I agree with lolowut on restricting access to weapons is proved to be in no way a solution to this problem. I really don't think america being "a diverse country involving a great blend of races, ideas, and governments" is the reason of such things happening.. I think it goes much deeper, and i find the problem in it being a society not focussed on helping individuals deal with their problems, so they escalate to extremes. Furthermore, the US is one of the biggest countries, and while there is probably the same percentage of psychopaths as in the other regions, for sure there are more in case of absolute numbers due to population. I see no other explanation really - no mentally healthy person, regardless of how big problems he would have or how severely his child would get bullied in school does go there to kill a classroom of kids. I don't think it should be considered a national tragedy either, but it for sure is a clue, that there is something wrong with the nation.. Or at least that there is a serious problem that has not yet been solved.

---

Im not putting less value on the lives of those lost across the world but this is honestly, more important you are a real peace of work to not feel bad about a class of honestly, babies being mercilessly executed for no reason they cant defend themselves

You have to be extremely ignorant to compare it to third world's problems like that. Starvation aside, the problem of children being raped, murdered, enslaved and tortured is far bigger there. I'm not saying any of that cases is worse, but you must understand there are regions where everyday life looks like that "national tragedy" of yours, and i don't even mean regions at war. This happens every single day where it's theoretically peace.

---

ill admit it im a grown ass man and i cried when i heard that

nothing bad in crying when you hear such news, it just proves you are not an insensitive asshole, but trust me, you are not a "grown ass man" yet Helli...

@Lolowut

If your stance on this is: '100s die in Africa, and all you're doing is crying about 27 lives' then consider that no amount of care, prayer, or money will prevent this from happening (hilariously, if I do the 3rd it could exasperate the issue since most aid winds up in the wrong hands anyways). The only reasoning you have of taking such stance is to make yourself seem morally/philosophically superior. Arrogance is at its height to those whom try to seem morally/philosophically superior.

100.000 deaths a day, minimum, more than half of them children, dying directly or indirectly on malnutrion . You claim it to be inevitable here and at the same time school X in morality. Using the correct adjectives to describe that would probably get me banned.
But let me tell you this:
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)

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.
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.
Don't misunderstand me, what happened is tragic in its own, they all have been inoncent victims of the psychological disorder of another, but they lived in a country where they had more options to change the fate of themselves more than the average African.

If your stance on this is: 'Well, if America just had gun control laws...' then consider the fact killing a room full of people can be done in a multitude of ways. Using household items, I could create a pipe bomb or a makeshift frag grenade. I could legally buy enough chemicals to not only kill the room, but the entire school by simply getting gasses ventilated. Probably could do it through household items too, make it untraceable. To buy assault weapons (automatics, the ones most commonly used by crimes of this sort) I require a license. To get a license I must take a class, and sometimes go through psych screening. I'm tracked by state and fed governments. Out of all the options I've described, the automatic gun takes the longest amount of time, is the most expensive, and the easiest to track.

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.

Finally to return to the topic I give you a picture since it worth more than 1000 words.



or



or to be more in your christian indoctrinated logic

I couldn't agree with you more myhand.. By the way - I did not make myself 100% clear in the last post.. I do agree that strict gun control policy is a must, i just don't think it's a solution to THIS particular case - it only changes the nature of assault from trigger-happy berserk to stabbing or sexual abuse. Of course the first one leaves more victims, but let's not get into discussion which would be more damaging to kids' psyche. Determining which is the worst just doesn't matter.

I repost the first image myhandisonfire posted for the lazy ones:

Guys we are lucky warlight is a site that does show care we could not possibly compare x's comment to those on places like 4chan and reddit.

Actually Ironheart, 4chan seems to be with lolowut on this one. http://boards.4chan.org/pol/res/8282375

I knew we would get a large discussion out of this, and I posted that I'd stay out of it. Well, I guess it didn't help.

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."

Piggy actually the new members of 4chan are getting a thrill out of this while the old ones are offended.http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/443774250 <---- example of a person worse than x is the Op.

http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/443774250

As usual I agree with Gui.


Anyway myhand about the first image (the one who Fridge linked):

Since it is not possible for you to fix everything, praying God to help those people is not pointless at all, and I doubt that not praying but still don't do anything is any better.
Once again this is the problem with religion arguments, atheists criticize the christian behavior because they analyze it, taking for granted that God doesn't exist, the same reversed problem is when christians criticize atheists of course, but from a smart guy I expected a deeper and less demagogical analysis.


About the second image:

Praying doesn't exclude working for improving the world.
As not praying doesn't mean working for improving the world.
The 2 things are not related at all.....


About the third image:

It is logically wrong, because since everything is in the plan of God, also the fact that you will pray is in His plan, so praying is not irrilevant at all.
Plus as I said for the first image if you don't even suppose that Heaven exists, you can't understand the deep importance of prayers: infact prayers are not made to impose God something you want (as your image stupidly and superficially assumes), but to put your hopes and your confidence in His divine action, and if He won't act as you wished, the prayer is still not irrilevant, infact if your prayers are not satisfied but you continue to pray, and continue to trust, you will be glorificated much more in Heaven.

@ Ironheart: *shrug* that's just /b/ having fun. Most of the rest of the boards are of the "dont you dare try and take my guns away from me this is 'MURICA" "if only the teachers had guns" "if guns kill people my spoon made me fat" sentiment closer to that lolo was expressing. Not the "america needs tighter gun restrictions" that X was expressing.

Also people like you pointing to 4chan (and reddit, seriously?) as a place full of hatred is unfair. There is a little of everything, you only hear about the more outrageous stuff because it isn't being said anywhere else and makes good headlines.

@trollussa

My analysis is deeper than what i am willing to share right here.
You are religious and believe in god, good for you. I am not starting a debate about that. If you want, you can believe in giant applepies with brains that have created you, or some ideas writen 2000 years ago when people didnt know enough to put faith in the place of knowledge, it would be the same to me.
What bothers me though, don't try to convice me, or tell me my disbelieve is the absence of thought, or some kind of deficit, it is quite the contrary.
That is the kind of arrogance of religous people that offends me.

politically corerct bullshit....

That is the kind of arrogance of religous people that offends me.

You posted 3 images who ridiculized religion and make appear christians like totally stupid people who are against everything of smart or non hypocrite.

I answered you not trying to convince you to become religious at all, or insulting you saying that your disbelieve is for absence of thought, as you did for my believe though.
But I have simply pointed out a common comunications problem that happens between atheists and christians (saying also that christians have the same percentage of fault that atheists have).

But yes I am the arrogant one!
I disagreed with you....

You can pray for my soul

Trollusa, we've talked about this before. You're not allowed to dissagree with myhand!


You're blacklisted.

I like Buddha's statement. It holds truth.

As Americans, we are more inclined to think about tragedies that are in our direct sphere. But should we not weep for our neighbor? Sounds like we would be cold heartless bastards if we didn't.

In no way does that mean the suffering of other parts of the world should be trivialized or thought of less. It shouldn't. Life loss should always be mourned, especially when it is needless and didn't have to happen. No life is intrinsically worth more than another life. The tragedies that happen elsewhere should also be in our thoughts.

There are a number of other reasons why these tragedies occur in Africa, and it simply awful that they occur at all. Not every single world problem is easily fixable, but that does not mean we should not try.

In a perfect world, the ownership of guns would be a non-issue in relation to the violence they may create. Most gun violence is done through ill begotten arms, I believe (may be mistaken). This violence would likely continue with or without the illegalization of guns. Personally I think outlawing something entirely only leads to more problems, look at the era of prohibition, look at the american drug war. This event may have occurred as easily with household items. Yet it happened with guns, and here we have this conversation. A conversation that should be held.

America is steeped in a history of gun culture and there are a number of legitimate reasons guns should be legal. For better or for worse I think guns should be legal. I think the statement "guns do not commit murder, people do" is a good statement in the face of any discussion on this topic. I am unsure morally and hesitant about the efficiency of purely outlawing guns. I think there is something in "American culture" that makes us do these things more often than other industrialized countries. I think you step too far when you punish all for the sins of a few. But my countries faults should be considered and talked about. One of my personal questions is why are other industrialized countries not plagued by these events as it seems America is.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government

- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334



This is the reason why you think you should keep arms in your society.
But you already have this tyranny of plutocracy and i don't see anyone taking up arms.
The guns are just there to let the poorest kill the poorest on a daily basis (in the ghettos), escalate family conflicts (father shoots family), cause tragic accidents (son killed while playing fathers gun, mother shoots daughter upon return home), increase death toll on killing sprees (columbine high) or equip private and paramilitary groops with more terror potential (blackwater).

But yeah, keep the guns, you are so right.

We don't live in a perfect world. I wish there was no gun violence. Unfortunately, there is.

We have now expressed our thoughts on the principle of gun rights in the United States. Some of us are for the complete outlawing of guns, some are not.

In practicality our discussion so far is for nothing. The complete outlawing of guns is not a practical solution. There are many flaws with both sides of the argument. To me, here are a few issues with your side:

1) Good luck getting it through congress (this will never happen)
2) Guns would then be the next source of an illegal trade (create a much larger issue)

Just because we outlaw a thing, does not make the issues with the thing go away.

And obviously a flaw with my side is this horrific event which sparked this conversation.

It is unfortunate that events like this have to occur for us to have a meaningful conversation on the topic. 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.

"But should we not weep for our neighbor? "

its not about weeping, its about promoting life, even if that opasses thourgh soem violence, but today's mentalities is totally unable to grasp violence...

PS: obviously im not saying that that kind of violence was promoting lie, but that weeping is even worst