The reaction game

The reaction game

I’m not very good at embracing grief. When the monstrously unexplainable occurs, as it did in Connecticut on Friday, my brain’s first instinct is usually to escape the feelings of miserable, helpless nihilism with a quick retreat to a world whose logic I still understand, be it trivia, history, or — especially — politics. There’s a certain cold, cynical comfort, I guess, that comes with viewing even the most ungodly deeds as purposeful pieces in a universe where every event serves some practical function, even it’s just to remind us of everything we’re currently doing wrong.

It seems to be a common coping technique. All of the reactions in this toon are lifted from actual social media commentary I witnessed in the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, a time so horrible it provoked the frightened cuddling of almost every political pet cause imaginable. Alongside the sniping about Michigan, drones, and homeschooling, I could have just as easily included snarky comments about the implausibility of God, vicious insults against on-the-ground reporters, cocksure comparisons to a recent knife stabbing-spree in China, and of course the truly voluminous sea of gun control talking-points, both for and against.

Reactionary, perhaps. But at the same time, it’s hard to be too sweepingly dismissive. Another common refrain I noticed this time around (terrible to have to use that phrase) was a renewed sense of contempt for our traditional “too soon” culture of self-censorship, and the systematic castration of ambition such an attitude encourages. “Too soon,” after all, is an easy excuse for never, particularly in a frantic culture of short attention spans and one-day news cycles where few other forms of “soon” even exist.

In the coming weeks we will see if the unprecedented horror of Friday’s tragedy was enough to permanently break this routine cycle of free talk but suppressed action. We’re currently being told that some so-called “leading Democrats” are eager to press ahead with firearms legislation, and the President made a vague allusion to the need for “meaningful action,” during his emotional address to the nation. Liberals are skeptical, and understandably so given their party’s track record, but it’s hard to escape a sense that this time has a solid excuse to be different.

Regardless of what you think of any of the Congressional policy prescriptions that are likely to emerge post-Sandy, there remains a larger question as to whether tragedy is ever an appropriate pretext to transform anyone’s anyone’s pet causes from outraged rhetoric to permanent legislation. Not whether guns or people kill people, or whether massacres reveal more about the accessibility of assault rifles than mental hospitals, or whether the press has reached a new low in their vulturous blood-lust, but simply whether any of us are thinking our most rational thoughts about any of these issues during the most extreme moments of national anguish.

As long as we’re debating everything else, why not spend some time on that?




^ 51 Comments...

  1. Colin Minich

    To be perfectly honest, I think for the first time I cannot form a solid thought behind just what the hell happened here. I've heard a lot of commentary from immediately posing gun control to the very bizarre and unprofessional claims that this arises due to a lack of religiosity a la Huckabee.

    America needs a really introspective look at this. I've noticed that while there is always the fact of life that is urban crime and that in my opinion gun control can only do so much there, there has to also be a very stern look at just what is going on. It isn't JUST gun control. Anyone who advocates that and only that is completely out of their minds themselves. It has to be a firm look at gun control and an even firmer look at how America is dealing with the clearly unhinged. I've noticed a pattern barring Cho Seung-Hui, that these shooters from Columbine to Giffords to Aurora to Newtown have been young white kids that were either seen as socially awkward, nice, intelligent, etc. They aren't gangbangers. They aren't tied to the Russian or Irish mobs. They aren't hardened criminals or PTSD-stricken veterans. They're middle to upper class white folks who have some clear mental issues that nobody seems to want to address, from left to right. The right will either spout nonsense about God and guns (that if there were guns this wouldn't happen) and the left will spout nonsense about guns (if there were no guns none of this would've happened). However no one seems to want to address the issue that Lanza, along with Holden and the rest of them, clearly had something wrong with them.

    It might be a culture struggle of young white men facing a rising tide of liberalism that's neutering them. It might be mental issues that go ignored or downright shunned. It might be their internal frustrations over powerlessness. In my opinion, it's a combination of these three things along with a few others. We have a demographic that is being raised to feel guilty over being overtly masculine or whatever else but that might just be for the likes for tumblr which is the lowest common denominator for any person. Lanza lived with his mother who home-schooled him for a few more years until she was shot in the face by her own son and he clearly had social and psychological issues that went untreated until he finally snapped. I feel he felt the frustration of many folks like him but I don't think his rampage was completely spawned by just this frustration over powerlessness. His untreated mental condition also produced this murderous rage to where even I cannot fathom why after he settled his issues with his mother in an oh so tragic way decided to go right after children that had nothing to do with it. I'm a guy that understands personal vendettas or personal grudges, but spree killing always blows my mind because it never makes sense to me.

    America HAS to address the mental issues surrounding its people and pour more resources into working with them, because this along with a very ignorant stance on gun control allowing people to carry when they have no business doing so or with people that are clear dangers to themselves and others is becoming stark. We shouldn't be some Asian nations who simply address these conditions as weakness and shames. This MUST be resolved along with a responsible look at gun rights.

  2. @Rmjonesc13

    I was with you until right here: "It might be a culture struggle of young white men facing a rising tide of liberalism that's neutering them."

    I did have a long list of how wrong you are about that, but I'll give you a TL'DR: I hang around the most liberal "feminazi" sections of the internet, and the only time people criticize the CONCEPT of masculinity (because it's not a biological imperative, surprise surprise! That's evopsych bull that has nothing to do with actual peer reviewed and approved biology theories!) is when said concept leads to misogeny, gender essentialism (because also, gender is shockingly not a 2 box check 1 system even most of the time), and overt violence as the ultimate expression of manliness.

    I mean, seriously dude. We are surrounded in our media by the white male action hero, I don't see how the liberals (who like Indiana Jones, Iron Man and Captain America as much as everyone else btw) are neutering men. From what I have heard, it's "Hey, maybe you shouldn't bully people/count them as lesser when they don't fill these concepts of masculinity/femininity that you hold!"

    Also shockingly, the American/White Western ideal of Masculinity is not world wide, and in fact we have probably some of the most hyped-up-on-steroids version of it, and the countries that have views similar to ours (including us) tend to have the most gun violence. Gee, I wonder if the conflation of masculinity with violence has ANY bearing on the violence of a nation at large! But nope, lets just say it's this supposed Liberal Neuturing of men.

    (Btw- My brother lives in Alaska, hikes, plays Hockey, drinks bears under the table, and is perhaps the most manly man you have ever seen with a magnificent beard. I love him and adore him, and the only times I mourn his adherence to masculine norms is when they are not true to who he is. For instance, he is a big sap and it kills me that people mock him for it or act like if he was a MAN who wouldn't miss his girlfriend when she was gone for a week, because MEN drink beer and don't have feelings! This has caused recently a outburst which put his relationship on shaky ground, which is why I just want to repeat "F-U" to this messed up idea of masculinity that shames people when they don't act according to it.)

  3. @ahm

    Get off Tumblr and get back to reality. That's an order.

  4. Colin Minich

    I never said you couldn't have feelings or you couldn't be sentimental to family, friends, or a significant other nor did I say that you had to be ultraviolent in order to classify as manly. I think you're missing the point. I was trying to raise an issue that for all the attention that has been given to other demographics nowadays, the modern media and the attitude some have carried towards simply being a man in today's society has become in some small degrees something to be ashamed over as well. Nobody said you couldn't be well-mannered but some aspects of our culture take it to a point where you have to be EXTRA careful not to offend, that you are meant to assert yourself but in no way, shape, or form offend anyone that makes it very frustrating to do so given how past history has shown quite the opposite, that you have to offend to ascend in many situations.

    Also, you're missing the notion that movie/comic heroes are supposedly supplanting the rapid change going on in American society. There absolutely has been a neutering, especially amongst young boys. We are not surrounded by the white action comic hero anymore and anything that has been the case is essentially a rehash of an older time, the Jack Kirby days, so don't give me that crap. There was a time where aggression in schools could be carried out with a classic fisticuffs and that would settle it or that kids were encouraged self-defense instead of appealing to an uncaring or tied-down school administration more scared of a lawsuit than actual, bona fide responsibility. We have a parent culture that wants to treat every child like a special snowflake which in turn encourages them to either engage in bullying behavior, odd behavior that encourages bullying, or social awkwardness without an iota of treatment behind it to actually help the kid out in the long run. They seek short-term comfort whilst blind to long-term damages. We have literally departed from some realities because they're simply uncomfortable producing men (and women) who aren't ready for the harsh realities of the outside world. Did it ever strike you as odd that we're not seeing the rampant shootings in some other parts of the world that ARE NOT linked to some form of organized crime or radical religion? We do have a dangerous gun culture but God forbid you also take the time to address people who are genuinely having a hard time instead of either guilt them to accommodate other peoples or just plain ignore them. In the case of Mr. Lanza, nobody, not even his mother, bothered to truly address the issues.

    Congrats on being presumptuous since I said it was a combination of this along with other factors. I really couldn't care about your brother btw. Make excuses for yourself, not him.

  5. @mikehatedit

    "I was trying to raise an issue that for all the attention that has been given to other demographics nowadays, the modern media and the attitude some have carried towards simply being a man in today's society has become in some small degrees something to be ashamed over as well. Nobody said you couldn't be well-mannered but some aspects of our culture take it to a point where you have to be EXTRA careful not to offend, that you are meant to assert yourself but in no way, shape, or form offend anyone that makes it very frustrating to do so given how past history has shown quite the opposite, that you have to offend to ascend in many situations. "

    I suspect you'll find that the reason you feel this way is because that's exactly what it felt like to be a woman, person of colour, queer person, etc. in previous decades. The story of ordinary life in the west has, for a very long time, been about wealthy white dudes doing essentially whatever they liked and the rest of society simply having to accomodate them. (Displease your husband? He'll smack the crap out of you–and people will blame *you* for antagonizing him. Black person says something unkind to a white woman? Get off the bus: you're walking home.)

    That white people, men, and other people with power in society now have to think a little more carefully about their actions is actually a damn good thing and shows a healthy amount of social progress. But above all else, they aren't expected to do anything that the rest of society doesn't already do. The only reason it feels alien is because they were excused from it for so long.

  6. Colin Minich

    There's a difference between professionalism and guilt-tripping. It makes sense to watch your mouth but a growing disparity of laxity between one's commentary versus another's is becoming an issue. In the case of Mr. Lanza, it wasn't this problem but more being confined to home-schooling with a single mother that very well may have screwed his development, but it remains to be seen in the investigation. However I won't be putting it past the others like Holden to have been forced, or self-induced, into some seclusion from a society that is continuously taking his sorts of concerns as non-factors now that there are other groups to worry about.

  7. Monapublican

    But you are forgetting the realities and reasons/rationale behind such actions and policies in the schools. Many European nations have such policies, even more so than the US. I'm not reading any reports on rampant mass shooting in Sweden.

    This isn't the 1950s anymore and you logic isn't feasible in this climate.

  8. Colin Minich

    Sweden? Really? Is this like the fallback position for any greater liberal speaker?

    Did you also fail to take into account the stabbings going on in the UK in lieu of no guns? That's how a lot of kids are settling things there nowadays. Not too different.

    Did you stop to think that only recently did you have such a turbulent influx of culture and background in Scandinavia that has been going on for decades in the United States along with a greater emphasis on cultural change where it isn't necessary departing from. The United States built itself on a different culture, a more assertive and individualistic culture. It's not even the 1950s in debate, kiddo. It's being what we've identified ourselves as in root. And no don't say it's Leave it to Beaver classic chauvinism, because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about not letting boys act out their natural aggression through fisticuffs or some serious dispute but instead pushing it to the side and letting it fester.

  9. Monapublican

    "Sweden? Really? Is this like the fallback position for any greater liberal speaker?"

    My apologies. Sweden, UK, France, Germany, The Netherlands etc.

    "Did you also fail to take into account the stabbings going on in the UK in lieu of no guns? That's how a lot of kids are settling things there nowadays. Not too different."

    That in a way discredits your argument. For reasons I get to later.

    "Did you stop to think that only recently did you have such a turbulent influx of culture and background in Scandinavia that has been going on for decades in the United States along with a greater emphasis on cultural change where it isn't necessary departing from. "

    This is something that has been going on for over a century. Why point it now?

    "The United States built itself on a different culture, a more assertive and individualistic culture."

    That's not a good excuse. Many countries had assertive and individualistic cultures.

    "It's not even the 1950s in debate, kiddo. It's being what we've identified ourselves as in root. And no don't say it's Leave it to Beaver classic chauvinism, because that's not what I'm talking about. "

    But you have called yourself a traditionalist and stated that you was taught to "be a man."

    "I'm talking about not letting boys act out their natural aggression through fisticuffs or some serious dispute but instead pushing it to the side and letting it fester."

    Well if we do go back to the day when people "act out their natural aggression", what will be the end result? Probably not a lot of mass shootings, but it's naive to say that such a mean won't end people going beyond fisticuffs and can't end in knives or guns.

  10. Colin Minich

    The end result? Certainly a lot of pent-up child/teenager/twentysomething aggression where blows are exchanged instead of bullets. I'll take that any day of the week since more often than not you're not going to get your knife or gun incident in a suburban school after that one fistfight.

    Being traditionalist doesn't mean being stereotypical with Susie Homemaker Mom and Workaholic Dad. It means letting boys be boys and getting back to what made them that in the first place when faced with adversity. Best part about today is that women are empowered to do the same exact thing.

  11. Hentgen

    I LOVE it when people say things like " the American/White Western ideal of Masculinity is not world wide, and in fact we have probably some of the most hyped-up-on-steroids version of it."

    It becomes clear that they know NOTHING about most other cultures. They indulge in some sort of fantasy in which the grass is always greener on the other side. The cold hard facts say different.

    In point of fact, the Western version of Masculinity is not even close to being the "most hyped-up-on-steroids" version in the world. There are African cultures that effectively ban men from performing tasks deemed feminine. Arab cultures that systematically and brutally rig the system against women. Asian cultures in which preferences for sons are so strong that the one piece of medical equipment every little village has is an ultrasound machine so that the inhabitants can perform sex-selective abortions.

    And now you want to tell me about how a Western sense of masculinity is the "most hyped-up-on-steroids" version in the world?

    Please. What demonstrable, unquestionable nonsense. Before you condemn the West and raise up the rest of the world, maybe you should know something about it?

  12. @mikehatedit

    "We have a demographic that is being raised to feel guilty over being overtly masculine or whatever else but that might just be for the likes for tumblr which is the lowest common denominator for any person."

    Wow, really? Tumblr feminism caused this shooting?

    And how do you account for the dozens of similar incidents which took place before 1980? (i.e: before virtually everyone involved with Tumblr was even born.)

  13. Colin Minich

    Please quote me where I said that was the direct cause. I said it was one of many factors that could give some explanation into the growing frustration into that particular group, an addition to the already glaring mental issues that are not properly being addressed. Also you misread my statement. I said the culture created by some realms of media are comparable to the lowest common denominator that IS tumblr.

    I simply said that there is a growing issue amongst young men that are being thrown into a demographic maelstrom. Dozens of similar incidents? Please, link me to the dozens of them where it was a twenty-something male who has shot up a shopping area or school to include kindergartners. The only glaring one I could think would be Charles Whitman but even he was suffering from a dysfunction of family dynamic that has only exacerbated itself as decades passed.

  14. Monapublican

    Can you really blame societal shifts and ideological changes as the cause of these men committing such acts? Do you have any proof?

  15. Colin Minich

    You guys are thick. I said this was a speculation with the key word being "might." But if you want something to chew on, look no further than our very schools, where we can't settle things with fisticuffs now and really boys are having a harder time adjusting in a culture where acting as such can be grounds for politically correct lecturing. A parental culture is trying to shelter kids, especially boys, from the harsher realities of life and giving them the "special snowflake" mentality that leaves them confused which is a disaster in and of itself. How about you provide me your explanation why the vast majority of these spree shooters happen to be young white men? I think you can absolutely tie it into the equation. It's not THE root cause but it's worth a look at. Where can we go to let out aggression nowadays? You can't do it in the classic schoolyard fight anymore but instead it's this bizarre manner of telling boys they can't be boys and settle their disputes the old-fashioned way. Like it or not, we're still animals especially at that age.

  16. Colin Minich

    Look at how schools handle bullying. Instead of teaching boys (and girls) to defend themselves and their honor instead we have them develop a victim mentality always reporting to a tragically uncaring or lawsuit-paranoid staff. Instead of fostering these kids with some confidence, potentially having respect built from setting their disputes, or helping kids improve their social attitude and environment, instead we have them just depend on adults who don't get things done most of the time.

  17. Colin Minich

    Yeah I'm a traditionalist. My dad told me to stand up for myself and to literally, "be a man." Mr. Lanza suffered from a lot more than just a lack of that, but having a homeschooling mother who was also a gun enthusiast and that sheltered him from toughening himself to life's realities was not at all helpful.

    Compound this with a glaring socio-mental disorder that is treated in such half-assed manner and you have a recipe for disaster. Each case is special in and of itself but I've yet to see a good explanation why such things weren't so common back in times when you could settle disputes as boys.

    Gun control isn't enough, better funding for mental care is a better option but still not enough. This requires a severe look at American culture and the rift between softening and leathering when it comes to our kids. I just personally feel if you have these kids and twentysomethings drop the soft attitude and begin settling things man to man or woman to woman you won't get this pent up rage and mental failure compounded by these factors.

  18. Monapublican

    That's a pretty big speculation to use as your main source of the problem. Do you really think that "fisticuffs" and the "old-fashioned way" is a great way of settling disputes? What makes you think they won't settle the dispute with weapons or the bullied becoming the bully?

    I'm also sick of people throwing buzzwords like "politically correct" and "harsher realities". There's no such thing as political correctness and "harsher realities" tell people and a number of disciplines that human development doesn't exist. If that's not being thick, I don't know what is.

    You forget to mention that while the vast majority of these spree shooters happen to be young white men, A LOT of one on one shooters happen to be young minority men. And why only whites and not minorities? Save me the social Darwinism mess.

    Face it. I'm not a fan of sheltering kids but your worldviews is just as naive as any sheltering parent.

  19. Colin Minich

    Oh I'm sorry you'll have to excuse me when I want to draw a line between one-on-one minority violence typically on the issues of pride, personal beef, or crime as compared to the very random, bizarre, and wholly indiscriminate murders caused by, you guessed it, a majorly white demographic.

    Being naive would implicate that I want a complete reversal of all the progress made. I never said that kids can be taught to be sensitive to cultures or mental issues, which actually was one of my larger arguments in stemming the tide of mentally-imbalanced shooters. I simply said it was a possibility that the crushing weight placed upon many of these men by the hideous aftermath of third-wave feminism (not Steinem, FYI, but the crappy follow-up circa 1990s/early 2000s), are causing them to react violently like a cornered animal.

  20. @Rmjonesc13

    /skims over replies
    /dies with laughter

    Oh good lord man, you are the one who needs to get out into the real world. When you start meeting face-to-face with victims of domestic violence, when you start getting back problems because you are too busy helping build things that people struggling with poverty need, when you make it a habit to pass out change and whatever food you can afford to the homeless? And you know, LISTEN to all these people? THEN you can lecture me about not being out in the real world.

    Just because I actually read up on a wide variety of statistics and perspectives (like from different races and countires and sexes! OH MY! It's almost like reading from a variety of backgrounds gives more info then only reading one narrow bias!) on things like Sexism and Homophobia and Racism and know that 1+1=2, doesn't mean that I hang out on tumblr. I don't even HAVE a tumblr.

    Also, read a few actual peer-reviewed biology papers about gender if you are going to argue this shit. Just makes you look like a complete numbskull when your only real "defense" is "IT'S TRADITION!". Yeah, slavery and women not owning property was also a tradition. Your point?

  21. Hentgen

    Funny, you talk about the real world, and yet you call Western Masculinity "the most hyped-up-on-steroids" version in the world. You claim to be well-read, yet you're ignorant about just how bad things are outside of the west.

    Get your head out of the sand, man.

  22. baronhaynes

    A lot of #2s on my facebook feed. Pun intended.

  23. spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan

    You hit the nail on the head with people thinking too hard and jumping to conclusions over incomplete information when they first released the wrong name after the shooting.

    I remember back in the later days of Tony Blair's term, when some doodles and notes were left behind after a meeting which everyone thought was Tony Blair's. News channels had 'handwriting experts' and such who came out saying how you could get all these emotional meanings out of the notes: frustration, stress, tension, etc and people tried to tie it to his then current political troubles. Turned out later it wasn't his set of notes but that it was Bill Gates' notes all along. It reminds me of this.

    Story on it:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1482407/Bl

  24. @mikehatedit

    I absolutely share your disdain for "too soon". It's almost always a diversion technique: they aren't interested in mourning or thinking or caring or creating space, they just want to quash the debate until people move on and forget about it.

    See also: "we mustn't politicize this incident", which is really just code for "we must not question the status quo".

  25. Dryhad

    Or sometimes "we must not politicize this incident in a manner that conflicts with my politics

  26. @Cristiona

    Considering the other option is to craft lasting legislation based on nothing but raw emotion, I'll take "too soon" every time.

  27. @mikehatedit

    By that standard, nobody should ever legislate on any subject about which they feel strongly. (Because heaven forbid EMOTION enter into the equation!) In which case why even bother with legislation? Why do we need a legislature or a constitution, when all we're ever going to do is blindly follow the status quo and slag people off for having opinions?

  28. Etc.

    That's a nice straw man you have there. It's great to have strong feelings and emotion about a cause, but if it's a cause adopted five seconds ago in response to a tragedy, there might be some time required to cool one's head before one decides to go ahead with it or not. People can come up with some pretty breathtakingly stupid ideas on the spot, and some review is simply needed to look back over an issue logically and tell whether or not the proposed solution would actually work out.

  29. @mikehatedit

    That's not a strawman.

    The notion that gun control is a plot cooked up in five minutes in response to school shootings is absolutely ludicrous. There are perfectly good arguments which have existed for decades, but don't always get articulated (or articulated very well) because people aren't always paying attention to the issue. (Especially in the United States, where it's something of a third rail.)

    Declaring that anyone who speaks up on the issue could only ever be motivated by "raw emotion" (rather than long-standing and deeply-considered views which are simply being articulated at this precise moment because of their relevance to a contemporary situation) is stupid and effectively amounts to what I described: an attack on emotion itself. By this argument, anyone who feels in any way emotional about any issue is clearly unqualified to comment on the matter. It's ridiculous.

    I would also note that "look back over an issue logically" is another form of doublespeak. ("I wish you would be more logical" always, universally, uniformly and without exception means "I wish you would stop disagreeing with me".)

  30. Etc.

    You are building up an argument that your opponent's are not making, and neither of us are attacking 'emotion'. It is a strawman; you'd have to be some kind of idiot to assume that either of us were 'attacking emotion itself', what kind of cartoonish line is that? The argument is that kneejerk reactions aren't always good impulses to build laws from, and it doesn't specifically apply to gun control; you injected that element in this most recent post, as it went unmentioned before. All the time, you get laws that are passed in the heat of the moment that turn out to be kind of stupid later on; for example, the time bath salts were outlawed in the memory of a victim of a killer who turned out to have no bath salts in their system, the law that made it a criminal offense for parents to not report the absence of their children within 24 hours following any sort of separation, or the overwhelming majority of laws named after someone who'd just been in the news. Many of these laws, beyond the heat of the moment, turn out to have some glaring flaws that under less emotionally charged times would probably have been noticed.

    Personally, I'm for some measure of gun control to keep them away from people who are diagnosed with mental illnesses and the like and to make sure that ridiculous, over-the-top weapons can't be bought at the local Wal-Mart. Thanks for automatically assuming otherwise, though.

  31. GoSign

    Please stop politicizing this tragedy by attempting to prevent future tragedies. It was a random act that was not effected in any way by the world around it, and attempting to "fix" any perceived "problem" is disrespectful to the deceased, who are with god now.

  32. James

    god's not real, please grow up

  33. Colin Minich

    Flying Spaghetti Monster is though. :C

  34. Hentgen

    Right. It was random and there's no possibility that the United States lacks proper mental health infrastructure that could better in identifying and treating problem youths.

  35. Tweeg

    get your head out of the sand moron

  36. AddThreeAndFive

    I'm concerned because Lanza may have had Asperger syndrome and I'm worried that may lead to a wave of "these people are dangerous to society and must receive treatment now". There's a stereotype that Aspies are inherently more violent than neurotypicals. People are afraid of those who don't fit an arbitrary picture of "normal". Just look at those who say black people are inherently more violent or gay people are inherently more immoral.

  37. Colin Minich

    What needs to happen is not what we have in place right now, but some acutal damn funding to help treat these people or at least coach them along moving into society or in a community safe for them. We don't see this because often times autistic-related disorders that aren't treated like Rainman are left to the devices of unprepared facilities and parents.

  38. truteal

    You forgot a guy saying that if the teaching staff had guns, this wouldn't have happened

  39. Harminder

    Stictly speaking I thing a few things should happened.
    1 ban the sale of automatics
    2 gps installed so the gun can only be used in the gun owners house
    and 3 fingerprint so that children can not accidental use it.

  40. Patrick

    main problem is that the zombie apocolypse will likely require you to leave your house. 2 more days…

  41. Hentgen

    Guns are typically mechanical devices that don't use computer chips to regulate the operation. If you want to put a GPS in to prevent firing, then you'd need to significantly alter how the gun works. Most guns likely couldn't be retrofitted.

    It might help if you knew how guns worked before proposing a solution.

  42. Etc.

    This sure does sound easily enforceable and easy to not only legally pass but also to add as a feature to the millions of existing guns in the USA. I'm not sure how the hunting people will be able to import deer within their homes, but I guess we could work out the kinks.

  43. psarae

    The only politicized comments I saw after were blaming the lack of god in our schools for the tragedy. Only days later did I see any commentary on reinstating the assault rifle ban, and even those comments were dwarfed by the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" crowd. Of course this is just based on my person relationships and facebook, but I am mostly friends with self identified liberals.

  44. Patrick

    The guns he used were two handguns and a hunting rifle… so we've got a gun that's used for hunting (it's in the name) and two handguns that are frequently used for personal protection in the home. The thing is, the hunting rifle is what he did the most damage with– and it's also the one that couldn't be legislated against (it's too big to conceal, too many people use it for good purposes… it's impractical as a weapon for gangs– hell, the police don't even use them). So gun control shouldn't have anything to do with this unless they're trying to outlaw hunting rifles.

  45. Harminder

    Argreed I did overlook the hunting issue, perhaps what can be done is that as with the gun for homeowners being only being abled to be used at home, at hunting ranges they have to hire the guns in which can only be used on the hunting range.
    Still a possiblitilty of attack no technology can remove It 100%.

  46. Hentgen

    Hunting range? Umm, you mean the woods?

  47. Etc.

    'Hunting range', seriously?

    Anyway, the idea is ridiculous. You'd need to expensively alter every single gun in the USA to fit whatever plan you have in mind for this– and there are suspected to be over two-hundred million of them– and who would even pay for that?

    There would be tons of people who wouldn't turn in guns– people with antique ones in particular would probably not care for it to be ripped apart to install it with whatever contraption you'd like to have it outfitted with– and there couldn't really be that much done about it. Not all guns are registered with the government, they can be hidden well enough, and it's rather easy to make new ones by one's own self. Even if your plan was enacted, there would be a huge amount of guns that simply did not have the modifications enacted, and there certainly would be a trade for ones unaltered. Better yet, people could just hack their devices so that the location requirement didn't matter.

    The only people who this plan would really hurt are people who don't want to do anything malicious. Tell me, would you bet your life on Google Maps being correct? Your GPS device needs to be extremely accurate. Are you backed up against a wall in a home invasion? I sure hope that the GPS doesn't register you as being outside of your house.

  48. Hentgen

    Tragic events can cause people to shake off inertia and get things done. Certainly, excesses can occur in the wake, but real change can also be pushed forward.

    A real conversation about the role of guns and the state of the current mental health infrastructure needs to be done. I'm more on the pro-gun side of things, but there's been too many shootings to simply brush them off as random events. It is clear that it is too easy for nutbars to get guns. However, it's also clear that the US lacks the proper mental health infrastructure needed to prevent people from slipping through the cracks and allowed to have their mental state deteriorate to this point.

    Any solution should be multi-tiered and look at both guns and mental health. If this tragedy can spur real change, even if some of it is an overreaction, then it's a net positive for society.

  49. Oslie

    Too soon?
    No.
    Try too f-ing late.

  50. Brandon

    I think we all too often blame the tool that was used to commit the crime, instead of laying the blame entirely on the person who did it, and the people who raised them.

    The NRA’s recent proposal to put an armed guard in every school seems like a hell of a lot more effective proposal to prevent another tragedy like this, then to try getting every single gun locked down (hint, it isn’t going to happen, ever. Criminals will have guns, whether they are supposed to have them or not).

    Want an even more effective way to prevent things like this from happening? Cut it off at the source, the mentally ill that are free to roam the streets because we neither fund places to lock them up until cured, nor allow them to be easily committed against their will.

  51. prestwickuk

    To be honest? Crying. Mostly crying really. Thats me and my better half…