why can't pray lol???

Great post, myhand. Praying wont help if you want to achieve a statsitically credible change. But you know, the placebo effect is a real effect: so praying might help those, who lost someone and believe in the ideology behind praying.

Also, lets not forget about the hundrets of children in the U.S. that die every year of firearm accidents. Just for comparison: There was no such victim reported in whole Japan last year. So, no one can tell me there cant be done a thing about this kind of nightmare. The easy availability of means always carries an increased risk those means wont be used in a proper way. Safety begins with denying easy access to firearms.

@myhand: to prevent children starving is not really comparable to gunman massacres. Its way more difficult to change whole societies and political systems in order to do sth against starvation. You would have to conduct real wars to achieve this goal, sth that carries many risks for things becoming unstable, resulting in changes to the worse. To prevent things like yesterdays elementary school massacre you just need political consensus.

A man who kills innocent people and turns the gun on himself has become dehumanized and has lost touch with social values. Prayer, sympathy, offering of condolences for victims or their families are are natural reactions and a means by which society redefines common values. I think society's reappraisal of its core values is a small but important measure in instilling these values in the minds of others. In this way, it serves a purpose: the more sympathetic people are, the less likely one of us will harm others.

I do not pray. And I will not do anything public to help anyone. But I do not assume that the prayers and sympathetic words of others are useless. Words and actions matter. Logic and emotion matter. To deny one in favor of the other is to deny a part of our human nature.

@ ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS HOCKEY

"One of my personal questions is why are other industrialized countries not plagued by these events as it seems America is."

I don't know if you are, with that statement, alluding to "gun massacre" that happen in some certain countries (in this case USA), but if you are, I'd like to give my own opinion.

First of all, I've heard a lot about those massacres in the USA, one in particular that I remember the most is the Colorado university massacre which I've seen on TV (although as a reconstruction) in which was exactly described the murderers' plan of when and where to arrive, when and at who to shoot,... along with actual footages of SWAT team surrounding and later entering the building and rescue scenes after the shooting ended.

Since that incident and the recent ones aswell (Aurora, Sandy Hook) I've started to think that all the incidents that have happened in the USA (that I personally remember and which include gun shooting) occured in the time range of few years (perhaps maybe even 10+ years, my rough estimation) and with several dozens or several tens of victims (my personal opinion, don't be hard). In the Colorado example, when I saw that on TV I was 12 or 13 years old. Now to me at that time and age, to see something like that was very shocking and disturbing.

Back to your statement or question, I'd like to say that there ARE or WERE incidents in the past like these in other countries, however maybe not that often.
Everyone in this conversation and outside it has probably heard, more or less, about the 2004 Beslan hostage crisis in Russia which has, unfortunately, ended in loss of over 300 people (a little more than half of the victims were children). Again, this ended on TV, however, this time it was broadcasted on the news on our state television, no reconstruction, actual footages of dead people lying on the ground covered with sheets or so (I think they were lined up aswell). Note: even though my "name" is in Cyrillic, I'm not Russian.

However, one must consider the difference between Beslan and Aurora, Sandy Hook,...
The Beslan massacre was committed by QUOTE: "separatist militants" while Aurora, Sandy Hook,... massacre were committed by people with high mental instabilities.
Which brings the question; Did the murderers in the US massacres had mental instabilities and if so why weren't they in mental hospitals? Were those tragedies a result of a failed system? Could be...

One of my personal questions is why are other industrialized countries not plagued by these events as it seems America is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres

It has happened around the world. And it will continue to happen around the world.
After Dunblane the UKs gun laws became more restrictive. Same in Germany after Erfurt - Winnenden happened anyways. But to go out and say "arm the teachers" is obscene.

to prevent children starving is not really comparable to gunman massacres. Its way more difficult to change whole societies and political systems in order to do sth against starvation. You would have to conduct real wars to achieve this goal, sth that carries many risks for things becoming unstable, resulting in changes to the worse. To prevent things like yesterdays elementary school massacre you just need political consensus.

No. You won't ever be able to prevent such things from happening in our societies. It would need an effort much more profound than the one we'd need to make to end world hunger (which, btw, is absolutely within our reach - it's just not profitable).
If you're not completely de-sensitized already, there is no easy way out in reacting to events like this. Contextualizing, relativizing, comparing death with death, calling out for 'meaningful political action' (laugh or cry?), prayer... - this very thread - are all coping mechanisms that only work for those who have the luxury not to be directly affected by what just happened to 27 families.
And by next year, we will have forgotten.

Why does it have to be like this everything has to get way outnif hand with you people i can see that of you dont live in america thisntype of thing doesent bother you vecause yiur not close to it but this kind of thing is a rarity so yeah its a tradgedy ok i understandchildren die all over te world o other things BUT since that doesent happen here this is a horrific event i get people who dont pray but your goin to LAUGH abiut it then i will see you in hell my friend because that makes you no better than the man whi did it, ok? I hate when something as simple as please pray forbthe people lost in a TRADGEDY cant just be peayed for, then the world eeally is going to shit because all you bastards care a bout is your fucking gun laws drives me ceazy ok i live in north carolina which like texas has less gun laws abd less crime than say pennsylvania with more gun laws and more crime ok a horrible thing happened and i at least know now who i shouldnt talk about it with because half of you only care avout yourselves and fucking africa


God help you people, really do

No. You won't ever be able to prevent such things from happening in our societies

I d never ever say you can prevent ALL such events, because you cannot perfectly ban all weapons. But did you ever ask yourself why you have so many gun accidents in the USA? And dont you think that having less violence by just making access to guns more difficult makes some sense? It sure is not only a gun thing. Before Columbine we had no pupils running amok here in Germany. Why is that? Maybe it also is the easy availability of violent pictures that burn into the brains of adolecents, waiting there to be copied into real world every once in a while, for whatever crazy reasons. I dont know. But strongly restricting access to firearms sure is more than just a little step into the right direction.

So if my neighbor dies or the guy next to me on a bus, I would be foolish to have an emotional response, or even wish their families well? Instead I should immediately consider the plight of Africans and think "It's really not that bad that my neighbor is dead. The value of human life comes down to simple arithmetic."

They weren't any of our neighbours. You knew them just as little as you know starving Africans. At that point it is simple arithmetic. The hedonic calculus is very useful if you agree on the fundament. C'mon, buddha, you should know better. Remember the woman you sent to get seeds from a household where a death had not occured?

you will be glorificated much more in Heaven.

trollussa is a christian, makes sense.


[/quote]The issue you are trying to argue (in what I assume is gun rights) is separate from this tragedy, and my thoughts in relation will remain separate.[/quote]
12/15 2:40am

It is unfortunate that events like this have to occur for us to have a meaningful conversation on the topic [of gun "rights"]. Hopefully the people who are in charge of my country, are able to manage a coherent conversation and hopefully next time this does not have to occur.

12/15 3:10pm

I'm glad you gained some sort of grasp on reality over those 12 hours, HOCKEY.

to prevent children starving is not really comparable to gunman massacres. Its way more difficult to change whole societies and political systems in order to do sth against starvation. You would have to conduct real wars to achieve this goal, sth that carries many risks for things becoming unstable

Or become a vegetarian. If crops weren't being fed to animals, if the area that those animals occupied were instead used for crops, then there would be plenty more food for everyone. Either that or pray for them, of course, since that makes people feel better, Buddha. Truth is meaningless.

---

It's nice to have myhand on your side. His arguments cohere, and venture beyond simple declarations, which is more I can so for most of you, (most egregiously gui, because he makes his unsubstantiated declarations with such confidence).

Also, if you don't find hell bender's posts funny in a ludicrous way, dead children notwithstanding, then you are an inhuman monster.

So if my neighbor dies or the guy next to me on a bus, I would be foolish to have an emotional response, or even wish their families well? Instead I should immediately consider the plight of Africans and think "It's really not that bad that my neighbor is dead. The value of human life comes down to simple arithmetic."

They weren't any of our neighbours. You knew them just as little as you know starving Africans. At that point it is simple arithmetic. The hedonic calculus is very useful if you agree on the fundament. C'mon, buddha, you should know better. Remember the woman you sent to get seeds from a household where a death had not occured?

you will be glorificated much more in Heaven.

trollussa is a christian, makes sense.

The issue you are trying to argue (in what I assume is gun rights) is separate from this tragedy, and my thoughts in relation will remain separate.

12/15 2:40am

It is unfortunate that events like this have to occur for us to have a meaningful conversation on the topic [of gun "rights"]. Hopefully the people who are in charge of my country, are able to manage a coherent conversation and hopefully next time this does not have to occur.

12/15 3:10pm

I'm glad you gained some sort of grasp on reality over those 12 hours, HOCKEY.

Its way more difficult to change whole societies and political systems in order to do sth against starvation. You would have to conduct real wars to achieve this goal, sth that carries many risks for things becoming unstable

Or become a vegetarian. If crops weren't being fed to animals, if the area that those animals occupied were instead used for crops, then there would be plenty more food for everyone. Either that or pray for them, of course, since that makes people feel better, Buddha. Truth is meaningless.

---

It's nice to have myhand on your side. His arguments cohere, and venture beyond simple declarations, which is more I can so for most of you, (most egregiously gui, because he makes his unsubstantiated declarations with such confidence).

Also, if you don't find hell bender's posts funny in a ludicrous way, dead children notwithstanding, then you are an inhuman monster.

x your the monster for laughing your a real asshole apparently

Before Columbine we had no pupils running amok here in Germany.

13. Seifert, Walter, 42 June 11 1964 Volkhoven
31. Charva, Karel, 34 June 3 1983 Eppstein
45. Kausler, Robert, 27 Dec. 21 1972 Erlangen
...
(these lists themselves are morbid to the core btw... ordered by number of victims)

Ok, those weren't pupils - but does that really matter? IMO it's more like this: after Columbine, people running amok get more coverage and the public is more aware of these events ("oh my it happened again"). Also, the media impact of such a killing spree is global nowadays, no matter where it happens.

Maybe it also is the easy availability of violent pictures that burn into the brains of adolecents, waiting there to be copied into real world every once in a while, for whatever crazy reasons. I dont know.

I don't know either. I'd say violence in general really isn't any more present nowadays than any other time in history. Probably more to the contrary. Most of us have seen a lot less first-hand death and mutilation than those generations before us. But then we're exposed to a lot more of our culture industries' heavily aestheticised, sometimes glorified, sort of big-screen 'clean' violence that is designed to be pleasant to 'consume' (look at, read about, engage in (video games)).

Its true, Gnullbegg. There were school crimes before Columbine. As i found out, there even was one in 1913 here in Germany. But in all those cases, the perpetrator was a psychologically disturbed adult with no connection to the school he has chosen. But since Columbine a strong increase of school shootings occurred, of which all or almost all were commited by pupils or former pupils of the school.

X, if you can't connect the dots that is not my problem. I don't want to write three pages. Neighbor is clearly a metaphor. Human societies obviously learn and reaffirm certain things by observation and group think. Montagne said men are in part measured by how they face death. If we measure a man by how he views the deaths of others, x are you even human? Your views seem to devolve back to primate societies. Maybe you should revive the character Anti-Gui Monkey. It'd be easy for you, there wouldn't be any need to act.

Either you are A, totally naive and ignorant about the real reasons behind the underfeeding in the forgotten continent Africa. (which I expect to be true)
or B, totally biased making distinctions in humans, valueing the life of a USAmerican more than the life of someone else, particularily some faraway lobbyless Africans (which i also expect to be true)
or C, you are aware of either of one and hypocritically campaign against X for not mainstreaming with you on this topic. (which I hope is at most only partly true)

So I'm either ill-informed, arrogant about life, or sheep my opinions? Quite a claim to make when I only gave you a paragraph of my opinion on the matter. I shouldn't feel right mourning for the deaths of children, when 100s die in Africa, you're right. I should loathe myself for performing such an act. Why I don't go every day crying and mourning about the deaths of Africans is astounding and I should hate myself. That's right. I would be morally and philosophically superior if I saw this event and said: Well you can't mourn this event because you don't see the deaths of Africans in the same light, because I'm right and you're wrong.

Let me know when someone dies in your family so I can remind you that 100s die in Africa and that you should mourn their death instead. Judging by your logic, that's what you should do when someone dies in your family. Remind everyone that 100s die in Africa and that you're morally superior for mourning them instead.

Let's be honest for a second, all life is equal. This doesn't mean I have to have an emotional response to every loss of life equally. I found this event very tragic, and I mourn it. I feel sympathy for those directly affected by the event, and so I express such sympathy. For the same reasons I would mourn a death in my family, I mourn the deaths of those involved in this event.

(Also, before this little paragraph you said 100,000 Africans die a day. You're trying to tell me 365,000 people in Africa die a year due to malnutrition. If I take the more civilized countries populations (Egypt, South Africa, etc.), if this statement is correct, then they're repopulating at a rate much faster than I anticipated looking at their population growth percentages. Of course, does explain why AIDS spreads so damn fast, they're populating faster than rabbits.)

I will try to enlighten you all on that topic in easy comprehensible words. Africa's kids don't die because they can't be fed by Africans. They die because we dont let them be fed by Africans. We (the industrialized countries), simply don't allow them to feed themselves. The only sector in which third world countries can compete with our highly developed industries is the agrarian sector. Now what i want from you is too google the amout of subsidies that are put in that sector each year by the industrialized countries, you would be surprised. If you have only average intelligence and logic to add together what that means, your conclusion should be evident, if not i will help you out:
Those subsidies lead to low prices for mass produced staple food. On african markets, european or US produced food will be cheaper (thanks to subsidies), than the local competition for the African buyer. The African buyer therefore will tend to their produce and ignore the local. What does that mean for the African farmer now?
He can not sell his produce since he has to compete with price dumping, so he has to change his produce. Now what is he going to produce next? He is going into cash crop. That means luxury articles for industrialized markets, above all coffee, but lately also biofuel (yes, a new pervesion, we drive on what other people can't afford to eat)
Now i want you to google again, which product on earth has the second highest global revenue, just right after oil. Again I am sure you a highly surprised.
The interest we (industrial countries) have in the African continent is solely exploitational. Ressources and cash crop, shipped out leaving almost nothing for the local markets.
Justifying this monetarian gain with "inevitablitly" is the outrageous act.

I love this first sentence. 'Okay, so I'm assuming you're stupid so I'll try to make it easier for you to understand.' If you don't feel the need to debate with me seriously and take me as an equal, why bother debating with me at all? If you want, I can use larger words as well to make my point known, but seeing as I wasn't directly arguing with you I made my word choice with the mindset that this is an international forum. English is my first language, and I'll be damned if I can't figure out what you mean if you use larger words.

Really, you think it's stunning to me that coffee is 2nd? Doing the math is quite simple. Coffee shops are nearly as frequented as gas stations, and the ratio of coffee shops:gas stations is approaching 1, you can easily conclude that since the sales of coffee are close to the sales of gas that the resources driving such sales must be pretty close together on the list. Petroleum being #1 means that coffee is very close or is #2 (hard to determine since I'm looking at this on a micro scale and deriving the logical macro output). This is the easy/lazy way to form the assumption. Since I'm the consumer, it's quite easy to determine the top 10 resources. (A bit skewed based on local, but I live in Houston, 4th largest city in America)

I'm not going to waste anymore of your time if you stop wasting mine. It's insulting to have to explain such basic economics.

Let's be honest, there's no real way to fix the African problem, it's something that their people will have to fix themselves. You can go on and on about the mistakes of the past, of the present, but not much will make a damned different. The task at hand involves completely demilitarizing all of the dictators, competing with them on a fairer basis, and educating the 800 million or so people in the less civilized countries.

The first will never happen, because there's no gain to be had by any country to go in there and flush out the rats who have tyranny over those people. I don't see any countries signing up to have soldiers killed in the name of saving a continent that may or may not be saved by this very action.

The second will never happen, because even if you were to get America's hands off it, Europe's hands off it, you'll never get China's hands off it. China has the biggest grip on the continent, and is the most important one to target. America and Europe can't piss off China.

The third will never happen, because the education does them no good. The education won't help them within their own country. They'd have to go to an industrialized country to apply their lessons, no matter how basic. It's almost better for them to learn farming as best and as fast as possible.

So next time you pour a hypocritical tirade of outrage upon X for rightly disagreeing on this collective hysterical dismay upon the death of a two dozen people, just because you people aren't able to get gun control laws straight once and for all, think first and inform yourself.

I forgot that I'm hypocritical, hysterical, and stupid for holding an opinion that I can back up with just as much logic, facts, and reasoning. I was guilty of only calling you arrogant, of which I admitted being guilty of as well. You can insult me all of you want I guess though, it's your method of argument, and if I were to insult you, I'm being a fool.

Went over the character limit. Mahbad.

I could argue with you with you about the necessity of gun control solely with your logic. If you don't think that gun control is necessary, because it wouldn't change a thing (which is absurd), I will ask you this:
Why not make nuclear weapons or material accessible for everyone? Everyone willing to buy it should require a license and a class and and psych screening.
I am sure that you believe gun accesibility is some secret divine right for the US citizen and you would be less hypocritical in arguing that way "Yes i know guns kill people, I know we would have far less violent deaths than without them, but i like to shoot my guns, its makes me feel great"
I would have less problems with that point of view, it would be at least coherent.
So in case all that went past you and you doubt that stricter gun laws will lead to less violent deaths read some more studies like this one: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf , since i don't want to chew through all that again.

Why thank you for completely skipping nearly 90% of my entire argument. Now let me address your narrow refutation of my argument.

What a bad representation of my logic. The logic presented, that you even quoted, was talking about how killing a room full of people can be done in a way easier than with a gun. (Also for those who are wondering, I made a mistype, the guns in this case were not automatics, and were pistols stolen from the perpetrator's parents.) Putting that aside however, nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction only for the use of the Military. I would doubt: 1. You'd be able to buy such weapons 2. Could ever have a reasonable reason for having one (thus failing screening. If you weren't aware, you must state the reason of why you're buying your weapon to get the license. Most obvious reason is self-defense. Assault weapons cannot be taken out of the property, so there is control.)

Let's assume then, because that was a terrible example, you meant something such as a military grade machine gun, military grade grenades, or rocket launchers. Again, how can you justify such a thing for personal use or self-defense? It'd be quite hard, and the idea of obtaining a license for these things would be quite difficult.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence in anyway, I found this quite astounding and wouldn't mind sharing it. Did you know that proceeding Pearl Harbor that the Japanese considered storming California? When General Yamamoto heard of this consideration he refused to carry it out saying something along the lines of how impossible it would be to actually hold California. Since most of the residents owned guns, it was quite possible that if the American Military didn't snuff them out that the residents themselves would win control.

I think the most important thought pattern behind guns is using them as a means of survival in a crisis situation. What happens if a crisis overwhelms the police force and looters come forth to rob your house? Do you just sit there whimpering in the corner as they rape your wife and steal your stuff, then shoot you all? You really think that your gun laws would stop them from procuring a gun in those instances? What if it's a corrupt police force doing this?

As for your religion bashing, how immature. You think being an asshole makes your point seem more intelligent? In the end, you merely prove yourself as an asshole and make the very people you're insulting seem more intelligent. (I'm not religious, I'm an atheist. I find that if you want to convince people to see eye-to-eye with you, then set yourself as the example. Degrading people and insulting them when they don't ask for it is a good way of doing just the opposite.)

And another mistype. 'Assault weapons can't be taken out of the home' I mean to say it's only possible to get a 'Concealed Handgun License', which are pistols and not hand cannons. (Revolvers, and large pistols are considered hand cannons). I didn't really follow it up with that statement so you could misconstrue it.

T(Also, before this little paragraph you said 100,000 Africans die a day. You're trying to tell me 365,000 people in Africa die a year due to malnutrition. If I take the more civilized countries populations (Egypt, South Africa, etc.), if this statement is correct, then they're repopulating at a rate much faster than I anticipated looking at their population growth percentages. Of course, does explain why AIDS spreads so damn fast, they're populating faster than rabbits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/dec/13/how-people-die-global-mortality-visualised

You're trying to tell me 365,000 people in Africa die a year due to malnutrition.

As you can easily see for yourself, that has been the case for 2010. ~370,000 deaths from malnutrition alone. Africa is big - bigger than Europe, the US and China combined. There's over a billion people living on that continent. It helps to actually inform oneself about things like this, you know.

Of course, does explain why AIDS spreads so damn fast, they're populating faster than rabbits.

Wait what was it again one does not make 'jokes' about?

Guys, you can't judge the severity of something like this by the amount of deaths. As humans, we feel grief and sympathy because we relate to these people: We can see ourselves as young children attending elementary school, as parents of those young children, as citizens living in that town, etc. and it shocks us to think that something so horrific could've happened to us as well. Starvation in Africa is just as horrible, but it has an apparent cause and can be predicted/stopped with the proper funding. You don't count tragedy by the numbers

Also, quit hating on X. He's not insulting anyone by making a few jokes, he's just lightening the mood. There's no rule that says you have to flip out and fall into depression after a horrible tragedy no matter how much it bothers you. After all, who doesn't enjoy insulting hellbender's grammar?

As you can easily see for yourself, that has been the case for 2010. ~370,000 deaths from malnutrition alone. Africa is big - bigger than Europe, the US and China combined. There's over a billion people living on that continent. It helps to actually inform oneself about things like this, you know.

It's less than that when you consider taking civilized countries that should be able to feed their people out of the equation. Your source even proves that. Thank you.

Wait what was it again one does not make 'jokes' about?

Glad I have to explain myself. I recently looked at the population growth rate for Africa, which was stunningly large even though I knew the mortality rate was low. As rabbits have a tendency to repopulate quickly, it's a good simile to describe how they're repopulating quickly.

Was going to post something here, but Lolowut did it for me. Thank you, Lolowut.