Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

> Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom.

There are crazy people in every country on earth, many (most) of which have worse "health care" systems than the US; yet only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons.

I very much doubt it has anything to do with mental health (nowhere else in the world are young children medicated for being kids to such an extent as in the US, BTW).

I think there are two main reasons why there are so many shootings in the US 1/ it's a behavior that has ceased to be "unthinkable" (and every reporting of every new incident adds to the problem) 2/ guns are everywhere

I know HN frowns upon any kind of "political" discussion, so I'll won't elaborate too much, but can someone please explain why a school teacher would have three guns in her house, one of them a Glock semi-automatic pistol??

- - -

Also, if I had had a "soccer mom" that told me I couldn't wear a this or that color of trousers when I was 13 (13!!), I would have called her names, too. I have three kids of my own. They can dress any way they please.

View on HN

> yet only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons.

I'm getting very tired of this. If you want to have an informed discussion about gun violence you need to acquire at least a modicum of information about firearms, especially but not limited to different actions, e.g., single-action, semi-automatic, and automatic.

Virginia Tech? 2 semi-automatic pistols. Sandy Hook? 1 semi-automatic rifle and 2 semi-automatic pistols. UT Austin? 1 semi-automatic shotgun, 2 bolt-action rifles, 1 pump-action rifle, 2 semi-automatic pistols, 1 revolver, 1 semi-automatic carbine Columbine? 1 pump-action shotgun, 1 break-action shotgun, 1 semi-automatic carbine, 1 semi-automatic pistol.

What do those have in common? No automatic weapons.

Almost no crimes are committed with legally owned automatic weapons. There are very few of them available and many are quite old, so those owned by non-LEAs are very expensive and largely collectors' items. And even with illegally owned automatic weapons, crimes committed with them barely even register. [1]

If you want to argue that semi-automatic weapons are "bad enough," fine. But please have some idea what you are talking about.

[1] http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Wrote this before I saw InclinedPlane's comment.

This discussion about "semi-automatic" versus "automatic" weapons actually strengthens the case FOR regulation; automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings.

How one can conclude from these facts that less regulation is better, I don't know.

All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse.

The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people.

You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon.

Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about, to then make another asinine post.

"automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings."

Could you please extrapolate how semi-automatic weapons are apparently "not regulated". This I'd really love to hear, considering how difficult it is to obtain one. I understand this does indeed differ from state to state, but to make the blanket statement, "semi-automatics are not regulated" is so unbelievably wrong, it shout outs to the reader to not reply to your post because there is a level of understanding you clearly don't have.

"All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." A statement like this could only come from someone who doesn't actually understand a damn thing about guns.

I think you have a lot of reading to do.

I think bambax's main point is summed up by - "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people."

Do you have any real points to counter that, rather than just pointing out irrelevant technicalities or calling him names? And no, it doesn't change bambax's real point at all whether its a automatic or a semi-automatic.

When a person makes a statement, "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." They've lost all credibility, and in my opinion aren't really deserving of a well thought out rebuttal due to their obvious lack of experience in this field.

Let's take this statement, "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people."

Right, guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people, hence it's a tool like any other. My guns that I have, have yet to jump themselves out of my house and shoot someone, they require an operator to use. So that statement you seem to have such a problem with, is 100% factually true, guns don't kill people by themselves, they make it easier for people to do so. I don't really see what sort of counter to that is even needed, when obviously it's the operator of the guns that are the problem, not the guns themselves.

OK. "Operator" runs amok with a nerf gun.

Slightly different outcome.

How again is the highly efficient killing tool not part of the problem?

Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and saving their lives and others with the use of a gun.

Not only incidents where they were successful in self-defence but the perception of the potential victim being armed is also highly relevant.

How much crime is deterred from happening in the first place, for example in states where its well-known that gun ownership is popular, is often difficult to track accurately. But there's a ton of statistics that show correlation in crime reduction.

Exactly. Compare gun crime in DC, which has tons of gun control, to lots of other places without gun control.

Indeed, new numbers come out all the time. This ones from 2011, from two states with some of the worst gun crime:

> Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in...

That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't a normal revolver suffice?

Furthermore, for places where the population density is high, and the number of police per square mile is reasonable, and the law and order situation is generally good (most US cities would probably fit the above?), then is there any real need for normal civilians to have easy access to guns, at least anything that can be used for mass firing?

Do you know much about guns? (not trying to be an ass, honest question). The difference between a revolver and a semi-auto is very minimal. This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver.

There is definitely a need for civilians to have guns. First off, this sounds cliche, but when you need a gun seconds count and police are minutes away. You aren't going to stop a home invasion, rape, mugging, etc with police. 0 chance. They might catch them, but they can't stop it from happening. If someone comes into my church and starts shooting people, me being there and armed can save lives. Calling 911 means you probably have at least 5-10 minutes before a response (in the case of this tragedy, I think I read it was 6 minutes before there was even a 911 call made. Wouldn't have been better if the principal or a security officer had a gun in a safe in the office?)

Finally, self defense is really only the practical day to day reason for keeping guns in the hands of civilians. Liberty and freedom are the bigger reasons. Saying it doesn't matter because the govt has bombs and jets is disingenuous. If the govt decides to drop atom bombs all over the country this discussion is irrelevant. It's much more likely a conflict would be with guns. I'll leave you with this quote from Hitler:

”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.” ~Adolph Hitler

> This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver

This is not true. The gun he used (a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle) allows for rapid fire and has magazines. The time it takes to reload a revolver would not have allowed the same number of casualties.

Every victim was hit by more than one bullet (up to eleven bullets for one of the victims). A revolver usually lets you shoot just 6 times before you need to reload.

Interesting animation http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp

You clearly have no intimate knowledge of guns and how they work, so why do you keep posting as if you do? That's a great animation, but I know how a .223 AR-15 works because I own one and have shot it many times. As it happens, I also know how a revolver works whereas you apparently haven't seen that animation.

The revolver would not have put 11 rounds in each kid, but it doesn't need to. 1-2 works just fine. The magazine for the AR-15 generally holds 10, 20, or 30 rounds and in this case it was almost certainly 30. If he did 11 per kid, lets round to 10, that's 3 kids per reload. 2 bullets is more than enough, so the 6 shot revolver can also do 3 per reload.

There is something called a speedloader for revolvers, which is just slightly slower than a magazine to reload. This guy [1] while not really going too fast, reloaded three times and shot 24 well aimed bullets in 45 seconds (starting at the 1:15 mark). I'd say that qualifies as many many round in under a minute with only a few pounds of pressure.

The second video [2], while obviously a world class shooter, shot 12 rounds, all on target, with a reload in the middle in less than 3 seconds.

This person could have very easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with the revolver. You just didn't know it until now. Unless having 10 bullets in a kid somehow makes it worse, this could have definitely happened with a revolver or 2 instead of an AR and a few semi-auto handguns.

[1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9Lahi-TqQ [2] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tFQ1H4Awg

1- While I'm certainly no expert in guns and «gun culture» (something I would take little pride in), I don't know nothing about guns. I can take apart a 1911 .45, in the dark, and put it back together (the top part with the barrel); my father in law use to own guns and took me shooting several times with his Magnum 357; my point is that I have used guns before (didn't enjoy it much though)

2- Much more importantly, the whole «expertise» debate and argument is very illegitimate. This is the same argument finance people use to claim they should not be regulated: «you don't understand! it's complicated!» It may be complicated but we're still the ones called to clean up your mess. That entitles us to have an opinion. My opinion is that guns actually kill people.

After a particularly gruesome mass shooting in the 90s, Australia passed vey tough gun control laws, with a buyback program. No further mass shooting happened since, and criminality didn't increase. Food for thought.

Let's replay this for a minute: You: get rid of automatic weapons Me: he didn't use an automatic weapon You: doesn't matter get rid of semi-automatic weapons then Me: He could do it with a revolver or bolt action gun just as easily You: No he couldn't Me: Yes he could, with proof You: Something about experts, it's complicated, let's get rid of all guns...

>It may be complicated but we're still the ones called to clean up your mess. That entitles us to have an opinion. My opinion is that guns actually kill people.

Sure, guns kill people. So do knives, and bombs, and trucks, and and and and... These things also have lots of legitimate uses.

top 10 school killings before last week - http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacre...

Note that only 3 of these were in the US.

We have, a flamethrower, a lance, a mace, bolt action rifle, revolvers, knives, machettes, bombs, and cars in addition to the semi-auto guns that you think we should get rid of. This is a problem has been around for a long time, and it is something that has been done with lots and lots of different things. People kill people. This has been true since the beginning of time. If you actually have a solution to this problem let me know. Saying we should take away the guns and everyone will be fine is absurd.

Getting rid of the guns might make you feel better, but it doesn't solve anything. It does however take away my liberty, my freedom, and my rights.

> Let's replay this for a minute

I'm sorry but this replay is incorrect. I said from the start "all guns are bad". I don't think you should get rid of only "automatic" or only "semi-automatic" or only "rifles" or what have you. I think you (you being the US) should ban every single gun, no matter its mode of operation, where it's made, etc. Ban, buy-back, destroy.

I used "automatic" for emphasis in my first comment (a bad idea, I see this now ;-) and the pro-gun cohort jumped on this word to try to disqualify me and any further comment I could make: "he couldn't shoot himself out of a paper bag, don't listen to this guy".

If this is what you truly think, fine, but don't make me say I advocate (or advocated at any point in this discussion) the ban of specific guns. I advocate the ban of ALL guns, and even more importantly, I think you will not see the end of this until you change, or more to the point eradicate the whole "gun culture" and "shooting is fun" and "guns are cool" memes.

The only purpose of guns is to kill people (not "shoot pumpkins" -- but thanks for the invite). They are useful to people whose job it is to kill people (namely, the army; the police, I'm not so sure). Every other citizen should not have guns (ANY gun).

This is the policy implemented successfully in the UK and Australia, two English-speaking countries and the closest allies of the US (surely you can relate to the country of Churchill?)

See

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_afte...

and

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control

But unfortunately I also think this sane policy will not happen, as does The Economist.

That's a shame but in the end it's your problem, not mine. Just make sure your gun cabinet is locked, and that one of your distant nephews who's been on Prozac for years without you noticing, doesn't get hold of the key.

2 things.

1. Australia isn't a reasonable comparison.

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia."

600k was 20% of all of their guns. 600k would be .2% of the legally owned guns in America.

2. England has a violent crime rate that is over 4 times higher than the US. Just because shootings drops, doesn't mean crime or murder drops. That has been my major point throughout all of this. Yes, banning guns lowers gun crime. No kidding. It doesn't however make you safer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-...

Also, regarding the «expertise» comment. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, I'm just suggesting you can't fix the problem without more knowledge about the subject matter. You can say you want Wall Street regulated, but unless you have a huge amount of knowledge about the industry you have no idea what that entails or how to even go about it. Tell me, where would start and how exactly would that fix the problem?

It's the same with guns. You can say in few enough characters to fit in a tweet "get rid of automatic and semi-automatic guns", but it takes a deeper knowledge of the subject matter to know that that doesn't actually fix anything.

There are a lot more moving parts here. Just a few:

1.The WORST school massacre in US history did not use a gun. He used 3 bombs.

2. Mental health and it's treatments in the US. Many of the recent school shootings have been by people who were being medicated for mental health issues. Are these treatments helping? Are they actually hurting? Should we be doing more? Should some of them have been locked up?

3. School security. At this point, schools are target simply because of the other shootings. Different schools have different levels of security ranging from 0 to huge amounts. A few armed security officials sprinkled throughout schools could probably limit the damage somebody could do better than getting rid of semi-auto rifles.

There's no real difference between automatic and semi-auto in terms of how dangerous they are. An experience marksman will use both the same way (as spraying full auto greatly reduces accuracy). An inexperienced marksman with a fully automatic weapon will empty their magazine into the ceiling. Burst fire might be a bit better (it's what the US Army uses), but semi-auto is more lethal than fully auto in the hands of most people.

Overall, murder rates won't change a lot. Husbands and wives will still be able to murder each other. Gangsters will fight with knives, or illegal guns. But mass murders will be harder to pull off. It might also make the police more effective, as they will rarely be outgunned.

Except that police have been outgunned many many times in history, generally by guns that were/are illegal or nearly impossible to get. Tommy gun vs revolver ring a bell?

I do agree that full auto wouldn't help an inexperienced marksman, he'd likely just waste more ammo. However, an experienced marksman could also easily do just as much damage with a bolt action gun. The key is that it's really easy to kill people with guns if the other people don't have guns. If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them.

Fwiw, the military uses select fire guns, i.e. guns that can be both semi auto or full auto. Generally aimed semi is more effective as you waste less (running out of ammo is really really bad) but there are times when full out is good for things like providing cover.

What weapons do you think people will use once all of the guns are gone? Maybe something less deadly, maybe something far far more deadly.

The mass-killers are the issue, not the tools that they use. Effective mental health treatment is a necessary step in reducing the pool of potential mass-killers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Oklahoma_City_b...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well. If you completely got rid of semi-auto guns, people would use bolt action guns. If you get rid of those, people will use knives. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time.

You clearly have no knowledge of guns, how they work, how they are currently regulated. The reason automatic weapons aren't used in shootings, is that they cost > 10k.

Yes, it is easy to kill a lot of people with a semi auto handgun. It would also be really easy to kill a lot of people with a bolt action gun. Or a pump action shotgun, and yet no one talks about banning those. For some reason we've become fascinated with "scary assault rifles". You should come out to my farm and shoot a few watermelons and you'll see that it's a lot of fun.

The guns aren't the problem. The crazy guy shooting people is the problem. If the principal and the teachers that are sane had guns with them, or there were some security officers or police with guns, this wouldn't have happened. Would you like to take the guns away from the police too?

If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option.

Sorry for the rant, I just get really frustrated when people who haven't done any research into the subject make assertions that are simply not accurate.

If we could go back in time 400 years and ban all guns that might be a good idea, at this point the cat is out of the bag though. Please don't take my guns, I'd like to be able to defend myself against the crazy people that already have them.

There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well

I don't want to be the "citation needed" guy, but this is an outrageous claim.

read your sibling comment, but here are a few to get you started: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E...

from [1] - Related or similar events

Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who visited the site a week after the massacre to offer prayer to the victims,[70] said that he "is worried that similar cases occur about 10 times a year in Japan."[32][71] According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar random attacks have taken place between 1998 and 2007.

People will undoubtably say that, well, this time 26 people died, but in this examples only 8 died. To that I'd say a few things:

1. Is that somehow acceptable? Most of our school shootings have had far less people die than the 26, closer to the 8 of these stabbings. It's still an outrage and a horrible tragedy, and I'd like to try to find a solution to the problem (though I suspect it's nearly impossible to prevent entirely).

2. Killing 26 5 year olds with a knife would not be that hard. It's likely that most of these others have been overpowered sooner by more able opponents, though I'll concede it's easier to overpower someone with a knife than a gun. On the other hand, it's also easier to overpower someone with a gun, if you have one as well...

Thanks for the reasonable response. I took exception to the word "plenty" for knife massacres, as they are exceedingly rare. The truth is, gun massacres are also exceedingly rare, so I guess there's nothing wrong with that parallel, other than the obvious:

1. It's logistically easier to kill more people with a tool that's better at killing a lot of people.

and the less obvious:

2. It may be psychologically easier to commit mass murder with a somewhat detached and abstracted weapon like a gun than something more primal and physical. The same way that many people would become vegetarians if they had to slaughter their own meat.

Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.

Thanks, I try to be as reasonable as possible, though I have to admit when I came across this thread I had an "Oh noes, somebody is wrong on the internet I can't go to bed" moment.

Back on topic. I'll give you both points, but I'm not sure how they relate to my comment or the parent. I don't believe guns are inherently evil. The are just things. Clearly my parent believes that they are evil and nothing I say will change his mind but that's neither here nor there.

>Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.

I don't think it is. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the cat is out of the bag. There are far too many readily available firearms for there to be any meaningful gun control in this country short of completely outlawing them AND confiscating them with a search.

There are already lots of firearms safeguards, including background checks, waiting periods, etc. Most people who post on boards like these and say we should have tighter gun control have no idea what that means, or what kind of gun control we in place now. Most of it is fine (in places like TN where I live) some of it is absurd and IMO unconstitutional (in places like DC and NYC). DC has some of the toughest gun control in the country and yet also has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Taking guns away from lawful citizens just means the criminals don't have anything to be afraid of.

To get my handgun carry permit I had to go to a class, pass a written test, pass a shooting test, pass a background check, get approval from my local sheriff, and all of this came with a waiting period. (Now, simply buying a gun is easier, but it still requires a background check unless you are purchasing from a private individual). What is it that you (or anyone else) would propose we add to this? You already can't legally buy or own a gun if you are a felon or have any history of mental illness. There are however plenty of guns available for them to buy from private individuals who don't know you are a felon, or alternately they could just steal them.

What I would add. Not perfect, but not terrible either.

Require education/tests/checks/mental health screens for all purchases, not just concealed carry.

Close gun show loophole. Regulate private sales. Hold private sellers responsible if they sell to felons.

As I said there are background checks and if you have any history of mental health issues you can't get one. I'm not sure what "test" we could or should give for buying them. Accuracy and knowledge of the law doesn't really come into play in this scenario. We'd prefer mass killers to be less accurate, and I suspect they already know it's against the law to kill 26 people.

>Close gun show loophole. There is no gun show loophole. It is just a private sale. but see below..

>Regulate private sales. This I might be ok with, but... how would you suggest we regulate private sales?

This doesn't sound like a very easy problem to solve. I'm certainly not ok with you saying I can't sell my personal property, but if you come up with a really good way of doing this I'd probably be ok with it. I'd love for the government to give us access to their background check information, but we've tried that and they haven't been willing thus far. Many people that I know who do sell their own guns from time to time require that the buyer have a HCP. If they know they have a handgun carry permit, they know they have passed a background check. However, since only a tiny percentage of people have this, I don't think it's a reasonable requirement.

>Hold private sellers responsible if they sell to felons. How could you possibly know this? If we somehow find a way to regulate it, then it wouldn't be possible legally. If we don't, or if they do it illegally once a system is place, there is simply no way of knowing it happened. There is also the problem of every felon having a first time. You could sell it to someone who never committed a crime and then they can use it to commit their first crime. Let's stop trying to find someone new to blame for everything. The guy who shot the person is the one to blame. Isn't that enough?

The easiest way to regulate private sales would require all sales from private parties to go to a licensed dealer or through a licensed intermediary. Either the dealer or the intermediary would be responsible for handling background checks and waiting periods. I can see local law enforcement being willing to act as intermediaries for private-to-private sales.

There are reasonable adjustments we can make that can absolutely have an impact. Reasonable people (of which you appear to be one) should work toward reasonable adjustments instead of spreading fear about the government taking away the property you already have.

I could be ok with this, but there is a significant cost associated with it. You can already do this through an FFL, but it generally ends up costing $25-$35 and most people don't want to do that.

If you offer this as a service by the police, then it cost all taxpayers. I'd personally be ok with it, but I suspect that many people will balk at it. They'd be happy to pay for the "gun control" that consists of not allowing guns to be sold or simply taken away from people, but not as excited about paying to allow us to sell our guns to other people more safely.

Maybe this is something that could be solved by private industry, but someone would have to find a way to charge less to do it. FWIW, this intermediary service could be useful for more than just guns. People get robbed buying things like laptops on Craigslist all the time. Maybe you can help (i wanted to say solve, but i'll be realistic and say improve) 2 different areas at once.

> There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well. If you completely got rid of semi-auto guns, people would use bolt action guns. If you get rid of those, people will use knives. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time.

Mass killings (and attempts) with knives happen. China School attacks 21 deaths in about 8 attacks (upto 8 deaths in a single attack), Alaska 2008 killed 4, Korea 2008 (5 dead from stabbing), Akiharbara 2008 killed 4. Osaka 2001 killed 8. Wolverhampton, UK 1996 - injuries but no deaths. The death toll will be far lower in most cases than a similar event with guns. You don't see 26 dead in a single knife attack.

> The guns aren't the problem. The crazy guy shooting people is the problem.

"Crazy people" is a nebulous concept which while sometimes perfectly normal at other times people switch between sane and crazy depending on body chemistry, legal medication, infection, illegal drugs, life events and sometimes we just don't know. Is it conceivable that lower availability of guns immediately available whether directly to the person concerned or in their home or workplace the less likely large numbers of people are to get hurt (including the person themselves)?

> Yes, it is easy to kill a lot of people with a semi auto handgun. It would also be really easy to kill a lot of people with a bolt action gun. Or a pump action shotgun, and yet no one talks about banning those. For some reason we've become fascinated with "scary assault rifles". You should come out to my farm and shoot a few watermelons and you'll see that it's a lot of fun.

Banned in the UK (if the shotgun holds more than 4 shells I think) so it is talked about in some places. I'm sure it is fun shooting the guns at targets, its also fun driving through the town centre at 70mph. Done properly in the right place by the right people it is also potentially safe but overall the risk is too high.

Note that in my view the UK law is probably too strict and I would be in favour of allowing more weapons securely stored at shooting ranges with security requirements based on the weapons kept there.

>You don't see 26 dead in a single knife attack.

I suspect you could if they attacked 5 year olds in a kindergarten class room.

>"Crazy people" is a nebulous concept which while sometimes perfectly normal at other times people switch between sane and crazy depending on body chemistry, legal medication, infection, illegal drugs, life events and sometimes we just don't know. Is it conceivable that lower availability of guns immediately available whether directly to the person concerned or in their home or workplace the less likely large numbers of people are to get hurt (including the person themselves)?

I'm not referring to this person as crazy beforehand, or as something we could have somehow prevented. I'm suggesting that the behavior of killing 26 5 year olds is indeed crazy, and there is little we could do to stop this from happening. I'd start though, with armed security / principals etc in the schools (i know of schools in my area (rich white suburbs) that have guns in the schools and I think it's a great idea.

That being said, I think this person's access to guns should have been limited, by his mother. She knew he had a problem, she should have at the very least had them in a safe that he didn't have the combination to. I have no idea why people think they should restrict my access to guns because of this incident. This is a personal responsibility problem. There simply no way we (we as in America) could keep him from having a gun without restricting my freedom and liberty. On the other hand, his mom easily could have, and that wouldn't have effected me at all.

>Banned in the UK (if the shotgun holds more than 4 shells I think) so it is talked about in some places. I'm sure it is fun shooting the guns at targets, its also fun driving through the town centre at 70mph. Done properly in the right place by the right people it is also potentially safe but overall the risk is too high.

4 shotgun shells in a crowded area is going to do huge amounts of damage, so I think that's a bit silly. They also aren't terribly difficult to reload. I don't think the town center comparison holds though. Driving 70 through the middle of town very clearly endangers other people, whereas my owning guns does not make you less safe, and very arguably makes you more safe if you happen to be near me while someone tries to harm you. This person having a gun made these people less safe obviously, but he didn't own a gun. He stole them from his mother. He could have also stolen them from someone else, though maybe that's at least a bit less likely. I assume if he's willing to kill 26 people though, he's also willing to break into his neighbors house or the local gun shop.

His mother should have tried harder to prevent him from having access, but there is virtually no law that could have fixed this.

Several of the cases I mentioned are exactly attacks of 5 or 6 year old school children. They resulted in between zero (Wolverhampton, UK) and 8 deaths (one of the Chinese attacks) it seems (with a greater number of injuries but still typically much less than 26).

Yes, YOU are perfectly safe with guns at the moment. But what if you are taking anti-malarial medicine or something else that throws you off balance? Having a gun might make the difference between you shootings somebody (possibly yourself) and breaking your legs jumping of the roof or wounding someone with a knife. And then we get onto the aggregate impact of those initially less stable than yourself.

4 shotgun shells might do a huge amount of damage in crowded area but in a crowded area someone can jump on you while you stop to reload. In a sparsely populated area with a car to keep mobile in you can still do a lot of damage (Cumbria, UK 2010) but I suspect less than with more capable weapons.

In the UK there isn't anywhere to steal such weapons from apart from the police, army and criminals (but even criminals very rarely use or carry guns because the punishments for getting caught with them are high). Also such theft would need planning and time in which he may have been caught or his state of mind may have changed.

There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK with our laws the death toll in an attack similar to the one last week in the US would have been lower due to the lack of availability of guns. Children and carers/teachers may still have died but not in such numbers. It is more arguable that there imposition of restrictions is too much of a burden on freedom for the benefit but saying there is no benefit is pure denial.

I find the self defence arguments unconvincing in general although it is hard to prove. Transitioning from the US situation to the UK one especially given the geography of the US would be challenging and complicated

Genuine questions

1) In the US is his mother criminally or civilly liable for not preventing his access to the weapons?

2) Do you think that she should be?

>It is more arguable that there imposition of restrictions is too much of a burden on freedom for the benefit but saying there is no benefit is pure denial.

I'm not saying it isn't possible that there is some benefit, I am saying that any benefit would be pretty small, and that the cons easily outweigh the pros in my opinion. Self-defense is an argument that is more easily understood so I tend towards that, but to me it's secondary to the freedom and liberty you mention.

Is it really that much of a benefit to "only" have 8 kids die in a classroom? I guess if you happen to be one of the 18 it is, but these are both really really awful occurrences and getting rid of guns only maybe makes it a bit harder with other cons we've already mentioned.

I'd like to point out, that this is an anomaly of anomalies. Columbine was the most famous of these school shootings, and "only" 13 died there. Most of the time these crazy people end up killing themselves sooner. I suspect this guy was just a bit more off his rocker, and if all he had was a knife he would have still killed more than 8.

to your questions: > 1) In the US is his mother criminally or civilly liable for not preventing his access to the weapons?

He killed her before this started, so no.

> 2) Do you think that she should be?

Much harder question. I think there is probably a case to be made civilly, but probably not criminally. I do think that she shoulders a lot of the blame as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4930678 - and in your parent I said:

"That being said, I think this person's access to guns should have been limited, by his mother. She knew he had a problem, she should have at the very least had them in a safe that he didn't have the combination to."

I don't it would be too hard to prosecute a civil case against her given his prior behavior.

I don't think taking guns away from everyone makes the country a better place though. I'd prefer more people to be armed than less, but that's just my opinion.

I think 8 deaths in a knife attack is an outlier as 26 in a gun attack may be. I'm sceptical of the claim that last week's assailant would have killed more than 8 with a knife without somebody stopping him or the vast majority of the children being evacuated. Running away just works better against a knife unless completely cornered and even then some of a cornered group may escape. Evidence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/30883.stm) is that people will put themselves in the way to protect children in their care and with even a child's chair may be able to delay the attack for vital seconds. Against a gun even such a selfless act is unlikely to cause much delay.

Yes halving the number of deaths in each attack is a benefit but not one that necessarily overrides all other factors.

That's all reasonable. I think you have to consider that many of these knife attacks have wounded far more than 8, >20 just last week. If the person doing the wounding were using a knife more suited to the task, and was more competent at using it there could easily be a much higher death to wounded ratio. Now obviously this plays into the fact that a gun is easier to use, but it doesn't mean that it can't be done. If you can wound 20 with a knife, you can kill 20 with a knife. I suspect if they all ran when he came in to the room a few more would have been saved, shooting 20 running targets is non-trivial. The problem is they were probably all paralyzed with fear. I suspect hiding under a desk would be a more likely reaction, one that doesn't help at all.

>Against a gun even such a selfless act is unlikely to cause much delay.

Look at the attack on Rep. Giffords [1] "Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury. The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger, who himself had been shot, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten the gunman."

Gunmen get subdued all the time, but when it's a classroom of 5 year olds and you presumably start with the 1 adult teacher it becomes a lot harder.

>Yes halving the number of deaths in each attack is a benefit but not one that necessarily overrides all other factors.

I think this is key. I wouldn't consider it nearly enough of a benefit to outweigh the pros of gun ownership such as self defense, freedom, and liberty.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

> If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option.

This is the option where I live (France). It's not perfect here (very far from it), but I think we have a lot less violence, a lot less people in jail, etc. "Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school.

> If the principal and the teachers that are sane had guns with them, or there were some security officers or police with guns, this wouldn't have happened.

How do you identify "teachers that are sane"? (I would say, teachers that are sane are those that refuse to carry guns.)

And what happens when there are no adults around? Should 6-year-olds be required to carry guns?

This kind of comment makes me happy I don't live in the US. I have three kids (3-4-7); there is no "security officer" at their school, you can come in and out pretty much as you like. The school is small enough that the principal knows every student by name and every parent by sight.

Now, before someone says that I'm stupid because I just generalize from a single data point, and that I probably live in a privileged neighborhood... On weekends my kids go to an American School (so that they can learn some English).

The neighborhood is the same, but in the American school they have "security" officers, big doors, big talkies, and you have to wear a badge at all times.

The "threat" (or lack thereof) is the same, but the perceived threat, and the culture, is very very different.

> Please don't take my guns

It's just that I still can't see how guns aren't related to mass shootings.

But I'm not a US citizen, I don't visit the US often, I'm really not in a position to take anything from you. Do what you think is best.

This is a big cultural divide. It's a big divide within the U.S.; it's even bigger with people outside the U.S. who haven't experienced the gun culture first hand, much less grown up with it.

Just a factual side-note:

"Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school.

_cough_

Just this past spring: A gunman has shot dead a teacher and three children at a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17426313

He was neither an outlaw nor, stricly speaking «crazy». He was an ideologue, a fanatic and a terrorist. While it's good that there aren't too many guns around, the lack of weapons is not enough to deter terrorists. The only thing that works against terrorism is intelligence. This particular story was a big failure in this regard.

Ha! Guns are the problem for crazy people in the US, but in places without guns and lots of gun control, it's then a "terrorist" that finds a gun and kills people.

>This is the option where I live (France). Well if it wasn't for the Americans and our guns you would be ruled by Nazi Germany. It might be a long time ago and off topic, but it really wasn't that long ago and it's not that far off topic.

>It's just that I still can't see how guns aren't related to mass shootings.

That's obvious, they just aren't related to mass killings. This technology has been around for > 100 years. Look up the 1911, still one of the most popular semi-auto handguns on the market. These killings have only happened recently. That tells me something else is going on, it's not just that we have guns.

We've also had the mass knife rampages mentioned, as well as suicide bombers, etc. Almost all of these people end up killing themselves as well. Nothing is going to stop them from strapping a bomb to their chest and killing an entire classroom or gym full of people.

Even if it were true that France would be ruled by Nazi Germany were it not for «american guns» (more likely, soviet Russia), what does this have to do with mass shootings in contemporary US? (And how are your other wars going, BTW? Any General left still wearing his pants?)

Should we go down this road, I could say that I don't care if you guys shoot at each other until there is no one left standing; the incident involving Vice-president Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face was entertaining indeed. But today it's more difficult to be indifferent to the massacre of children.

If it's so easy to perpetuate mass killings with any weapon, why are (semi!) automatic rifles still the weapon of choice amongst perpetrators?

See my other comment regarding weapon choice - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4934021

http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacre...

fwiw - semi-auto rifles are actually only used in 3% of shootings. but lets not let facts get in the way of anything.

She liked to go shooting? It's a lot of fun to do.

I cannot understand for the life of me why the focus here is on guns. Americans have had ready access to guns throughout America's history, but mass shootings are a comparatively new phenomena that are sadly becoming increasingly frequent, so 'ready access to guns' doesn't seem like a particularly compelling explanation. Neither does the influence of media reporting, since this reporting is worldwide but the mass shootings remain predominantly American.

As an immigrant to America, I wonder if the emphasis on individualism and dynamism that makes America so appealing also comes with costs. People here may be more likely to take bold action to solve their problems (or perceived problems), and this includes the segment of the population that's criminal, evil, or mentally ill.

Now if so, this is nothing new - America's been a dynamic culture of entrepreneurs and dreamers long before this outbreak of mass violence. However, America previously combined this dynamism with stronger forms of moral education and social control - primarily religious ones, but also bonds to local communities and extended families. The gradual weakening of these bonds has coincided with the rise of mass shootings.

To sum up, America's individualistic, energetic culture minus a strong moral foundation and community ties = very bad news.

Of course, this is just my own theory, and it's probably wrong. Societies are complicated things. But I do wish people would dig about a bit more under the cultural hood before reflexively pinning the blame on firearms.

> She liked to go shooting? It's a lot of fun to do.

She liked to go shooting with a Glock?? And she needed to keep the gun (and ammunition) in her home?

It isn't true that "Americans have had ready access to guns throughout America's history"; talking about the "Second Amendment" makes it seem that nothing has changed since the 18th century, but the truth is the current situation started no earlier than the 1960s.

And about media reporting:

1/ Media reporting abroad is nothing compared to the US -- as with most news, big events are talked about a lot in the country of origin, and are just a topic among others in all other nations; right now the five first articles on the front page of Slate is about this, for example, whereas here in France, it's hardly a topic of conversation (it did make the front page of Le Monde on paper, but not on the web where all news are in a section called "Americas")

2/ Where things happen matter a lot. If it happens in a distant country it will not influence you the same way as if it happens in your own neighborhood (or somewhere perceived as such).

> She liked to go shooting with a Glock??

Yes??? What do you think a glock is, just out of curiosity? It's a completely boring handgun.

Semi-automatic doesn't mean what you think it does. Basically all modern guns are semi-automatic. It's a broad classification.

It's a completely boring handgun

This illustrates an interesting cultural divide. Many people don't have any real experience or understanding of guns, and let half-truths from pop-culture drive their emotional response.

> It's a completely boring handgun

That's the point. "Boring" means failsafe: good for the shooter, not so good for the victims.

A gun that would threaten to explode in the face of the shooter every other round, or that would make it almost impossible to hit the target, would be completely non-boring. It would also make it a poor choice to carry on a mass-shooting.

The Glock is the Mercedes of guns.

Hm, I'm afraid I don't totally understand your point. Why shouldn't a recreational shooter want reliability?

I think it's quite simple: a bullet to the vital organs was just as deadly 200 years ago as it is today, but you could only shoot one at a time (for some non-negligible value of "a time"). Now, handguns and rifles with high rate of fire and replaceable magazines are plentiful and easy to get ahold of, and they just have a much higher potential for death on a large cape.

To be fair, bullets are much much better now and it's much easier to have accurate and much faster traveling bullets. That neither here nor there though.

We also had all this technology for the last hundred years and yet didn't have this problem for the most part until the last 10-20 years. (the 1911 semi auto handgun is still one of the best and most popular in the world, and it is over 100 years old). That tells me that the gun isn't the problem.

"(nowhere else in the world are young children medicated for being kids to such an extent as in the US, BTW)."

Virtually every single school shooter has been on SSRIs, and many people think these drugs have been the cause of the shootings. Already WaPo has reported that the CT shooter was on psychiatric medication, so we'll know for sure in a couple weeks when we get the tox screen back.

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

It's perhaps also worth noting that these sorts of mass school shootings were non-existent until after 1988, the year that Prozac came out.

Gun laws are getting more strict in the US; violent assault in general (and gun violence in particular) are at their lowest levels in about 40 years or so. Yet mass shootings are on the rise, and on average getting more deadly.

This article has a graph of mass shootings, offenders and victims from 1980 to 2010.

http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/n...

> Based on data extracted from official police reports to the FBI, the figure below shows annual incident, offender and victim tallies for gun homicides in which at least four people were murdered. Over the thirty-year time frame, an average of about 20 mass murders have occurred annually in the United States with an average death toll of about 100 per year.

As you can see in the graph and statistics, there has not been a rise in the number of shootings, perpetrators or victims.

Here is an article from yesterday also noting this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/mass-shootings-not-...

"Mass Shootings Not On The Rise, But Their Impact Is Huge"

Interesting, this page from the Washington Post says that of the worst 11 shootings, 5 of them happened since 2007, and that doesn't even include Sandy Hook. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/n...

11 is a fairly odd point to pick a cut off. That article's referenced source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/deadlies...) also has errors. It purports to list all 10 and above gun involved murder sprees, including cases back as far as 1949 (ignoring bombings, but whatever).

It doesn't list Starkweather and Fugate's 10 person killing spree in 1957, or James Edward Pough's 1990 rampage in Jacksonville that killed 11 and injured 6, or Mark Barton's 1999 rampage that killed 12 and injured 13, or Leung Ying's 1928 California spree that killed 11 injured 4, or Nidal Hassan's 2009 Fort Hood spree killing 13, injuring 30, or Patrick Sherill's 1986 Oklahoma spree killing 14 injuring 6, or Ronald Simmons 1987 Arkansas rampage killing 16 injuring 4, or George Banks 1982 Pennsylvania killing of 13 injuring 1.

Since the article leaves out so many well known cases it can not be considered reliable regarding its comprehensiveness. The other article which actually did complete counts of all known cases should be considered far more authoritative.

When you comment on something as serious as this you should have your facts straight. Automatic weapons are highly regulated in the US, and no automatic weapon has ever been used in a school shooting to my knowledge.

You're right: automatic weapons are regulated in the US (but I did not claim otherwise) and they have indeed never been used in a school shooting (I misspoke; I meant semi-automatic weapons, not machine-guns).

But my point is that if you make weapons difficult to buy and difficult to own, then they are less likely to be used by crazy people to do harm. The situation about machine-guns verifies this.

What's more

- school shootings, including this last one, most often use "semi-automatic" weapons (because that's the most efficient weapon that's easily available)

- the number of fatalities is a direct consequence of the efficiency of the weapons used

See this Slate article "The faster the weapon, the higher the body count." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature...

There is a real reason that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution. You can't handwave away the reason it was included in the constitution and then say "See, it's that simple."

There is real disagreement over the reason the right to bear arms was enshrined in the constitution. You can't handwave away that detail. :)

Some think it recognizes a pre-existing human right and cannot be taken away. Some think it's there to deter/overcome tyrannical government. Some think it's a right of self-defense. Still others think it's there to accommodate the forming of militias, which arguably with the National Guard and a standing army has become an obsolete reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASjfzG4mpyU

If you watch that video, you will understand how scary the situation is. If someone could easily get hold of such things, I'm not sure how they react on a moment of anger...

Mass murder is pretty cheap it seems.

I understand what you're saying but I think you're being a little too pedantic. Automatic, semi-automatic, whatever. Within a minute, one can fire many, many rounds with only a few pounds of pressure.

That is also true of a revolver, or a bolt, lever, or pump action gun. The point is that the above poster has no idea what he is talking about, and as such his opinion on the matter isn't as relevant as it would be if he actually educated himself on the subject.

No, it is not true of a revolver or a bolt, lever, or pump action rifle. I don't want to be mean about it but do you not know what you're talking about? You take a revolver and a box of ammo and I'll take an AR-15 and let's see who can fire more rounds. That's completely ridiculous.

Did you read the parent? >Within a minute, one can fire many, many rounds with only a few pounds of pressure.

I didn't say it was faster than an AR. I know exactly what I'm talking about. A revolver could have accomplished the same thing at that school. Yes, this idiot shot some of these kids 11+ times and the revolver wouldn't have done that, but guess what, you don't need to shoot someone 11 times. 1-2 is generally plenty.

The second video [2], while obviously a world class shooter, shot 12 rounds, all on target, with a reload in the middle in less than 3 seconds.

Now, are you going to claim that this somehow doesn't qualify as firing many rounds in under a minute? The parent was comparing automatic and semi automatic saying that don't matter. well, i'd agree and extend it to the guns i said, but if we want to go with your quote: >You take a revolver and a box of ammo and I'll take an AR-15 and let's see who can fire more rounds. That's completely ridiculous.

I'll take a fully auto AR and some ammo, you take a semi auto AR-15 and let's see who can fire more rounds. That's completely ridiculous.

[1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9Lahi-TqQ [2] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tFQ1H4Awg

Crazy people targeting kids are not, in general, «world class shooters», they are not world class anything except losers. That's the point. Those weapons help shooters that aren't good, shoot fast. We're not talking about SWAT teams here.

Besides, gun control would include all guns, revolvers, sigle-action, you name it.

The first video is decidedly not world class. also, no gun control in the US has talked about revolvers, bolt action, or lever action guns. Also, your comments around this whole thread have talked about how the semi-auto assault rifle was the problem and this couldn't be done with a revolver, but now that I point out it isn't in fact you say you want to get rid of revolvers too. Very handy.

> Also, your comments around this whole thread have talked about how the semi-auto assault rifle was the problem

No. I said "all guns are bad" (and you replied to that comment). I advocate banning all guns...

No, your orignal comment - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4928127 said that "only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons" and "but can someone please explain why a school teacher would have three guns in her house, one of them a Glock semi-automatic pistol??"

Nothing about that said all guns are bad, part of it was completely false referring to the automatic. There is absolutely nothing exciting about a ... gasp ... "GLOCK" semi-automatic pistol. Glock is just the name of a brand. You could also have a Ruger, or Smith and Wesson, or Kimber, or any number of other brands that make pretty much identical guns.

Yes, that was my first comment. My second comment was this one:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4928822

"Also, if I had had a "soccer mom" that told me I couldn't wear a this or that color of trousers when I was 13 (13!!), I would have called her names, too."

Just an fyi, many countries have different levels of school uniforms. When I studied in England, I was wearing a full school uniform - button shirt, tie, trouses, sweater, etc. This from the first day of school, basically.

Here in Israel, some schools have a "school shirt" policy, some don't have anything.

Adding to this. Many secondary (high) schools in England have a strict uniform policy. Dark blue trousers when black is the rule would get you sent home.

I went to a boarding school in Ireland for a year, and they had a uniform -- but it was a uniform, not a "policy". There was one pair of trousers, one shirt and one pullover allowed, and they were provided by the school.

This was fine with me; it was a very clear rule with only one interpretation possible, and it was completely external to my relation with my parents or in fact authority in general. You had to wear a uniform, you wore a uniform. I was quite rebellious but I never had a problem with that.

My guess is the OP's kid resents arbitrary rules and the way they are enforced. At what point does "dark blue" cease to be dark? And why does this woman feel the need to enforce the school's rules? Why doesn't she let him see for himself what happens when you go to that school with a red pair of pants? Does she fear it will reflect poorly on her?

I feel everything is about her, not him, and that's why he's so upset.

> I feel everything is about her, not him, and that's why he's so upset.

Indeed. It seems that the son has an exemption from the uniform policy ("They told me I could wear these" he insisted), the mother has this desire to make the child conform, and is insufficiently introspective to examine her own motivations ("my 13-year old son ... missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants"). Hey, he missed the bus because you made him wear your favorite set of trousers.

You think the kid who thought threatening his mom with a knife was acceptable wouldn't tell a petty lie?

It's possible. But look at this: "Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program"

Something changed with the new school, something that set her son off with regularity. The answer is the district's most restrictive behavioral program. The child may be an asshole and a violent psychopath, but the mother doesn't ask if there's perhaps anything wrong at the new school. There may well be, and the fact that she does not mention that possibility raises a red flag for me.

What is not clear about "black or khaki pants only"?

I'm quite surprised that you've chosen to identify with the petulant, knife-wielding child in this article.

Sure feels like you're bringing some personal baggage to the equation... this article is too short on details to draw the conclusions that you have.

I for one always identify myself with a sad kid. Why should not I? I was a kid and I was sad too and I could become mad if told what pants to wear.

This is not just a sad kid and this is not just about pants. Did you ever grab a knife and threaten to kill your mom in front of your 7 and 9 year old siblings?

You're avoiding discussing action by discussing reaction.

Of course grabbing a knife is not good, but that if all his bizzare reactions are due to kinds of nonsense?

This woman is insane and belongs in a mental institution, not her kids. This article articulates exactly what I think

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/12/17/i_am_adam_la...

> yet only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons.

I guess you don't count child soldiers in Africa.

I hope you're not trying to argue in favor of the US with something like this. It's not a very favorable comparison!

" there are two main reasons why there are so many shootings in the US 1/ ... 2/ guns are everywhere"

Quite the contrary, there aren't enough guns. If the teachers were carrying, if the school had armed security guards, if the principal had a handgun, etc. then this "crazy" person would likely not have acted out. As Quannel X says, a person may be "crazy" but that doesn't mean they're crazy. That is, most persons who are classified as mentally ill don't act out in a situation where they will likely lose.

"...please explain why a school teacher would have three guns in her house, one of them a Glock semi-automatic pistol?"

Perhaps because it is allowed, because she enjoys target shooting, because she hunts and the .223 semi-auto AR-15 is one of the most popular hunting rifles in existence in the USA. Because the Glock is an OK and very popular handgun.

The question for the mother is not why she owned firearms but why she allowed her son unsupervised access to her firearms. She made a mistake and paid the price. Darwin rulez once again.

"Quite the contrary, there aren't enough guns"

I struggle to find an example of a country with more guns and lower murder rate. Care to help?

I hear that a lot, that most countries in the world have worse health care than the US. This is a highly contentious claim, and I think you might need to justify that, with reference to mental health in particular.

In a comment above, where I discuss the policy of the states in Australia, I suggested googling 'bendigo mental health'. If you do that you will see a degree of specialisation that far exceeds your presumptive normalcy.

Events such as these do appear to occur in clusters, and this leads to complicated questions. And of course it has to do with mental health, unless you honestly believe that such acts can be carried out by well balanced, psychologically stable individuals.

Inurement by familiarity I would agree is a factor, but it cuts both ways. There was a mass killing in Australia which followed only one month after a mass killing event in the UK, where I live. Isolated individuals also require social connections, and the strange self esteem accessible through active association with like minded others, even if unknown personally to them, seems to play a part. It's never a wise move to allow mentally damaged people to join a nervous uprising against the incumbent ideology, that often is seen as part of the reason for their repressed state. Though it might seem tortured logic on these actors parts, I think one of the reasons these shooting incidents are somewhat peculiar to the United States is because these actors see it as a right to bear arms against their oppressors.

On the other hand, the response of the rest of society is critical to developing ways to resolving ways to avoid these events. Either you exert enough pressure to put the uprisings back in their box, to be modified by planned action in due course, or you eek them out into a system of redress that has the capacity to control.

Either way it is indeed a mental health issue from a public health perspective. And their right to bear arms is guaranteed in defence of their freedom, through logic that is strange and barely comprehensible to most of us.

Actually I never understood what is the true problem kids/people in the US have? Really what is it?

There are nations on this earth where people consider themselves fortunate if they can just eat 2-3 times a day. Probably send their kids to their school(Where education is just for names'sake), have some clothes to wear, not fall ill and live with minimal dignity.

The situation is far better in US, people is US probably don't even have an idea how bad things are for people outside. Most US citizens aren't even remotely likely to face such situations.

I guess at the end its too much luxury, and law of diminishing utility kicking in.

I think people in US should face some real hardships in their lives, what people else where face. May be when they see for themselves how fortunate they were with what they had before. They will learn the importance of things the hard way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com