carrying a firearm from the stand point of a soldier or police officer. They understand they well be killed or severely injured but they would prefer to carry their firearm in light of their opposition being armed themselves.

One might note U.S. police departments own M-4 style assault rifles too. Their justification for these weapons are essentially akin to that of the NRA: "The bad guys have them or similar fire power and we need them to tactically resist or overcome the bad guy."

How many police officers in the United States are shot with a M-4 style rifle each year? I suspect zero. If any the numbers are a fraction of that of which civilians in the U.S. are injured or killed by rounds fired out of an M-4 style rifle.

Nota bene: the police arrived at Sandy Hook elementary school after people were shot and or killed. This is usually when police arrive. They know this. Yet they still feel justified to carry firearms.

I would submit, from a purely tactical position, one or more of those school teachers at Sandy Hook would have been - at minimum - as tactically justified in being armed with a M-4 style assault rifle, or small sidearm, the day the gunman entered the school.

Obama lives in a far safer position - and residence - than most Americans, including myself. He travels with the largest security force on earth (armed with M-4 style assault rifles as well). Why? Paranoia? Why does just not travel alone, unarmed, and if a gunmen shows up to threaten him or his family members, simply dial 9-11 and wait for the police to arrive?

From this line of direction, I would argue that carrying a gun, while not a 100% guarantee of your safety, is being proactive. Kind of like holding down a job and putting savings away. Kind of like learning martial arts. Kind of like wearing a seat belt.

And just to reiterate: gun homicide rate per head of population in Switzerland is 10 times that in England and Wales and 70 times the rate in Japan.

Syamsu wrote: Uh the word means what it says, an organization to advance friendship among it's members. I think it's fair to say that it sounds gay. I think that would be a real problem for a friendship society, that because lusts run so unchecked naturally, and encouraged by society, that it would threaten to sexualize friendship, when friendship is more straightforwardly sought in an organization. Churches should organize such things, they should be able to to deal with getting rid of the lusts where they don't belong.

I didn't mean that kind of gay. Not the sexual orientation gay. Not the joyful type of gay either.

Churches are "friendship" societies. Traditionally Catholic men have not been very church-going persons because many of them have viewed it as womanish. This is probably more true today than it was in the past. Go to any typical Mass and its attended primarily by women. It's the opposite of the Muslim Mosque or Islam in generally which is very "manly."

Protestantism used to have lots of male participation in its Sunday services. That is near non-existent in the "Black Church" of today's Midwest. We have almost as many small store-front, non-denominational, churches in Milwaukee's black neighborhoods as we do liquor stores. About 99% of the people I see coming out of them are women and girls. A sprinkle of a few men and the women sometimes with small boys.

But I've been told in the South almost everyone still goes to Church on Sunday.

Largely, America is a post-Christian society (in many of it's philosophical, ethical, and community outlooks). Today's America has taken up one or more of the Satanic Church's most prominent doctrines or philosophies: place high premium on physical or carnal pleasures; selfishness; harm no other unless they trespass on your "lare."

The Christian churches already have adopted a childish culture of holding hands and other nonsense (that is essentially fake friendship) in their church services/Masses.

Plus, carnal pleasure, indulgence, never suffering is a party of the modern-day American ethos. It has replaced the Christian philosophy of sacrifice and offering up personal suffering for a higher good. The Christian concepts of temperance and charity towards others is long gone. Even Black-Americans from the WWII Generation that went through Jim Crow era will tell you both whites and blacks are far worse today, treat each other savagely or just darn mean, compared to the 1950's USA. When I've inquired about some of the cruelty and barbarism that went on during Jim Crow I've been told it was perpetrate by a few whites, but most did not go out harming blacks.

-- Updated December 19th, 2012, 1:45 pm to add the following --

Maia wrote:
What I know is that Americans are 32 times more likely to be gunned down and killed than British people are. That makes us better off, I would say.

You also have to bear in mind a lot of nonsense goes on in England - and France as well - that would not be tolerated in the United States. Like your mobs of teenagers running around brazenly terrorizing the adult population with knives. More especially this thing some of you younger Europeans have with setting other peoples (not bothering you) cars on fires.

Who sets a man's car on fire? In the United States if a man off of a hard day's work looks out his window and finds some young hoodlum attempting to set his car on fire he'll retrieve his firearm and bust a cap in that young person's butt.

I find destroying other peoples cars particularly offensive. A man's car - if it's one he's put work into - is almost like his woman. And you don't tamper with either.

-- Updated December 19th, 2012, 1:50 pm to add the following --

Cronos988 wrote: Culture, american culture specifically, often views the gun as the ultimate symbol of power. You don't need to be a psychologist to realize that wielding a symbol of power would be important for someone with confidence issues.

This is I think a fair and level-headed point. Something to consider.

Supine wrote: You also have to bear in mind a lot of nonsense goes on in England - and France as well - that would not be tolerated in the United States. Like your mobs of teenagers running around brazenly terrorizing the adult population with knives. More especially this thing some of you younger Europeans have with setting other peoples (not bothering you) cars on fires.

Who sets a man's car on fire? In the United States if a man off of a hard day's work looks out his window and finds some young hoodlum attempting to set his car on fire he'll retrieve his firearm and bust a cap in that young person's butt.

I find destroying other peoples cars particularly offensive. A man's car - if it's one he's put work into - is almost like his woman. And you don't tamper with either.

I can't tell whether or not you are being sarcastic, but in my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with a person that contemplates shooting someone because that person is destroying their property. I mean sure, it's prefectly legal, it just seems a blatant disregard of human life.

The Problem with the "I own a gun to be safe" rationale is that in my opinion, when you pull a gun on someone, that means you are ready to kill that person. Because if you are not, you have just given the attacker a good reason to kill you. So carrying around a gun would only make sense to me if I expect someone to try to kill me or people around me. That would be the only situation in which I would seriously contemplate killing someone. I am happy to live in a country where I am free to walk around unarmed.

Massacres of the innocent, are massacres of the innocent caught in the grip of their repugnantly guilty elders.

Is the massacre the real tragedy, or is it a farce to mourn the passing of anyone in the grip of covertly repugnant, self-exculpating, adults?

The habit of playing the innocent becomes "real" with practice.

Don’t you also cherish your own guilt, keeping it carefully to yourself so that you may upgrade it as often as it fails to satisfy the way it used to do?

As novelty wears off, degenerate further.

If someone had blown you away in your childhood, you would never have found occasion to adopt this duplicity. It was being caught in the grip of your parents’ and other mentors’ duplicity that forced you to adopt it.

Human potential can produce environments which don't need an emergency exit sign into privacy of thought and intent.

Duplicity is knowing that the red cape will bring the bull charging, upon the hidden sword.

No doubt you have some delusions about your parents being to some degree attractive, even in an argument. You are still charging the cape, incapable of comprehending why you are always bleeding.

During your infancy you sufferred incredible mortification in becoming so accommodating. Can you tell this lie: "Your infancy was pure bliss, sweetheart!"? Hardly a rocket scientist's fabrication.

The Privacy of Thought, and of things done on the sly; the one mutually sacred thing: We all get to make everyone bleed perpetually!

In my science the behavior of screaming for gun-control or the opposite is the behavior of deflected guilt. Those innocents, it is saying, were in the “tender care” of good adults, like me!

---which means, "Like your cape!".

When a psycho kills the innocent children of a generation of innocent adults it will no longer have a taint of mercy-killing to it.

Maybe, in that remotely probable case, there won’t be any psychos. For all we know, in a world full of only duplicity, psychos play a natural and instinctive role, just like wolves do in the wild.

Tsoanra wrote: For all we know, in a world full of only duplicity, psychos play a natural and instinctive role, just like wolves do in the wild.

In other words. Our delusions lead to false conclusions for further delusions which lead to inevitable demises?

Naughtorious wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


In other words. Our delusions lead to false conclusions for further delusions which lead to inevitable demises?

If I were to choose other words, I would say that we put loathing, which changes nothing significantly, where self-loathing is the actual solution.

And this inability to face our own duplicity as what we loathe about ourselves is simply the mirror of the fact that our parents were not about to allow us to judge their duplicity.

The cognitive problem where we can’t confront ourselves as loathsome, is that we are conditioned not to find our parents loathsome even though that is what they intend to always be in any view of themselves but their own.

If I look in that private spot within myself as a self-critic I have broken the rule of not looking into my parents’ private spot as parent-critic, since it is really direct imprinting.

I was born looking that deeply into them, and it had to be stopped!

Privacy of mental processes relies, not upon good mimicry, but upon conditioning the aversion to looking deeper.

Tsoanra wrote:
Privacy of mental processes relies, not upon good mimicry, but upon conditioning the aversion to looking deeper.

That's because we don't want to see problems in others which are our own problems.

Cronos988 wrote:it's funny how many people argue that the actual problem is in the mind of the Assailant and that we have to look for better psychology, not better gun control, yet ignore the fact that the tool used for such a crime has psychological effects.

You cannot on the one hand argue that we need to understand the psyche of these people better and on the other hand ignore the fact that using a gun to kill people is psychologically different from using dynamite or other tools.

The psychic instability is blamed on wrong psychological treatment, yet the fact that the society these individuals come from regards weapons not as a dangerous tool for killing but as a valuable tool of self-defence is ignored.

I don't think it's sensible to assume that an individual who grew up with guns, was trained at shooting with guns, and lived in a household where guns were considered just a regular tool like any other, would have just as easily used TNT instead of the guns.

Stricter gun laws alone won't help, true. One also needs to realize that guns are neither toys nor tools, but weapons. A weapon has the express purpose to harm or kill, and should be treated accordingly.

Now that is funny....of course the main problem is in the mind of the assailant, where else would it be? You can argue about what led him to it, what policy might have encouraged or discouraged him and so on but ultimately the primary cause is the willful act of this assailant. The only immediate prevention would be to have altered or blocked the will of the assailant. You either alter his will by treatment or you block his will by restraining it and that includes restraining it by locking him up or restraining him with a weapon.

I know of no such fact that a gun is psychological different for the person intent on killing then other weapons. On what basis or research or reasoning do you assert that killing with a gun is different than killing with dynamite or killing with a knife even? A sword is a tool that is designed to kill. A gun is a tool that is designed to kill. That is the definition of a weapon of course and so what, no serious person believes guns are toys, most the responsible gun owners I know, take the danger guns pose very seriously. It is a weapon and it is very useful for self-defense.

Is it your belief that a gun is categorically different somehow and by its innate nature it provokes people to do these things when they wouldn't have done anything destructive had it not been for a gun? Is not the Japanese and Chinese examples of mass murders using knifes or swords no more compelling to you then the dynamite example?

I also didn't blame anything on wrong psychological treatment, I merely stated that instability needs to be recognized and appropriately addressed, I was careful not to "blame" anyone. Obviously the person who committed this act recognized the gun as an efficient "tool" for carrying out his intention. That fact by itself doesn't give anyone a clue as to what other tools he may have used in carrying out his deadly intention had he no guns available.

I don't think it's sensible to assume that an individual who grew up with guns, was trained at shooting with guns, and lived in a household where guns were considered just a regular tool like any other, would have just as easily used TNT instead of the guns.

I take it that by this statement you think that absent guns, this person wouldn't have committed any acts of violence? You also have no idea whether or not his mother instilled in him proper respect for the weapons but that he snapped and used them anyway. You have no idea whether she left the guns lying about like "any" other tool. Those are just your own prejudices seeping through. Maybe she kept them locked up but he found the key, you have no idea. Do you just assume that guns owners are all irresponsible rednecks who leave their guns lying around loaded on the kitchen table?

I've been around guns my whole life, I enjoy shooting targets and I am a very responsible hunter who hunts and takes game that I eat, not for trophies. I understand the dangerousness of the weapon and I don't support the notion that everyone should be carrying one. I also don't think everyone should be allowed to drive a car. We are not all equally suited to do every task or use every tool. I'm just not going to buy this notion that anything related to the psychology of guns caused this. Human beings have been carrying out atrocities on one and another since before recorded history and the invention of the gun, so to try and put guns in some kind of special psychological category is a stretch. That being said, I have no problem with limiting clip size and weapon type. Those policies could have potentially reduced the number of casualties, no one knows for sure. What is known is that if the depth of his instability was recognized and addressed, the act could have been prevented and that's it. Short of that, any other statement about what would have made a difference is pure speculation and that includes arming the teachers. That might have worked but then again maybe not, no one knows.

Cronos988 wrote:
I can't tell whether or not you are being sarcastic, but in my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with a person that contemplates shooting someone because that person is destroying their property. I mean sure, it's prefectly legal, it just seems a blatant disregard of human life.

I was not being sarcastic. And your opinion is a qualitative judgement. But being born and raised and living most of my life in the City of Milwaukee (and the United States as a country), I feel confident in hazarding the guess that over 90% of Milwaukeeans, if armed with a gun, would aim their firearm and shoot with the intent of deadly force is they caught someone trying to destroy their private property.

There are citizens of Milwaukee (in no small numbers) that will shoot you for far less offense.

It's generally accepted as a moral right in the U.S. to deprive someone of their life if they attempt to deprive you of your possessions or a possession of some importance to you. And a car is often (not always) linked to a man's identity. Maybe like a rancher in the 1800's with one or more horses he prizes.



While this is an old article dated 2006, personal conflicts, even by passerbys, are still the most prevalent causes of bullet injuries and homicides in the City of Milwaukee. So, my views and comments need to be understood in light of the cultural mileu and culture of responses to perceived "disses" (e.g., looking for a more than a second or so at someone; "mean mugging someone" etc).

Source: nytimes.com/2006/02/12/national/12homic ... l&_r=0

MILWAUKEE — One woman here killed a friend after they argued over a brown silk dress. A man killed a neighbor whose 10-year-old son had mistakenly used his dish soap. Two men argued over a cellphone, and pulling out their guns, the police say, killed a 13-year-old girl in the crossfire.

And while such crime in the 1990's was characterized by battles over gangs and drug turf, the police say the current rise in homicides has been set off by something more bewildering: petty disputes that hardly seem the stuff of fistfights, much less gunfire or stabbings.

Suspects tell the police they killed someone who "disrespected" them or a family member, or someone who was "mean mugging" them, which the police loosely translate as giving a dirty look. And more weapons are on the streets, giving people a way to act on their anger.

Police Chief Nannette H. Hegerty of Milwaukee calls it "the rage thing."

"We're seeing a very angry population, and they don't go to fists anymore, they go right to guns," she said. "A police department can have an effect on drugs or gangs. But two people arguing in a home, how does the police department go in and stop that?"

Here in Milwaukee, where homicides jumped from 88 in 2004 to 122 last year, the number classified as arguments rose to 45 from 17, making up by far the largest category of killings, as gang and drug murders declined.

The Problem with the "I own a gun to be safe" rationale is that in my opinion, when you pull a gun on someone, that means you are ready to kill that person. Because if you are not, you have just given the attacker a good reason to kill you. So carrying around a gun would only make sense to me if I expect someone to try to kill me or people around me. That would be the only situation in which I would seriously contemplate killing someone. I am happy to live in a country where I am free to walk around unarmed.

A knife is a deadly force weapon. A gun is justifiably used against a knife wielding threat. Therefore, with the knife culture of the U.K., you can't necessarily walk around "unarmed" per se by what you meant to imply with that statement. Your society has just failed to muster the moral fortitude to properly arm himself with some of the best personal, tactical, technologies of today.

It's generally accepted as a moral right in the U.S. to deprive someone of their life if they attempt to deprive you of your possessions or a possession of some importance to you.

Would you say that this is a good thing, or a bad thing or just an inevitable fact of life - neither good nor bad? Would you rather it was different? Would you rather live in a society in which the normal reaction to somebody trying to deprive you of your possessions is to have a bit of a row? Or do you like the feeling of danger and freedom knowing that life is inherently and deliberately dangerous?

Therefore, with the knife culture of the U.K., you can't necessarily walk around "unarmed" per se by what you meant to imply with that statement. Your society has just failed to muster the moral fortitude to properly arm himself with some of the best personal, tactical, technologies of today.

Are you under the impression that most people in the UK carry knives?!?

You are implying that guns are superior to knives because they are more efficient at killing - they are a more advanced form of killing technology, yes? So two potential assailents both carrying guns is an improvement over two merely carrying knives, yes? (I guess the best situation is the good guy carrying a gun and the bad guy carrying a knife. But nature abhors a vacuum. Imbalances never last for long. The surviving bad guys won't make the same mistake twice.)

Extending this: Would you regard it as a further improvement if the technology were improved further? Suppose there were a small, convenient personal weapon that could be used to immediately end the lives of everybody within, say, a 100 yard radius. Carrying such a weapon would guarantee that nobody within that radius with a mere gun could harm you, right? Would it be important for all citizens to immediately arm themselves with such a weapon slightly earlier than the bad guys do?

---

Albert Einstein supposedly once said: "I don't know what weapons will be used to fight the 3rd World War. But the 4th World War will be fought with sticks and stones."

People have always fought each other, and they always will. That's a constant of Nature. The main variable is the number of people who are killed, and the efficiency with which they are dispatched, in each battle, which is determined by the weapons technology.

You're right about one thing. We are getting better and better at it. I guess pretty soon owning a mere assault rifle will not be enough for the average citizen to feel safe. That's the march of progress, right?

I do not feel you can compare cultures (US v UK v India, etc.). If the issue is gun control in the US, then that's the cultural lens to view through. And since the issue is about the US, I personally think that the US government should have some but limited regulation on guns. The US is a gun culture. I've known many people to simply carry them or keep them in their glove compartments. I personally don't like guns, but that's the society I live in.

I don't think there's really any insight I have into this, other than reiterating what has been said. Gun control policies won't prevent lone mass murderers, if murder is premeditated. There are numerous ways in which murderers can find a way to kill. It would be nice if no guns existed at all, like any kind of modern warfare--but the technology exists, and people use them.

I feel though that the mass media does take on some kind of bizarre role when tragedy strikes. Tragedies happen so often that it's easy to forget the last one, and then the irony is, when a mass murderer comes out, everybody acts like it is the first time for mass murder. I don't mean to minimize people's feelings about horrific events. The mass media treats these events in such a warped way. Then because it's all over the media, people step out and want to ban guns or regulate guns or do this or that.

Really I see no solution to this problem. It's like asking, how do we stop violence? How do we stop violence when technology gets stronger and more effective and more lethal?

Supine wrote: A knife is a deadly force weapon. A gun is justifiably used against a knife wielding threat. Therefore, with the knife culture of the U.K., you can't necessarily walk around "unarmed" per se by what you meant to imply with that statement. Your society has just failed to muster the moral fortitude to properly arm himself with some of the best personal, tactical, technologies of today.

Sure, but there is no such thing a a "knife wielding threat" that I would just encounter on the street. And if there was, I assume he would not be hell bent on killing me unless I gave him reason to. Like pulling a gun on him.

For clarification, I am actually from Germany, but the situation is much the same. Sure there are "armed" criminals, but it's not like they are behind every street corner. Sure you can be unlucky and run into some kind of psychopath with a knife, but you are far more likely to die in a car accident, or indeed from falling down the stairs. Yet I do not walk around wrapped in cushions in case I stumble.

Now that is funny....of course the main problem is in the mind of the assailant, where else would it be? You can argue about what led him to it, what policy might have encouraged or discouraged him and so on but ultimately the primary cause is the willful act of this assailant. The only immediate prevention would be to have altered or blocked the will of the assailant. You either alter his will by treatment or you block his will by restraining it and that includes restraining it by locking him up or restraining him with a weapon.

I know of no such fact that a gun is psychological different for the person intent on killing then other weapons. On what basis or research or reasoning do you assert that killing with a gun is different than killing with dynamite or killing with a knife even? A sword is a tool that is designed to kill. A gun is a tool that is designed to kill. That is the definition of a weapon of course and so what, no serious person believes guns are toys, most the responsible gun owners I know, take the danger guns pose very seriously. It is a weapon and it is very useful for self-defense.

I did not contest the fact that the assailant was psychologically ill and that this was the main "cause" for his actions. But looking you victim in the eye and remotely detonating a Bomb are very different experiences. There are a great many school shootings by troubled young men, yet there have been only very few school bombings. Do you think that is a coincidence?

I don't think a sword or combat knife are materially different from a gun in that sense, but getting a sword that can actually be used to kill is harder then getting a gun in the US (irony?), and swords and knives are vastly less efficient. They do not currently pose the same threat that guns pose, both in availability and in killing power.

Is it your belief that a gun is categorically different somehow and by its innate nature it provokes people to do these things when they wouldn't have done anything destructive had it not been for a gun? Is not the Japanese and Chinese examples of mass murders using knifes or swords no more compelling to you then the dynamite example?

I am not saying that they would not have done anythin destructive. But the number of victims would very likely be smaller. Dynamite and explosives can cause more damage, but are considerably harder to use on any large enough scale. In any event, blowing a building up remotely is differnet from killing people face to face. Again, compare terrorists, who rely on bombs a lot, to the classical "school shooters", who use almost exclusively guns. The choice of tools can hardly be just a coincidence.

I also didn't blame anything on wrong psychological treatment, I merely stated that instability needs to be recognized and appropriately addressed, I was careful not to "blame" anyone. Obviously the person who committed this act recognized the gun as an efficient "tool" for carrying out his intention. That fact by itself doesn't give anyone a clue as to what other tools he may have used in carrying out his deadly intention had he no guns available.

I do not actually base my argument solely on the availability of guns. it's the whole "gun culture" that is at the heart of the problem. Widespread availability of guns combined with widespread usage of guns also leads to widespread misuse of guns.

I take it that by this statement you think that absent guns, this person wouldn't have committed any acts of violence?

You are wrong.

You have no idea whether she left the guns lying about like "any" other tool. Those are just your own prejudices seeping through. Maybe she kept them locked up but he found the key, you have no idea. Do you just assume that guns owners are all irresponsible rednecks who leave their guns lying around loaded on the kitchen table?

No, I don't actually think that. But it is clear from the evidence that Adam Lanza's mother did not own guns out of any professional need for guns. Neither did she require said guns for self defence (unless armed bands run rampant in Connecticut). So it is a likely conclusion that she owned them because she liked guns. Now I realize I should not judge people I do not know, and that my earlier statement was a little harsh, and presumed to much. She may have very well taken good care of the guns and properly locked them away. But nevertheless the guns were a part of that household, and frequently used by it's inhabitants. They were "normal" to an extent. And if an instrument of death becomes something "normal" than I think there is a problem.

I've been around guns my whole life, I enjoy shooting targets and I am a very responsible hunter who hunts and takes game that I eat, not for trophies. I understand the dangerousness of the weapon and I don't support the notion that everyone should be carrying one. I also don't think everyone should be allowed to drive a car. We are not all equally suited to do every task or use every tool. I'm just not going to buy this notion that anything related to the psychology of guns caused this. Human beings have been carrying out atrocities on one and another since before recorded history and the invention of the gun, so to try and put guns in some kind of special psychological category is a stretch. That being said, I have no problem with limiting clip size and weapon type. Those policies could have potentially reduced the number of casualties, no one knows for sure. What is known is that if the depth of his instability was recognized and addressed, the act could have been prevented and that's it. Short of that, any other statement about what would have made a difference is pure speculation and that includes arming the teachers. That might have worked but then again maybe not, no one knows.

I do not want to judge you or your handling of guns, and if I did, I admit that it was wrong. What I am "judging" is the gun culture. I know there are responsible gun owners, even I know some gun owners and they are responsible people. But glorifying guns as some symbol of freedom and security is wrong. A society armed to the teeth is not free, it is in constant fear, and fear precludes freedom.

Dolphin42 wrote: Would you say that this is a good thing, or a bad thing or just an inevitable fact of life - neither good nor bad?

I have conflicting feelings on that. And my emotions specifically around that are stronger an me that any detached, objective, reasoning.

On one hand my indoctrination from Catholicism (12 years of Catholic schooling etc.) instills in me a sense that it is wrong, so much so, questioning myself about the potential of being eternally damned to hell for not "turning the other cheek" and "giving up my cloak," would be a burden I would invariably carry.

On the other hand I'm shaped and indoctrinate by other things and other secular values as well. Partly I've received indoctrination from the culture of the North side of Milwaukee and the more specific Black-American middle-class neighborhood I was raised in since age 3 or 5. So, from this de facto school of thought, the SOB got what was coming to him. In fact, to not respond with violence, or to not shoot if one has a gun, is regarded as shameful and verging on effeminate homosexuality.

Would you rather it was different?

I'd rather it was different. I'd rather live in Qatar or the U.A.E. (I have fond memories of the U.A.E.) which I regard as far more civilized societies than that of the United States in general.

While I'm a Brazilian-phile to some degree, it's the level of violence in that nation that makes me probably prefer life in a peaceful area (not a violent area) of Southern France, which boasts a nice climate as well and beautiful scenery from photos I've seen.

Would you rather live in a society in which the normal reaction to somebody trying to deprive you of your possessions is to have a bit of a row?

I'd rather not live in that either. I'd prefer a very peaceful, friendly, heaven-like social environment. That is what I long for. At least part of me.

I'm naturally a very sensitive male and naturally less given to violence than probably 99% of women on earth. But I have learned to carry potential violence (like "potential energy" in physics) inside me, and to muster and use it when needed.

Or do you like the feeling of danger and freedom knowing that life is inherently and deliberately dangerous?

I have some of the typical human and male vulnerabilities. Our secular heroes are not imitations of St. Francis of Assisi but the "strong" and "tough," the warriors, the kings and Presidents that make calls for war and give tales of winning championship competitions. They are the cowboys and mafia figures we all commit a certain worship too. Even Jesse James the outlaw is rewarded with an heroic song praising his valor and virtue.

I have a book written by a Japanese man attempting to explain the institution of Bushido to Western readers. In doing so he compares it with the institution of Chivalry once held in the West (Chivalry was a Germanization of Catholicism and Catholicizing of Germanic chiefdom tribes that had a pronounced warrior culture). The author had more respect for chivalry than most Western people do today.

Chivalry like Bushido was an ideal that many samurai and knights never lived up to. But I regard chivalry as superior to gangsterism philosophy - which is what I was largely raised in via Hip Hop culture and modern America shaped by the capitalist legacy of Al Capon and the redoubtable Chicago Outfit that gave of J.F.K. as President of the United States.

Under the ideals of chivalry you never run from battle, you never lie, you place money and monetary rewards below other perceived spiritual and ethical things, you defend the weak, you defend the widowed and orphaned.

Under gangsterism you lie, cheat, steal, and more importantly exploit the weak and terrorize them. Fundamental to gangsterism is the pursuit of gaining as much worldly riches as you can.

I sometimes wonder what life would be like if chivalry had won out over gangsterism? But all I know is life under the institution of gangsterism. My first ocular break with it came from visiting the U.A.E and the H.B.C.U. (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) of Hampton University in Virginia. Actually, I first briefly saw it in Toronto, Canada on a family trip there as a small child. But the U.A.E. and H.B.C.U. were my first adult sightings of a life contra the North side of Milwaukee.

I should acknowledge White-American neighborhoods - and I suppose by that, most of America - have far more civilized neighborhoods and social expectations than Black-American neighborhoods in general. Although, white males typically commit the mass shootings. In my opinion I think this stems largely from whites being more severe in their judgement of male "losers" whom they compare to male "winners."

Are you under the impression that most people in the UK carry knives?!?

Not all but a sizable number of the male youth do I would bet.

You are implying that guns are superior to knives because they are more efficient at killing...

Short of contact shooting, in a number of tactical respects, yes, knives are inferior. However, at a several steps range, as I was taught in the U.S. Marine Corps, already drawn knives are superior to a holstered pistol or slung rifle. Knives are also silent and you don't need to reload them. One of the reason a preferable sentry removal is sneak behind a sentry, slash his throat while holding his mouth, and lay on the shaking body, restraining it, until it comes to a rest through the onset of death.

In some parts of the developing world (e.g., Philippines, El Salvador) the machete is an honored weapon destruction, killing. I'd probably prefer body modification from bullet injuries requiring surgery to that of what the machete can do. I suppose instruments like the shotgun and .50 caliber pistol/rifle are exceptions to that, especially regarding limbs.

Supine wrote:
Under the ideals of chivalry you never run from battle, you never lie, you place money and monetary rewards below other perceived spiritual and ethical things, you defend the weak, you defend the widowed and orphaned.

Under gangsterism you lie, cheat, steal, and more importantly exploit the weak and terrorize them. Fundamental to gangsterism is the pursuit of gaining as much worldly riches as you can.

I find this to be a striking and beautiful comparison.