^^ Too bad. But the responses in that thread are the perfect example of the ugliness that passes for "discussion" following an event like this.
Deranged Nasat wrote:
Obviously without easy access to guns there wouldn't be such high levels of gun crime, but the availability of guns doesn't immediately and necessarily make violence a reality. It just makes it easier for someone who intends violence to carry it out. Removing easy access to guns would definitely make crimes like this rarer and harder to stage (and some might say that's really all that's required), but the underlying pressures and tensions that contribute to high rates of violent crime need to be dealt with too, and I worry that those pressures and tensions in American society aren't going to be dealt with or examined with any degree of interest, because it's going to become another gun debate. And, again, I agree that such a discussion absolutely needs to take place, and if positive changes in that area come about in the near future I'll be very happy, but I wouldn't want it to close off any other avenues for confronting factors that contribute to the high rate of gun crime in the US.
And I don't mean the tired old fallacies commentators are trotting out about violence in video games, etc. That's just another example of how people fall back into comfort zones and easy arguments rather than challenging anything. And, yes, for certain ideological groups it's a convenient scapegoat for having to confront the gun control question. They don't want to touch that because many of their supporters would be alienated, so they settle on video games as the demon. But I think the gun control question isn't that far removed itself from being, if not a scapegoat, then another means by which American society (and apparently the rest of us too) distracts itself from tackling the deeper social issues that plague any large nation.
Of course the easy availability of guns in the US is significant and contributes to the ease and frequency of crimes like this, but when some people argue that it's not about guns, they mean that it's always preferrable to dig out the roots of the weed rather than just cut off the stalk and then aggressively monitor it so it doesn't grow back.
I'll just say, "Well said," again. It saves me a lot of typing.
People always fall all over themselves to blame their favorite scapegoat in the aftermath of a tragedy. That's pure exploitation. Mass murder isn't the fault of guns, fertilizer, comic books, video games, movies, television, Stephen King, Harry Potter, men, religion, the United States, childhood immunizations or additives and preservatives. It's because, as Bob Geldorf said, the silicon chip inside his head switched to overload. His brain cells weren't lining up correctly. The neurotransmitters were out of balance. He was sick. He was broken. Understanding this, diagnosing this and treating this is what we must do.
I disagree. Not with the fact that it's well-said (it is), but with the premise that the aftermath of an incident is not the right time to discuss it. Sure, you should wait until at least the primary details of the incident are known so you can make an informed argument, but once that's happened I think there's no better time to discuss it than when it's fresh in people's minds and the reason we should take action is most apparent.
You're right, of course. It's not discussion that's the problem. It's when people wave the bodies of dead children like flags to promote their pet ideologies.