Elementary school shooting gun control pissing contest

[Maximus]

Use of a tragedy as a spur to realistic discussion of realistic alternatives is fine, and even commendable.

I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.

I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.

[mongers]

For the record, the reaction to the 1996 Dunblane primary school massacre was the banning of all handguns larger than .22 cal.

[11B4V]

My own take is that if people want to discuss a public policy issue as a result of a tragedy that's fine.

If people have pre-existing axes to grind, and take said tragedy as an excuse to grind said axes, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

There needs to be some way to separate people like this guy from their guns, because his right to keep and bear arms doesn't over-ride the right of 5-year-olds to attend school without being murdered.

Very well said indeed.

[Razgovory]

Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit.  This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns.  While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy.  Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.

You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.

I am a bit puzzled as to how a discussion on languish about gun control - an obvious issue raised whenever something like this happens - prevents people who need to grieve from grieving.

Also, how does preventing public discourse about a potential solution help anyone?

My own take is that if people want to discuss a public policy issue as a result of a tragedy that's fine.

If people have pre-existing axes to grind, and take said tragedy as an excuse to grind said axes, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

You mean like every other political issue?  Something bad happens, it catches people's attention and there is political discussion.  I guess we shouldn't be talking about Syria in a political discussion cause someone might be using it have an excuse to grind an axe.

[Kleves]

but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.

Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.

[Barrister]

Use of a tragedy as a spur to realistic discussion of realistic alternatives is fine, and even commendable.

I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.

I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.

Here's my irrational rage - that as soon as a tragedy happens people start speculating as to potential explanations, such as mental illness, until we have some actual evidence.

[Razgovory]

Use of a tragedy as a spur to realistic discussion of realistic alternatives is fine, and even commendable.

I will admit to a certain amount of irrational rage today, but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.

I agree with pretty much the rest of your post. I don't know how often these killers give off warning signs, perhaps it's more often than I thought.

Okay, lets have the second amendment discussion about a massacre that happened a year ago.  I mean, there a whole bunch of them.  Why don't you pick a few for us.

[mongers]

but I don't think anything is lost by waiting until the dead are buried to start this discussion.

Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.

Yeah, I can't exactly recall what the last gun outrage in the US was, some of the victims of, may still be awaiting burial. 

edit:
oh, it was the guy at the mall, damn I bet he's immortal soul is pissed about losing out on the limelight. 

[Neil]

Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit.  This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns.  While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy.  Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.

You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.

Nobody here lost a kid and so we have no need to grieve. Let's get straight to the politics.

[Barrister]

Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit.  This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns.  While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy.  Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.

You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.

I am a bit puzzled as to how a discussion on languish about gun control - an obvious issue raised whenever something like this happens - prevents people who need to grieve from grieving.

Also, how does preventing public discourse about a potential solution help anyone?

My own take is that if people want to discuss a public policy issue as a result of a tragedy that's fine.

If people have pre-existing axes to grind, and take said tragedy as an excuse to grind said axes, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

You mean like every other political issue?  Something bad happens, it catches people's attention and there is political discussion.  I guess we shouldn't be talking about Syria in a political discussion cause someone might be using it have an excuse to grind an axe.

You appear to have misconstrued my argument.

If there is a tragedy in Syria, and the Israeli government uses that as an excuse for why Israel needs to keep the Golan Heights, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Maximus]

Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.

Shock, outrage and horror aren't a good basis for policy.

[merithyn]

Oh, give us a break with this sanctimonious bullshit.  This is no tragic accident, this is a predictable and oft-repeated consequence of a tragically stupid policy we have with regards to guns.  While the radical gun nuts whose idiocy kills other people "respectfully think about the victims of this tragedy" so that they don't have to think about the murderous consequences of their policies, people like myself are thinking about the victims of tomorrow's tragedy.  Today's victims are already dead, tomorrow's victims don't have to be.

You can fuck right off. You're not going to fix it this week. Let people grieve and get over the shock. Then, if you haven't forgotten about it in a few days we can work toward a rational solution.

If you want to grieve then why are you f-bombing people in a pissing contest thread?

This started in the other thread and was put into this thread by Management(R).

[Maximus]

Here's my irrational rage - that as soon as a tragedy happens people start speculating as to potential explanations, such as mental illness, until we have some actual evidence.

That's fair

[11B4V]

For the record, the reaction to the 1996 Dunblane primary school massacre was the banning of all handguns larger than .22 cal.

That may work for scotland, but the US..... eh. It would take a herculean effort just to collect and enforce at this point. Not to mention the 2nd Amend issue.

[mongers]

Unfortunately, I think in a lot of these cases you have to strike while the iron is hot; waiting will dissapate the shock/outrage/horror that is necessary to actually effect change.

Shock, outrage and horror aren't a good basis for policy.

How so ?

Sometime fight or flight is a good response mechanism; dithering can kill.