planetf1.com

It has happened again..
I heard 27 now dead. Among them small children.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/sh ... ?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20730717

It's their right, no matter how many innocent people die....madness.

PzR Slim wrote:It's their right, no matter how many innocent people die....madness.

Madness indeed.

I'm speechless....

Apparently the school had 600 students aged 4 to 10. That's an awful lot of kids and their families who are going to be affected for a long time to come. So sad.

Again... it's too easy for a kid to get hold of a gun and do something like this in the U.S

Shooter is a 20 yr old with ties to the school. Just horrendous.

I can't imagine the hate and evil you'd have to have in your heart to shoot a child in school. Unbelievable.

Apparently the gunman was a father of one of the kids in school.. 20 years old.

EDIT: 18 children out of 27 dead.

A primary school of all places... horrible.

Mr-E wrote:Apparently the gunman was a father of one of the kids in school.. 20 years old.
.

Haven't heard that yet. They've released his name now and say he was "in his 20's".


I'm surprised at the parents who are still hanging around with their kids and letting the media talk to them. I'd be sooooooo out of there.

Horrific doesn't quite cover it. There will always be nutcases, which in my view is the only reason you need to justify far tighter gun control. It's much harder for such people to slaughter a heap of folk if all they can get themselves is a knife.

ashley313 wrote:I'm surprised at the parents who are still hanging around with their kids and letting the media talk to them. I'd be sooooooo out of there.

This shocked me too, I'd probably have lamped any journalist (regardless of whether they were male or female) approaching me to ask to talk to my kids (if I had any) in that situation.

ashley313 wrote:

Mr-E wrote:Apparently the gunman was a father of one of the kids in school.. 20 years old.
.

Haven't heard that yet. They've released his name now and say he was "in his 20's".

Yeah they have made further statements now saying that they are not sure now..

Unconfirmed reports that the school principal and psychologist are among the victims. Can see where this is going!

Its no wonder nobody wants to be an educator in this country.

Oh, my God. I have no words. My condolences to all families.

Seems the shooter is dead. The police have stated that his mother was the teacher in the class he targeted and an older male's body was discovered at his home address.

Utterly horrible news...

Also, many of the worlds news channels and sites posted a picture of the alleged gunman. Now word is that it is the wrong man. It was not "RL" but his brother "AL". If true a massive massive blunder.

Well, here we go again. Usually after incidents like this, the right to carry guns vs. dangers of having people carrying guns sparks up, but this time I find it very clear - many victims were below the age of 10.

Truly a horrible thing to happen, and I feel for everyone involved - notably either one of RL or AL (the apparently innocent one), being hung out in the press as a mass murderer simply should not be done to the wrong man (who is alive). Journalism can go too far.

I heard about this on the radio driving home from work. Radio DJ was so sad.

It's just so bizarre. They're just kids. I'll never get why killing them was considered a "solution" to whatever problem the gunman had.

I can't imagine how anyone can be so inhuman.

I follow roughly 600 people on twitter, nearly all of which are motorsport people, and I'd say 95% of them are from outside the US. The overwhelming sentiment (besides the shock, disbelief, and condolences) is that we're absolutely crazy and wrong for not having stricter gun control laws. How are we the only people in the world who don't see it? Its almost embarrassing.

ashley313 wrote:I follow roughly 600 people on twitter, nearly all of which are motorsport people, and I'd say 95% of them are from outside the US. The overwhelming sentiment (besides the shock, disbelief, and condolences) is that we're absolutely crazy and wrong for not having stricter gun control laws. How are we the only people in the world who don't see it? Its almost embarrassing.

As I understand it, from following and engaging in discussions after events following these and the whole issue of gun control in the US in general is that the right to bear arms was put in the constitution in order that the citizens of the United States could stand up should their government ever become a dictatorship - that if a government attempts to hold down its population they have the weapons to fight back.

The thing is this argument no longer makes any sense - if the United States was to become a dictatorship it does not matter how many guns its citizens have there is no way that they would win in a fight against an army with Stealth bombers, tanks, attack helicopters and the most advanced infantry on the planet. And if just listing that isn't enough of an argument just look at Libya and Syria - Libya barely managed to overthrow a poorly trained army with military hardware not much advanced past the second world war with the outside assistance of NATO strategically bombing military installations.

Then the issue turns to the second amendment in principle - it's in the constitution, so that's that. Except for the fact that constitution has constantly been updated to reflect the progress and evolution of society hence why there are amendments. And if the constitution cannot be changed in the eyes of these people then guess what, the second amendment happened to be a change to the constitution as well, so that can't count either.

The argument then switches to something along the lines of "but, if these people didn't have guns, they'd just use something else like bombs" - well, a bomb is a far less simple method of attack, it cannot happen spontaneously, it would require lots of planning and preparation and would therefore be much more likely to be detected beforehand or would be less likely to go down as efficiently when it was attempted. In the UK we banned guns following Dunblane in the mid nineties. There hasn't been a school killings attack since then, gun, bombs or whatever. How many have happened in the US since then (and then divide by 5 to get a comparable per capita frequency)

Then the whole crime/self defence issue comes up. "Criminals won't respect gun control laws so we need guns to be on a equal footing against them"

Well, this is true, criminals won't respect the gun control laws. However, having a gun won't put you on an equal footing. For a start, if someone plans to attack you with a gun, they will have the element of surprise so they will have the upper hand, if they suspect you are going to be carrying a gun, or pull a gun in response, they will be more likely to harm you.

If someone is going to mug you, regardless of whether you and they have a gun or not, the advantage is always going to be with them because no one suspects getting mugged. It is a better defence to be alert and avoid getting in the situation in the first place than to carry a gun for the unlikely event you find yourself gaining the opportunity to use it.

The argument then turns to "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - you'll get arguments about cars also killing people but they don't get banned. Well, a) a car's purpose is as a device for transporting you from one place to another, whereas a gun's purpose (and only purpose) is to kill. That's the difference. But also, b) Cars can people, and activity that is more likely to result in that eventuality is banned, ie speeding, dangerous driving, drink driving.

If the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is being adopted, that just means someone just wants guns. And that's fine, if you just want guns that's your right to want guns. But don't try to dress it up as anything beyond that. There is no greater purpose, there is no higher reasoning or justification for it. America has 4% of the population of the planet yet when you hear that there has been a shooting in a civilised public place on the news the thought is not "where in the world has this happened" it is "where in America has this happened?"

Alienturnedhuman wrote: If the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is being adopted, that just means someone just wants guns. And that's fine, if you just want guns that's your right to want guns. But don't try to dress it up as anything beyond that. There is no greater purpose, there is no higher reasoning or justification for it. America has 4% of the population of the planet yet when you hear that there has been a shooting in a civilised public place on the news the thought is not "where in the world has this happened" it is "where in America has this happened?"[/color]

Just to play devils advocate for a minute. That's the point isn't it. Other countries have relatively relaxed gun laws and yet it's a lot more rare for you to hear of school shootings and cinema massacres in places like Canada and Switzerland that both have higher levels of gun ownership than the US. Yes it does happen but then it also happens in the UK occasionally and we have some of the strictest gun laws.

It reminds me of an incident back in the 90's I forget the actual incident but a family had been killed by some maniac wielding a fully automatic assault rifle. Some politician went on the news to say he was going to use this as a platform to push his gun control agenda. All very well and good for the cameras but the weapon used in the killings had been illegal in the US for civilians for decades.

The gun crime problem they have in the US has more to do with their overall societies problems than their lax gun laws.

MrMuttley wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: If the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is being adopted, that just means someone just wants guns. And that's fine, if you just want guns that's your right to want guns. But don't try to dress it up as anything beyond that. There is no greater purpose, there is no higher reasoning or justification for it. America has 4% of the population of the planet yet when you hear that there has been a shooting in a civilised public place on the news the thought is not "where in the world has this happened" it is "where in America has this happened?"[/color]

Just to play devils advocate for a minute. That's the point isn't it. Other countries have relatively relaxed gun laws and yet it's a lot more rare for you to hear of school shootings and cinema massacres in places like Canada and Switzerland that both have higher levels of gun ownership than the US. Yes it does happen but then it also happens in the UK occasionally and we have some of the strictest gun laws.

It reminds me of an incident back in the 90's I forget the actual incident but a family had been killed by some maniac wielding a fully automatic assault rifle. Some politician went on the news to say he was going to use this as a platform to push his gun control agenda. All very well and good for the cameras but the weapon used in the killings had been illegal in the US for civilians for decades.

The gun crime problem they have in the US has more to do with their overall societies problems than their lax gun laws.

Source?

Of course correlation does not imply causation. Perhaps, but what other actions can be done other done controlling the weapons? Any ideas? Of course you don't have any ideas.

I've just found this on bbc news website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20738725

I suspect once again everyone will agree that this is issue, will wipe the tears and do literally nothing to prevent future murders. They will tell you that this is society issue, people will find a ways to acquire guns, people kill people etc etc and as usual nothing will happen. Maybe this is time to change this attitude.

MrMuttley wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: If the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is being adopted, that just means someone just wants guns. And that's fine, if you just want guns that's your right to want guns. But don't try to dress it up as anything beyond that. There is no greater purpose, there is no higher reasoning or justification for it. America has 4% of the population of the planet yet when you hear that there has been a shooting in a civilised public place on the news the thought is not "where in the world has this happened" it is "where in America has this happened?"[/color]

Just to play devils advocate for a minute. That's the point isn't it. Other countries have relatively relaxed gun laws and yet it's a lot more rare for you to hear of school shootings and cinema massacres in places like Canada and Switzerland that both have higher levels of gun ownership than the US. Yes it does happen but then it also happens in the UK occasionally and we have some of the strictest gun laws.

It reminds me of an incident back in the 90's I forget the actual incident but a family had been killed by some maniac wielding a fully automatic assault rifle. Some politician went on the news to say he was going to use this as a platform to push his gun control agenda. All very well and good for the cameras but the weapon used in the killings had been illegal in the US for civilians for decades.

The gun crime problem they have in the US has more to do with their overall societies problems than their lax gun laws.

You are right, that there are other places around the world where gun ownership is at a similar or even higher rate than in the US, yet these places have far fewer issues with nut-jobs going off on a homicidal rampage, and that ergo, it is not an issue of gun control per say, but a much broader sociological issue.

However, if the Swiss and Canadians have shown themselves, as societies, to be responsible enough to own guns without killing each other all the time, then maybe they're grown up enough, as a society, to have relatively lax gun laws. However, the US has shown time and again (this is a generalisation, I realise that) that they are not grown up enough to have guns without killing each other all over the place. As Alien' said "when you hear that there has been a shooting in a civilised public place on the news the thought is not "where in the world has this happened" it is "where in America has this happened?"", I know this is certainly my reaction.`

It's always the few who spoil it for the masses, most gun owning citizens are law abiding and not generally inclined to mass murder, I imagine. But as a whole, such incidents as this one in Connecticut happen far too often in the US for any reasonable human being to think that that society is mature enough to have such lax gun laws.

Obviously to suddenly tighten them up would not be easy, or likely have that much of an effect initially, seeing as there are already millions of guns out there in the public domain, and that some mentalist would likely see the "infringing on their constitutional rights" as enough justification to go out and slaughter a bunch of folk. But, eventually, there would be less guns, if they went about things the right way, and eventually there would be less shootings, thus eventually there would be less people getting murdered. Surely it's a constitutional right to expect your government, and fellow citizens, to desire, and follow through on, the pursuit of all reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of you being murdered? And that saying "hmm, maybe we shouldn't let virtually anyone own, and often carry, such obviously, and easily, deadly weapons, especially as they keep shooting each other" is an entirely reasonable thing to do?

Again as Alien pointed out, just change the constitution, it's been amended a load of times already, amend it again, and then people haven't got the "it's my constitutional right" "argument". The whole "right to bear arms" thing is completely outmoded anyway , in context, it was a vaguely sensible thing, but that was 221 years ago, back then America was pretty backward, and "wild", in many respects, compared to back this side of the pond, there's no need for it these days.

It'd also help with all the vicious gang/drug lord crime south of the boarder. I saw a documentary not too long ago about the problems in Mexico, and their police pointed out that virtually every murder committed was being carried out with guns from America, and we're not talking about illegal guns, but gun initially purchased entirely legally back in the US, and then smuggled south.

Maybe, in the future American society would be mature enough to take on the responsibility of owning so many guns, but maybe if they were, they wouldn't want to.

Edited for a bit of the drivel.

MrMuttley wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: If the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is being adopted, that just means someone just wants guns. And that's fine, if you just want guns that's your right to want guns. But don't try to dress it up as anything beyond that. There is no greater purpose, there is no higher reasoning or justification for it. America has 4% of the population of the planet yet when you hear that there has been a shooting in a civilised public place on the news the thought is not "where in the world has this happened" it is "where in America has this happened?"[/color]

Just to play devils advocate for a minute. That's the point isn't it. Other countries have relatively relaxed gun laws and yet it's a lot more rare for you to hear of school shootings and cinema massacres in places like Canada and Switzerland that both have higher levels of gun ownership than the US. Yes it does happen but then it also happens in the UK occasionally and we have some of the strictest gun laws.

It reminds me of an incident back in the 90's I forget the actual incident but a family had been killed by some maniac wielding a fully automatic assault rifle. Some politician went on the news to say he was going to use this as a platform to push his gun control agenda. All very well and good for the cameras but the weapon used in the killings had been illegal in the US for civilians for decades.

The gun crime problem they have in the US has more to do with their overall societies problems than their lax gun laws.

May be... anyway I heard that the American "pro-guns" today say that the "solution" is to give guns to the teachers. All what I can say is that they should know (and I'm sure they know, but ideological dogmas blind them) that once the teachers get the right to hold a gun in school, and that everybody knows it, the "solution" for mass murders is to kill the teachers first... And so on...
If you want to get a fast car, it's to drive it fast and as fast as you can (or to show off). If you get a fine kitchen, it's to cook fine meals, the finest you can (or to show off). If you get guns, and it's not to show off, you have to use them "for real"... And shooting cardboard targets with a .44 or an automatic war gun may certainly become frustrating.
We don't have (yet) laws and rules preventing you to use your fine kitchen to kill people, but we have a lot preventing you to kill people driving your car on open roads (you still get the right to drive fast on race tracks, and kill yourself there if you please), we have laws controlling arms, and whatever the "overall society problems" may be, laws can help, and lack of laws can explain a few things too.

You'll never get the guns off the street here, but you can end the sale of ammunition outside sporting venues, other than for your basic hunting rifles, and make it illegal to possess ammunition. Require searches before folks can leave the range to ensure they aren't taking it home. That means you can still shoot innocent woodland creatures and protect your home, and technically it doesn't present a 2nd amendment problem as the constitution only says you have the right to bear arms, not bullets! Would be a huge loss for the manufacturers of ammunition but I don't see that any differently than what's happened to tobacco companies.

toilet wrote:Again as Alien pointed out, just change the constitution, it's been amended a load of times already, amend it again, and then people haven't got the "it's my constitutional right" "argument". The whole "right to bear arms" thing is completely outmoded anyway , in context, it was a vaguely sensible thing, but that was 221 years ago, back then America was pretty backward, and "wild", in many respects, compared to back this side of the pond, there's no need for it these days.

This is fair enough indeed the constitutional right to bear arms is an amendment to the US constitution anyway. Second Amendment. The bit about other societies being more mature is probably pretty close to the mark.

@dizlexik Come on I did say I was playing devils advocate here. However since you mention it I have several ideas most of them based around better education and increasing social equality in the US. Certain sections of US society have a lot of hate in them. (not for a second suggesting that other societies don't) Education around respecting other people point of view has to start early in a persons life. Yet sometimes it seems (to an outsider) that the US relishes its divisions rather than seeking to close them.

I read an excellent article earlier today that pretty much debunks most of the pro gun arguments currently being put forward (especially by the author in the comments section).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-c ... 03052.html

I think the theory that saddens me most is that greater private gun ownership would improve the situation. It's being suggested that schools should have armed guards and that America should look to Israel as a great example of citizen protection.

Firstly, what this argument forgets is that America is not bordered by hostile and actively aggressive nations. Secondly what kind of country would America be if it was required to have armed guards in all public places. That does not sound much like the land of the free to me.

My fiancée is American, and comes from an area on the Texas/Louisiana border, in other words, the deep south. Having lived in the UK with me for 10 years, she has seen first hand what sensible gun control means and is frankly embarrassed at many of the pro gun ownership comments currently doing the rounds.

The mind boggles.....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... sf_twitter

MrMuttley wrote:

toilet wrote:Again as Alien pointed out, just change the constitution, it's been amended a load of times already, amend it again, and then people haven't got the "it's my constitutional right" "argument". The whole "right to bear arms" thing is completely outmoded anyway , in context, it was a vaguely sensible thing, but that was 221 years ago, back then America was pretty backward, and "wild", in many respects, compared to back this side of the pond, there's no need for it these days.

This is fair enough indeed the constitutional right to bear arms is an amendment to the US constitution anyway. Second Amendment. The bit about other societies being more mature is probably pretty close to the mark.

@dizlexik Come on I did say I was playing devils advocate here. However since you mention it I have several ideas most of them based around better education and increasing social equality in the US. Certain sections of US society have a lot of hate in them. (not for a second suggesting that other societies don't) Education around respecting other people point of view has to start early in a persons life. Yet sometimes it seems (to an outsider) that the US relishes its divisions rather than seeking to close them.

Ok. Fair enough, but note 2 things. You need about 2-3 generations to change society and that the killer used legally obtained weapon.

On a side note, anyone with Twitter could you report the account @AdamLanza__ - those sorts of tweets are hardly appropriate at any time, let alone like this.

Tufty wrote:On a side note, anyone with Twitter could you report the account @AdamLanza__ - those sorts of tweets are hardly appropriate at any time, let alone like this.

This is hacked account.

dizlexik wrote:

Tufty wrote:On a side note, anyone with Twitter could you report the account @AdamLanza__ - those sorts of tweets are hardly appropriate at any time, let alone like this.

This is hacked account.

its just some pathetic attention seeking moron, really horrific things being said though, but all for the attention, what a knob he is!

toilet wrote: Maybe, in the future American society would be mature enough to take on the responsibility of owning so many guns, but maybe if they were, they wouldn't want to.

Edited for a bit of the drivel.

First of all, let me say how horrified I was to hear this news, and as a parent of 4 and grandparent of 7 more, including a kindergartner, I can only imagine the pain all of the loved ones, and the school personnel must be going through. Whatever causes people to go off like this guy did, I cannot imagine.

Now, about the idea of toilet painting the "American society" as lacking maturity to own guns... I not only object to such a large generalization, but it is all I can do to restrain myself from saying what I really want to say about the wide-brush being applied here.

I have long been for gun controls, but sadly, I also understand the difficulties in implementing some kind of gun control that would really work. That is not to say that I have given up on it, but it is simply not as simple as some here would have it.

While there is no question that such horrible incidents seem to happen more often in the US than other countries, sadly it is not limited to the USA. This year, however, the US has had two such incidents with high death counts, the Aurora theatre shootings, and now in Connecticut. In July 2011, though 80 people were killed in a Norway summer camp. in April of 2009 were killed in the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy. 2008 it was 10 people killed in a vocational college in Finland... a year earlier had 8 people killed at a Finnish high school. I offer these not as excuses or to deflect attention from the tragedies in the USA, but merely to point out that sadly, the respect for life by some truly disturbed individuals is not limited to the "immature" American society. Does that make the rest of the world 'Immature" too? If so, then say so.

Blake wrote:

toilet wrote: Maybe, in the future American society would be mature enough to take on the responsibility of owning so many guns, but maybe if they were, they wouldn't want to.

Edited for a bit of the drivel.

First of all, let me say how horrified I was to hear this news, and as a parent of 4 and grandparent of 7 more, including a kindergartner, I can only imagine the pain all of the loved ones, and the school personnel must be going through. Whatever causes people to go off like this guy did, I cannot imagine.

Now, about the idea of toilet painting the "American society" as lacking maturity to own guns... I not only object to such a large generalization, but it is all I can do to restrain myself from saying what I really want to say about the wide-brush being applied here.

I have long been for gun controls, but sadly, I also understand the difficulties in implementing some kind of gun control that would really work. That is not to say that I have given up on it, but it is simply not as simple as some here would have it.

While there is no question that such horrible incidents seem to happen more often in the US than other countries, sadly it is not limited to the USA. This year, however, the US has had two such incidents with high death counts, the Aurora theatre shootings, and now in Connecticut. In July 2011, though 80 people were killed in a Norway summer camp. in April of 2009 were killed in the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy. 2008 it was 10 people killed in a vocational college in Finland... a year earlier had 8 people killed at a Finnish high school. I offer these not as excuses or to deflect attention from the tragedies in the USA, but merely to point out that sadly, the respect for life by some truly disturbed individuals is not limited to the "immature" American society. Does that make the rest of the world 'Immature" too? If so, then say so.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compa ... /65,136,12

Did I in anyway say that the US does not have a problem in this respect? No. I am well aware of the incidences as I live here. Sorry if we are not as saintly as the rest of the world, but apparently it is due to our immature society. How convenient to be able to stereotype and quantify so neatly.

Blake wrote:Did I in anyway say that the US does not have a problem in this respect? No. I am well aware of the incidences as I live here. Sorry if we are not as saintly as the rest of the world, but apparently it is due to our immature society. How convenient to be able to stereotype and quantify so neatly.

No. Clearly 300+ million people country will see more idiots that cause outbreaks than few million Norway. My point was that despite that incidents in Norway, Finland and Azerbaijan the gun homicides and all homicides rates are still much lower in these countries than in USA. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compa ... /65,136,12 USA have much bigger problem than these 3 countries. This is not just about the massacres. I don't contribute the rates to any immaturity of anything like that, rather to gun law as you can read in my other posts on this topic.

And this is the relevant part from you post that triggered my response:

Blake wrote: I offer these not as excuses or to deflect attention from the tragedies in the USA, but merely to point out that sadly, the respect for life by some truly disturbed individuals is not limited to the "immature" American society.

Blake wrote:

toilet wrote: Maybe, in the future American society would be mature enough to take on the responsibility of owning so many guns, but maybe if they were, they wouldn't want to.

Edited for a bit of the drivel.

First of all, let me say how horrified I was to hear this news, and as a parent of 4 and grandparent of 7 more, including a kindergartner, I can only imagine the pain all of the loved ones, and the school personnel must be going through. Whatever causes people to go off like this guy did, I cannot imagine.

Now, about the idea of toilet painting the "American society" as lacking maturity to own guns... I not only object to such a large generalization, but it is all I can do to restrain myself from saying what I really want to say about the wide-brush being applied here.

I have long been for gun controls, but sadly, I also understand the difficulties in implementing some kind of gun control that would really work. That is not to say that I have given up on it, but it is simply not as simple as some here would have it.

While there is no question that such horrible incidents seem to happen more often in the US than other countries, sadly it is not limited to the USA. This year, however, the US has had two such incidents with high death counts, the Aurora theatre shootings, and now in Connecticut. In July 2011, though 80 people were killed in a Norway summer camp. in April of 2009 were killed in the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy. 2008 it was 10 people killed in a vocational college in Finland... a year earlier had 8 people killed at a Finnish high school. I offer these not as excuses or to deflect attention from the tragedies in the USA, but merely to point out that sadly, the respect for life by some truly disturbed individuals is not limited to the "immature" American society. Does that make the rest of the world 'Immature" too? If so, then say so.

Admittedly "immature" and "mature" were not literally the meanings I was going for, but they sufficed to illustrate the concept of fairly major, wider sociological issues and their potential progression with time, in a way that's easy to grasp.

I myself stated that it is a generalisation, I stated that the vast majority of gun owners are not inclined to becoming mass murderers; I stated that suddenly implementing tighter laws would hardly sort the problem out instantly, and in fact could well create further problems, at least to begin with.

However, dizlexik's post kinda proves the point. Even when you put in the other 2 countries mentioned earlier, Canada and Switzerland (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compa ... 192,31,178) the US's rate of gun homicide per 100,000 people is massively, disproportionately, worse than the others, and pretty much any other "western" societys.

So to address the "Does that make the rest of the world 'Immature" too? If so, then say so.".

Indeed it would mean that, and I would say that, if we all shot the fairy cakes out of each other at the rate the Americans appear to. But no one can get on a high horse saying that because people get shot all over the world (which is something I was never ignoring) that everywhere else should be considered in the same light, not when the problem in the US is in such a completely different league.

To have such a disproportionate prevalence of an inclination towards shooting another human being could quite justifiably be deemed an indication so societal immaturity.

toilet wrote:
To have such a disproportionate prevalence of an inclination towards shooting another human being could quite justifiably be deemed an indication so societal immaturity.

I hate that a thread based on such a horrifying act of violence degenerates into yet another attack on the American people in general... And I hate that once again, I find myself defending my country and MOST of my fellow countrymen from people who sit on their donkeys and tell us what is wrong with Americans.

So what do you suggest our "immature society" do? Should we all be taken out behind the woodshed and whipped with willow branches until we mature? Is it something that will happen if we only but wait for another 100 or 200 years?

Just how does an "immature society" become a "mature society" according to those who lecture and generalize about us?