[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by horatio

Another factor might be that some Asian societies are less liberal and more communitarian.

Yes. In fact you can see that even see that in the ideals of the Chinese Revolution. Not the communist revolution but the 1911 revolution. While many of the ideals found in the American Revolution are very much present in the 1911 Revolution, the Chinese didn't take individual liberties quite to the same extent. In fact, nationalism was also one of the guiding principles adopted by the Chinese revolution. To quote the revolution's leader, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, “An individual should not have too much freedom. A nation should absolute freedom.” I think that's where the Chinese revolution and the American revolution diverge philosophically. This may also be one of the less tangible reasons why China tends to be at odds with the US and Europe with regards to situations like Syria and Iran. China has very strong views on national sovereignty.

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

I believe the NYPD has roughly 40,000 uniformed officers, probably more if you add in auxiliary.

...Yup...That's about the size of the active duty US Coast Guard...That's the US coasts, the Great Lakes, the major rivers, as well as overseas.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

I understand that people feel passionately about the issue but let's take a cool look at it.
In theory lax guns have an ambiguous effect, they make it easier for criminals to get guns and they increase the chance for citizens to defend themselves.
Empirically the issue is fairly clear. Countries like Singapore or Japan where firearms are illegal have less than 2% the number of gun victims than the US.
In politics the question is not "taking all the weapons away", the abolishment of the 2nd amendment, but rather how to design constitutional gun laws.

Cooling down.....

I can agree with your summation of politics there, Horatio. And the problem is, there really is no "middle" ground, sad to say. Ultimately, it's damned if ya' do, damned if ya don't. No matter how stringent, lienient, equitable, or flexible the gun law, the violent criminal who uses guns will always make the worst of it. And then, supporters will yell out "Enough isn't being done!" And even some opposition might echo it.

[horatio]

I might not be a big fan of guns but I cannot help but love Denny Crane here.
Talking about Japan, Butch knows the best weapon to defend yourself and your brothers and sisters.

[kevin]

It's a terrible event for the people affected, no doubt.

The rest is just the same reheated discussion that is spurred every time there is a mass shooting. It will rage for a while then eventually quiet down until the next mass shooting.

[samwiseb]

I feel bad for the boy's family. If anyone shouldn't need to answer for what's happened, it's them.

[NCC-73515]

If say 50% of society are stable enough psychologically to handle a gun, that leaves the country with 50% dangerous people. You go crazy, you lose control for just a minute of rage, and you might have killed people. Without a gun, that would be much harder to happen, because you'd need to get much closer to people and punch/slit them one by one, which usually puts a preventing behavioral barrier between your rage and the actual attack, I would think. Arm everyone and just one annoyed guy can mean several deaths. Arm the few who work for the e.g. the police, and that won't be possible.

[samwiseb]

I completely agree. I've never wanted to own a gun anyway, therefore it would be no sacrifice on my part if we lived in a 'no guns' society.

However, even if you could outlaw guns (and we in the US can't even try to pass a fair tax code without congressmen on both sides holding the measure hostage), there would be no way to get rid of the ones we already have.

[chator]

Originally Posted by kevin

It's a terrible event for the people affected, no doubt.

The rest is just the same reheated discussion that is spurred every time there is a mass shooting. It will rage for a while then eventually quiet down until the next mass shooting.

There is something different about this shooting though, that is, the killer's profile, comic-book movie geek/graduate student. Most terrorists are involved in politics or religion, and come from a background of poverty, and not having higher education. So they are frustrated, don't have much to lose, and have been radicalized by politics or religion. This guy was different!

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

He's different because he's a different category. He's not a terrorist, he's a mass murderer. They are not the same thing. He's more like the columbine shooters, or Virginia Tech.

[kevin]

From my understanding the authorities have only recently safely entered the apartment he lived in, so that may reveal some kind of 'reason' for his act.

At present, although the location is somewhat new, the act appears more in line with Columbine/Virginia as Tom states, and less Gabrielle Giffords.

At the moment.