caroljane

Although this is not really a topic that can be volleyed back and forth by quips, I must respond and confirm that we actually have laws against our citizens shooting each other "at our discretion," Daunce. That's generally not allowed except under very limited circumstances. Drunk driving is outlawed too, but for some reason, 11,000-plus people were killed by drunk drivers in America annually over the past couple of years. We would need 423 shootings like yesterday each year to simply equal the body count caused by drunk driving each year. You would need one Connecticut-like slaying per day every day of the week, and two on Sundays--every Sunday, mind you--to equal 11,000 annual shooting deaths in America. And yet I have never once heard any outsider (or American) take umbrage at the strange notion that we Americans have the freedom to consume alcohol, seemingly "at [our] discretion." On a note related to your quip, I see in Canada that somewhere between 30-50% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related, at least within the past 10 years. That's a lot of dead people because of Canada's apparent drunk driving problem. It would appear Canadians have the right to consume and alcohol and abuse that right on a regular basis, all with fatal consequences. Too much freedom and "discretion", perhaps? As an outsider to Canada, however, I would never wish to remove the seemingly sacred right Canadians clutch to that allows them to drink alcohol at their discretion and kill people with their cars. A horrible tragedy indeed. My guess is that nobody but Canadians can understand this. False analogies deserve false dichotomies. Accidental killings are not morally comparable to intentional ones. Although this is not really a topic that can be volleyed back and forth by quips, I must respond and confirm that we actually have laws against our citizens shooting each other "at our discretion," Daunce. That's generally not allowed except under very limited circumstances. Drunk driving is outlawed too, but for some reason, 11,000-plus people were killed by drunk drivers in America annually over the past couple of years. We would need 423 shootings like yesterday each year to simply equal the body count caused by drunk driving each year. You would need one Connecticut-like slaying per day every day of the week, and two on Sundays--every Sunday, mind you--to equal 11,000 annual shooting deaths in America. And yet I have never once heard any outsider (or American) take umbrage at the strange notion that we Americans have the freedom to consume alcohol, seemingly "at [our] discretion." On a note related to your quip, I see in Canada that somewhere between 30-50% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related, at least within the past 10 years. That's a lot of dead people because of Canada's apparent drunk driving problem. It would appear Canadians have the right to consume and alcohol and abuse that right on a regular basis, all with fatal consequences. Too much freedom and "discretion", perhaps? As an outsider to Canada, however, I would never wish to remove the seemingly sacred right Canadians clutch to that allows them to drink alcohol at their discretion and kill people with their cars. A horrible tragedy indeed. My guess is that nobody but Canadians can understand this. False analogies deserve false dichotomies. Accidental killings are not morally comparable to intentional ones. Furthermore if you carry your analogy through, all cars and all guns are equally culpable in the hands of irresponsible or homicidal users. What to do. in practical terms? The car is designed to transport people, the gun is designed to kill them. Better check with the NRA for support on this tough talking point.

It seems to be your opinion that laws are of no use in curbing human behaviour, Would we all be better off without them ? I had not noticed that you were a Rothbardian.

Although this is not really a topic that can be volleyed back and forth by quips, I must respond and confirm that we actually have laws against our citizens shooting each other "at our discretion," Daunce. That's generally not allowed except under very limited circumstances. Drunk driving is outlawed too, but for some reason, 11,000-plus people were killed by drunk drivers in America annually over the past couple of years. We would need 423 shootings like yesterday each year to simply equal the body count caused by drunk driving each year. You would need one Connecticut-like slaying per day every day of the week, and two on Sundays--every Sunday, mind you--to equal 11,000 annual shooting deaths in America. And yet I have never once heard any outsider (or American) take umbrage at the strange notion that we Americans have the freedom to consume alcohol, seemingly "at [our] discretion." On a note related to your quip, I see in Canada that somewhere between 30-50% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related, at least within the past 10 years. That's a lot of dead people because of Canada's apparent drunk driving problem. It would appear Canadians have the right to consume and alcohol and abuse that right on a regular basis, all with fatal consequences. Too much freedom and "discretion", perhaps? As an outsider to Canada, however, I would never wish to remove the seemingly sacred right Canadians clutch to that allows them to drink alcohol at their discretion and kill people with their cars. A horrible tragedy indeed. My guess is that nobody but Canadians can understand this. False analogies deserve false dichotomies. Accidental killings are not morally comparable to intentional ones.

No, because armed premises, armed teachers, armed lunch ladies, armed everybody is not viable to me. Arming the children would of course be the most rational thing. It is never too soon to learn to defend oneself is it? Or to learn that one could be attacked by anybody at anytime and must be ready for it? That is just a basic of life? A statistical probability, like it will rain sometime so we must always carry an umbrella, always, and look out for the rain?

Ellen, thanks for the background here..I think I know some of the places D has come from and it is interesting to know that any of those people would become interested in Osites per se.. reason is not their strong suit. PS Had a chance to read Mmarch yet? I have had a bad Trollope binge recent;y, I am getting worse. Carol

I was not quipping. I should rather have said, "kill each other at your discretion" rather than shoot. Certainly if I could remove assault weapons and handguns by magnetic satellite from all civilians on earth including policemen, I would. I am conservative in many ways. We are looking through different eyes. I see dead children who but for technicalities, might have lived. You see an imperishable ideal that despite the dead, the broken eggs, must live.

?

Indeed no one but Americans can understand it, nor do outsiders wish to remove your inalienable right to shoot each other at your discretion.

Xray, I have been thinking about you since the Connecticut horror. As a teacher we all have the nightmare imaginings, what if a classroom invasion, how to protect the students. I only teach adults, I can only imagine your feelings now, about your little ones.

Even in the most unthinkable tragedies, there is still tragicomedy. On Solo, Krazy Kyrel and the Dog have assigned the blame for the Connecticut deaths where it rightly belongs, on Communism and Feminism.

3,000 dead over 12 years works out to...? per year/ Carol statistically correct

Huh? Are you saying that you believe that it's possible to confiscate all guns? Guns would be "nonexistent"? They'd, what, be available to government authorities who you deem to be trustworthy enough to have them, and they'd somehow never make it in to the hands of others, or never be manufactured illegally and sold on the black market (um, like illegal drugs which are available everywhere)? J I am saying it is desirable to confiscate them, even if not possible. It is desirable to limit their accessibility as much as is possible. It is the only alternative I can envisage to the everything-private, gated kindergartens with armed teachers and metal detectors at the Story Room Door, where everyone keeps eternal vigilance because you are still and always at war, and at any moment King George or Immanuel Goldstein will storm in to trample on your liberties.

Excellent point...obviously it is much, much, much worse to die from a gun than a knife, club, axe, rope, or, a myriad of other devices. Brilliant exposition! Brilliant evasion. It is much, much easier to kill 20 people in one minute by gun, than by club, axe, rope or slingshot.

"Life, after all, is not so much to lose, But young men think it is. And we were young." -AE Housman This doesn't speak to the dead and their mourners of Newton--nothing could. But it has been going through my head all night, all day. Maybe now I have written it down it will go away.

Even the smartest criminals could not steal a nonexistent gun.

The headline in our local paper is "Silent Night",

None of these countries has a higher death rate from gunshots however, than does NRAmerica.

James Blunt has just used up all the blondes in Britain. Switzerland has lower taxes than the Scandinavian countries, so what is a rational pop star to do? Does he intend to stop performing anywhere else than in Switzerland, or to withdraw his recordings from everywhere else in the world but there? Ireland has long had no taxes for writers, yet world literature has somehow survived in distant outposts far from John O'Galt's Gulch. Businesses have always relocated when it was to their economic advantage (short-term anyway) and they always will, and other businesses will take their place or not. I'm not turning in my moocher's badge for a Gulch dollar just yet.

Sasha - Mom wants us to stay home from school tomorrow. I called Dad and he says, do we think we ought to stay home or to go. ???Don't know what to think. Later Mal

Of course in Syria, killing the kids first is just good Assad strategy. Is Syria a fixable problem? Hmm...I better save my reserve emotion until I can figure out how fixable.

The Massacre of the Innocents probably never happened, but if it did, Herod needed thousands of soldiers with thousands of swords. This guy just needed one handy=dandy gadget.

My perspective is that of one individual human life. When one individual, or millions of individuals die,I care about the reasons. The "bigger problems for the world", are for rational types like you to fix as dictated by your Hierarchy of Caring. Almost everyone cares about things like this... the debate is not whether or not one should care, but how much focus to devote to one problem in relation to others. It's not irrational because it's emotional, it's irrational because it's disproportionately emotional. Save your emotions for problems that can realistically be solved. Taking your advice, I have saved my emotions and now think of 27 more lives lost today, most of them in the earliest stages of youth. in Connecticut. As a teacher and mother of a 28year old, which apparently the murderer was, naturally I felt a certain interest in this unfortunate incident. Gun access is a big problem that can realistically be fixed. Too many people waste their emotions on their own hypothetical rights while their neighbours die around them every day.

The Ives Concord Sonata supposedly represents four different philosophies. None of the movements inspired me to remove my clothing and throw back my head in the joys of my Sense of Life, so I guess the New Englanders, like everybody else before Rand, got philosophy wrong.

If it does, then String Theory is al dente? J Just add minnows and it's a OneMinute Meal for thinkers on the go.

Maybe you should double check with another source. Things found on the web do not always exist, geographically and otherwise.