Slog Comments


Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
To play devil's advocate, as you yourself mentioned (I take you weren't being sarcastic), words wouldn't have worked on Adam Lanza, the Aurora fake-Joker guy (man, already forgot his name), or the Virginia Tec guy. Short of keeping e-z-slaughter guns away from them - or any kind of gun - or catching and treating their very poor mental health, or designing escape routes or protections into the building structures, the only way anyone was going to stop these two (or the Columbine shooters) was with another gun. Yeah, yeah, there was chaos, darkness, and smoke and innocent bystanders could very well be shot in a firefight, but my point is that words aren't a reliable protection once the shooter has fired the first bullet, or at least they wouldn't be better than firing back.
Posted by floater on January 10, 2013 at 11:16 PM · Report this
Now that we've shown that talking to the deranged shooter is effective, will the staff at The Stranger grinding their axe?

Will they stop supporting ineffective feel-good bullshit that does practically nothing to stop gun massacres while restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Didn't think so.
Posted by CPN on January 10, 2013 at 11:24 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 3
@2 - I'm a responsible drinker, but I still think drunk driving laws are a good idea.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on January 10, 2013 at 11:50 PM · Report this
How to stop school shooting deaths ...

Finally, text books are good for something!!!

Even against a 500 S&W Magnum.

Quiz: Are 5 rounds a "high capacity" magazine when one round can go through about 10 kids??
Posted by ZodWallop on January 11, 2013 at 2:58 AM · Report this
JensR 6
Words don't kill people - people who talk kill people!
Posted by JensR on January 11, 2013 at 5:09 AM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 7
1, 2, & 4: The fact that we even need to "talk down" a high-school shooter with a gun should be sufficiently disturbing to make you rethink your reality.

How about a world where that doesn't have to happen instead? How about instead of piling treatments on top of the symptoms, we go after some root causes for a while?
Posted by Dr_Awesome on January 11, 2013 at 6:16 AM · Report this
ChadK 8
@ 5 - Wasn't there an armed guard on duty at Columbine? Sure did a lot of good in stopping that massacre, didn't it?
Posted by ChadK on January 11, 2013 at 7:07 AM · Report this
chinaski 9
all the victims were armed with words, even che children.
Posted by chinaski on January 11, 2013 at 7:23 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 10
@8, yes, there was. He was on break at the time it happenened, but quickly returned to duty thereafter. Which may well have been the reason why Harris and Klebold shot themselves. Your point?
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on January 11, 2013 at 7:25 AM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 11
@10 that there is a mighty handy conclusion you've leaped to. One that conveniently supports your side.

And there's absolutely no evidence to support it. One data point doesn't make a conclusion. One unverifiable data point is horseshit.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on January 11, 2013 at 7:38 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 12
@1: i like your "keeping E-Z slaughter guns away from them" option. let's do that.

adam lanza
james holmes
jared loughner
seung-hui cho
Posted by Max Solomon on January 11, 2013 at 7:42 AM · Report this
Foggen 13
@3 we have laws against shooting people and laws about crazy people owning guns already, so I'm not sure what your point is. If we're going to analogize drunk driving and shooting sprees, the alcohol isn't the gun, the car is. Nobody's arguing that people with obvious impairments should not be stopped from behaving recklessly with a weapon. What we're arguing about is whether banning cars would be an appropriate response to a drunk driving event.

It would be stupid, of course, but it's what you're apparently arguing.
Posted by Foggen on January 11, 2013 at 7:46 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 14
@13: then our laws against crazy people acquiring & owning guns aren't working, and should be enhanced, with, yes, more inconvenience for the sane as a consequence.

you could make the process require a year in the active militia for all i care, since i am not buying a fucking gun. how james holmes & seung-hui cho got their arsenals was ridiculous.
Posted by Max Solomon on January 11, 2013 at 7:54 AM · Report this
@14 Some countries require anyone who wants to own a gun to pass a psychological evaluation and background investigation similar to those used to screen applicants for jobs in law enforcement. A system like that probably would have stopped James Holmes, Jared Loughner, and Seung-Hui Cho from getting guns.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 11, 2013 at 9:41 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.