How to (not) talk about a massacre

I commend you, Tom Magrino, for tackling a subject such as this in the manner that you have. This was an extremely interesting read and is an important circumstance and the blame should not be dumped upon something that has little to no involvement in it. Thank you for this wonderful article, and for making me laugh hysterically at some of your choice article titles.

I really can't explain how bizarre it is hearing this gun control debate from across the pond in the UK. We have crazies, every country does, but you really do feel safer knowing that they don't have access to weaponry. The NRA blaming videogames, that was incredible. As was that nutcase on Piers Morgan's show (Also, on behalf of Britain, may I apologise for sending you Piers. And no, we really don't want him back). The fact that they don't appear to be laughed out of town is bewildering. Also, how come we hear about towns arranging game-destroying rallies yet we don't hear about the towns running gun-destroying rallies? There's a lot of great things that America brings to the world, but your bizarro politics really isn't one of them.

I don't understand why you can't take the position of liberty, which is to say, let people who want to buy an assault rifle, have an assault rifle, and that people who want to play whatever kind of video game they want, can play whatever kind of video game they want. Why, to you, is freedom this baked pie that must be divided up, one getting smaller at the expense of another getting bigger? The NRA's tactic to shift the blame onto videogames is abhorrent, but as you've said, logical, therefore, expected. Anything to take the shift off guns, because, they're not to blame either. The single largest change we can make as a country, to prevent a future Sandy Hook, is to restructure our medical mental health institutions. Now, that's an even larger conversation about who's responsible for that, but I'm sure you'll think about those issues. In the meantime, please don't say that Alex Jones is a "a bloviating fat man who, from what I can tell, earns his bones by advocating socially conservative positions". First off, fat? Seriously? Come on Coop. Secondly, "advocating socially conservative positions" is deeply dishonest. Alex Jones is a mental case, even from the perspective of people who proudly self identify as Conservative Republicans. He's fringe-Right. Putting him in the same boat as people like Prager, Medved, and Beck is as dishonest as putting Barbara Steisand in the same list as, I dunno, John Stewart and Piers Morgan. I know you're a journalist who lives in San Francisco, but try to treat your more Conservative readers (and fans) with a little bit more respect. You'll receive it in kind.

Those are some great points there, ventanger. Well said.

Good stuff mate. We only have so much freedom, and it's not just a simple act of "getting them back". It's much harder to gain freedom than it is to lose it.

I totally agree on the mental health issue. There are a large number of factors, including violent media and the availability of guns that contribute to gun violence. However, the very fact that not every single person in this country is going out and committing such tragedies shows that it is the few who have mental illness that are driven to that point. So why are we not making a greater attempt to help these people before they are driven to such a point, rather then restrict the freedoms of those who are not made gun crazy by such factors?

Would you at least agree that there should be background checks on the people that buy guns? I think that would probably calm a lot of people that want the ARs and semi autos banned.

Of course. You can even have them registered in a private database.

There already are background checks. The problem with criminals obtaining guns is simply that the criminals selling them illegally don't exactly abide by the law, so do people really expect these guys to call uncle sam and say "Hey so I'm selling these weapons unlawfully... can you check this guy out for me?" Speaking of illegal weapons - I find it quite interesting that we're having a debate about legally obtained firearms, when not all that long ago our own government intentionally passed out all sorts of weaponry to criminals without a a second thought (Op Fast and Furious). Does anyone seriously think further gun restrictions on law abiding citizens is a good thing, when the government itself has already show that it doesn't care about following it's own laws?

I notice you're still agreeing with the idea that mentally ill people should be allowed to get their hands on powerful weaponry. The worst that happens if a kid plays a violent videogame is that they start swearing and jumping around like Max Payne. The worst that happens if that kid or an insane person gets a gun is that people die. I still don't believe that there are people out there who don't have a problem with devices designed exclusively to kill as many people as efficiently as possible being available within easy reach of kids, criminals and the mentally ill. And it's Tom, not Coop.

Where did I agree that mentally ill people should be allowed to get their hands on powerful weaponry? I'd like it if you didn't put words into my... mouth? Just don't assume I said something that I didn't actually say. Yes, you're right, it's Tom. When I read the title and the author I recognized it was written by a regular GR staffer, and by the time I was writing my response I forgot which one, and there's no way to edit comments like there is to edit articles (as has already been done).

You know that a teenager protesting with Occupy Oakland went home last year and killed his parents with his bare hands, right? (ban karate classes!) Must you really subscribe to the delusion that a gun is the only thing that can kill people?

Of course a gun isn't the only thing that can kill people, you can kill a person with pretty much anything. The difference is, the only purpose of a gun is to kill. And please don't give some bullshit excuse about them being used for "protection."

Once again, how can you justify other things because their original premise wasn't something you agree with? That's basically saying that guns are wrong, while ignoring other examples, just because it's intentions were not what you wanted or agree with. When Einstein invented the Theory of Relativity, he had good intentions, but look what's become of it. There are numerous examples of things that was created with good intentions that ended up causing negatives as well. (not my full thought on the theory although)

Paraphrasing another comment - if you were the victim of a mass car murderer instead of a mass shooter, I'm sure you'd be comforted your imminent death would be from internal bleeding caused by massive blunt trauma, rather than small perforations. You'd still be dead, of course, and so would several others. Oh well.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. A car's main purpose is transportation. Yes, vehicles have been used to kill people. However, a gun's ONLY purpose is to kill. Allowing powerful weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens is only encouraging violence, not preventing it.

Guns are used for wounding, intimidation, and lastly killing. It matters not about it's purposes, Drain Cleaner may have it's original purpose, but can become a tool used for other things with a demented human's hands. In the end, that person is dead, wounded, sick, or whatever. If your so big into not allowing powerful weapons into ordinary citizens hands, then you should be a big advocate of not allowing vehicles, chainsaws, power tools, etc... Because although their original purposes may not have involved "killing", it matters not if people CAN kill with it. What If for example; that someone made a rocket launcher for decoration of potential, but it's original intention was to never be fired? To you, that wouldn't be a weapon right? Because it's original intentions matters more than what it can become with someone else's hands. Same with a car, although it's intentions when created was not for killing, it's used for it anyway.

Well said!

Don't be stupid. I've already mentioned that you can kill someone with just about anything. However, no way is quicker or eaiser than with a gun, and you would have those "tools" be readily available to the public?

And they're usually used in the opposite order of what you listed.