another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

[Dave B]

4 dead and 3 state troopers injured. I'll let that speak for itself.

DA: 4 dead, including gunman, along rural Pa. road

[D-Type]

4 dead and 3 state troopers injured. I'll let that speak for itself.

DA: 4 dead, including gunman, along rural Pa. road

A very poorly written uninformative report. Who were the four dead people? Were they armed? Were they 'innocent victims' shot by the gunman or were they 'felons' shot by the state troopers?

[chuck34]

delete.

[chuck34]

Ah yes, all very convincing. How conveniently you forget, or choose to ignore, the damage also done by weapons.

I have not forgotten, nor ignored the fact that madmen have chosen to use a firearm to spread their madness all across this world. Quite the contrary, it is you who seem to have forgotten or ignored the fact that firearms actually save lives when used in self defense.

I find the opinions of you and your ilk on this topic indefensible.

And I find your opinion and those of your ilk indefensible. You go and ask any one of those people in the links I provided, if they think their opinion is indefensible, if they were paranoid, if they live their lives in fear. Lord knows there house was defensible thanks to the rights guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment. Oh darn there it is again, Europeans have no rights. (I'll spell it out for you this time, that was sarcasm.)

[BDunnell]

I have not forgotten, nor ignored the fact that madmen have chosen to use a firearm to spread their madness all across this world. Quite the contrary, it is you who seem to have forgotten or ignored the fact that firearms actually save lives when used in self defense.

I have not forgotten this; rather, I dismiss your view out of hand, the possession of a firearm for self-defence purposes being something I would never advocate under any circumstances.

And I find your opinion and those of your ilk indefensible. You go and ask any one of those people in the links I provided, if they think their opinion is indefensible, if they were paranoid, if they live their lives in fear. Lord knows there house was defensible thanks to the rights guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment. Oh darn there it is again, Europeans have no rights. (I'll spell it out for you this time, that was sarcasm.)

They may not believe themselves to be paranoid, so ingrained is the culture of firearm ownership, but I say again that they are, for there is no other explanation for it. I would rather take my chances without a firearm — not that I believe it to be a case of taking any chance at all, because I cannot envisage a situation in which discharging a firearm would represent a reasonable response.

And if we're talking about rights, what about the right of 20-odd schoolchildren not to get shot? I've said it before and I'll say it again. The view you espouse boils down to the fact that you would rather see the same thing happen again than any tighter restrictions on gun ownership. I find this breathtaking.

(Oh, and a quick note about sarcasm — the trick is to make it clear without saying so, not to have to explain it, nor to make it indistinguishable from opinions you do actually possess.)

[chuck34]

I have not forgotten this; rather, I dismiss your view out of hand, the possession of a firearm for self-defence purposes being something I would never advocate under any circumstances.



They may not believe themselves to be paranoid, so ingrained is the culture of firearm ownership, but I say again that they are, for there is no other explanation for it. I would rather take my chances without a firearm — not that I believe it to be a case of taking any chance at all, because I cannot envisage a situation in which discharging a firearm would represent a reasonable response.

And if we're talking about rights, what about the right of 20-odd schoolchildren not to get shot? I've said it before and I'll say it again. The view you espouse boils down to the fact that you would rather see the same thing happen again than any tighter restrictions on gun ownership. I find this breathtaking.

(Oh, and a quick note about sarcasm — the trick is to make it clear without saying so, not to have to explain it, nor to make it indistinguishable from opinions you do actually possess.)

You are out of line. You and your ilk preach about tolerance and understand for others, but you "dismiss my view out of hand". Go tell those people that saved their lives, and the lives of their families that you don't advocate self-defense. How can you not see that this murderous psychopath was going to do something like this no matter the law? Outlaw every gun today. There will still be millions on the street. If somehow you could make your law tough enough to keep this vile scum from having an "assault" rifle, he would have had a shot gun. Outlaw shot guns, he would have found a sword. Outlaw swords, he would have made a bomb. If you can outlaw evil why hasn't the outright ban on murder stopped this sick twisted crap from happening?

You claim that somehow I'm happy that 20 defenseless innocent children were murdered by a madman. That is just sick and twisted. I used to have respect for you

[BDunnell]

You are out of line. You and your ilk preach about tolerance and understand for others, but you "dismiss my view out of hand".

And what are you doing with my view, other than dismissing it out of hand?

In no way am I out of line. Why should I have any respect for your viewpoint? I disagree completely with it. Worse, I think it's wrong-headed, ignorant and inherently dangerous. What is there for me to respect in that? I'm not going to lie.

Go tell those people that saved their lives, and the lives of their families that you don't advocate self-defense.

And you go to the parents of those children and tell them your view. I know in whose shoes I'd rather be.

You claim that somehow I'm happy that 20 defenseless innocent children were murdered by a madman. That is just sick and twisted. I used to have respect for you

This is a typical example of how you and some of your countrymen see no nuance in an argument. I did not say that you were happy they were murdered; I said that you would rather it happened again than see tighter restrictions on firearm ownership. This statement is true, isn't it? How can it not be, given your views?

So, try answering again, this time the question I posed rather than the one you saw in order to try unsuccessfully to make a point.

[chuck34]

And what are you doing with my view, other than dismissing it out of hand?

I am not dismissing your view. You think guns are dangerous, and you are scared of them. So I don't think you should have one. Simple, you live your life, I'll live mine. But for some reason you insist on forcing your morality upon me.

And you go to the parents of those children and tell them your view. I know in whose shoes I'd rather be.

If I ever met them I would tell them my view. That I am very sorry that this tragedy happened to them. I wish that our mental health system would not have failed this obviously deranged individual. That I wish there would have been some form of security at their school to stop this from happening or at the very least lessening it. And that if they ever need anything in the form of help, support, or love, I am at their disposal.

Now you go tell the hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions) that have protected themselves or their loved ones from a madman by using a firearm, that you have done, and will continue to do everything in your power to ensure that the next time they are threatened by a murderous lunatic that they are completely defenseless.

This is a typical example of how you and some of your countrymen see no nuance in an argument. I did not say that you were happy they were murdered; I said that you would rather it happened again than see tighter restrictions on firearm ownership. This statement is true, isn't it? How can it not be, given your views?

And you lecture me on seeing nuance? Laughable.

Do you have your speech ready to explain why you want to disarm those that have saved themselves yet?

[ioan]

Race, my mind boggles as to how The United States of America is going to even partially get rid of 200+million guns. How can this be processed?

Melt them and make spoons out of the resulting alloy?!

[Dave B]

I'm just considering the practicalities of this "armed guard in every school" nonsense. My old school covered 30 acres and comprises about a dozen buildings. Even assuming the plan isn't utterly bonkers, exactly how many guards would be required to cover a site like that?