Two things

[scarfman]

Perhaps it's preaching to the choir to put it in my LJ, but I feel like doing my part to propagate what I believe are the two most important points in the discussion of the week's top news story.

• The actions of the shooter were planned with deliberation. If guns had not been available he'd've found another way. The gun control issue is irrelevant to the discussion of this event because greater gun control could not have prevented what happened.
• What could have prevented it was the psychological and psychiatric programs to which the shooter was subjected. Obviously they didn't, but you and I haven't any way of knowing how many people there are who, subjected to the same programs, have come away helped and functional. No system is perfect and every system has its unpredictable misses alongside its hits, and by their very nature there's nothing we can do about them except keep a level head when they happen.

Comments

[sidhekin.livejournal.com]

So, if not gun control, what is the difference between USA and Europe, that we have fewer cases like this, and that on average, each such case is less deadly?

The worst case I could find on a quick wikipedia search would be the Dunblane massacre of 1996, where 17 were killed. Within the last 25 years, I find two more cases of 16 victims each, but no more with 10 or more victime. In the same time in America, I find cases of 21, 14, 16, 23, 13, and 32, plus two questionable cases (arson killing 87 and deliberate plane crash kiling 43). (Also, the European population is more than twice that of USA, making the relative numbers even worse for the USA.)

If not gun control, what is the difference? Are we, as a population, just that much saner than you? or more difficult to kill?

(Oh, and for the record: Each European killer mentioned above had a license for the weapon(s) used. No system is perfect.)

[scarfman]

I dunno. It must be something cultural.