At 09:30am on Friday 14th December, Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and with unfathomable murderous fury began to execute children and adults. The shots he fired echoed around the world, shocking the global collective conscience to its core. Sandy Hook does not stand in the crosshairs of opposing armies, but in the leafy suburbs of a small town, 60 miles northeast of New York in America, far away from the world's war torn regions. For all intents and purposes, Sandy Hook Elementary School was a safe and lovely little spot of education for flowering minds, and should have been the last place on earth one would consider as a site for a massacre.

We may never fully know or understand the compunction that drove Lanza to act in the way he did? There is no security measure capable of predicting and protecting against such randomness of human rage, focussed so intently as it was upon the annihilation of children and their guardians. The mind reels with uncomprehending grief, and the heart beats numbly in the aftermath. What is to be done? What can be done? More importantly, is there a 'will' to do it?

It would be very churlish of me, as an Englishman, to castigate Americans for their gun culture. To do so especially, without appreciating why the 'gun' is so allied to the American mind's concept of liberty and freedom, would make impotent the force of my appeal to Americans for self-examination. An ancestral compatriot of the British once rightfully called Americans to arms against the British with the words..."These are the times that try mens souls!"; and I suppose, with much less eloquence, I repeat those words as a silent thought...calling not to arms, but to disarm. There is no war, but that which is in your heart. There is no tyranny, but that to which you enslave yourselves.

Nevertheless, before any form of disarming can occur, it is necessary to identify the obstacles that stand in the way. Two safeguards have to be put in place that answer the fears towards that of tyrannous government, and that of the criminal mind. Fear really is the heart of the debate. Guns, per se, are not the problem, alone, they are a tool of killing, but cannot act under their own agency, it takes a human mind and a human hand to work them. Ergo: the debate must center on the human agency, with its goal to change mindsets.

As things stand at the present, gun control is an unworkable cry for change. Be that as it may, it does not relinquish American society from the moral and ethical responsibility to seek the change, to seek a societal disarming, first of the mind, and then of the hand. There can be no 'land of the free' whilst its society is armed to the teeth in fear. It may well be very edifying for the citizens of America to view themselves, not from the inside out, but from the outside in...even with their fears intact! Needless to say, it would be equally edifying for non-Americans to exercise a similar view, but vice versa.

How does one beguile a mind in fear of a tyrannous government? How does one persuade a household in fear of unlawful trespass to disarm? I don't for one second suggest holding answers to these crux questions, nor do I believe any one mind ever will. It will take a collective effort of will and self-examination to peer into the murk and fog to assemble the answers piecemeal: but, this I do believe, the answers are there, and with the right mindset, so is the will.

I don't accept that a gun advocate relishes the thought of taking up arms against his fellow countrymen in whatever capacity it may require him to. He has a gun, not simply because the 2nd amendment gives him the right to own one, but because he seeks to protect his life, his family, and his property against any unlawful threat. Until the society around him can demonstrate that it can be the 'pre-emptive' safeguard he seeks, that which it should be, can anyone reasonably expect him to relinquish his weapon?

Nor do I believe that the gun advocate looks upon the aftermath of gun rampages with a disinterested eye. He is affected just like anyone else. He is shocked and saddened by such scenes just like you and I. Like you and I, he could not look at the sweet cherubic face of blonde Emilie Parker, without looking into the eyes of his own daughter or son and think what if it was his child at Sandy Hook? His natural reaction would be to want to arm teachers, or at the more practical, to have an armed security patrol at schools. Yet, even he would cognise that this is not a real solution, it is in fact a contraction that actually perpetuates the problem. It is a non sequitur to think that more guns equates to more safety. If that was the solution, near on 300 million guns in society should have all but obliterated death by gun in America, but the statistics show this to be nowhere near the case. Just as guns are not the real problem, more guns are not the real solution.

Even though I have called gun control as an unworkable cry for change, it is not without an eye toward contradiction that I also state that some form of gun control is absolutley necessary, certainly as an interim towards the real solution of wholescale disarming. Gun control has to be more efficient and more focussed. It absolutely has to hit the targets (no pun intended). It has to identify the problematic areas and it has to make it very hard to obtain a gun, both legally and illegally. It has to reasonably define what kind of gun each type of household can store, and how many. A home in the suburbs or urban areas of a city is different to that of one out in the countryside. Farms have different requirements to that of a city dwelling. Is it really reasonable or necessary for someone to have a small arsenal of weapons in his home...even as a gun enthusiast? Lanza couldn't get a gun, so he took those legally owned by his mother, and was able to fire a large amount of bullets, and take so many precious little lives. Honest, self-examination is required.

I do not doubt that there will be those whom will think it unthinkable to disarm, or to accept gun control, no matter what the human cost in wasted lives. Such rationale I cannot reach, or compete with in debate...I am already defeated before I utter any particular word, yet what I write here is for them, their rationale has to be argued with for the sake of the current unworkable change. We have to examine and debate the problem until the change becomes workable. It's going to take time, it's going to take years, and more rampages are going to happen...more lives are going to be lost.

Sandy Hook was the blooming flower of a deadly weed, and unless American society can find a way to pull up the roots, more weeds are going to bloom and flower...you've just got to find a way...

Charlotte Bacon, 6. Daniel Barden, 7. Rachel Davino, 29. Olivia Engel, 6. Josephine Gay, 7. Ana Marquez Greene, 6. Dawn Hochsprung, 47. Dylan Hockley, 6. Madeleine Hsu, 6. Catherine Hubbard, 6. Chase Kowalski, 7. Jesse Lewis, 6. James Mattioli, 6. Grace McDonnell, 7. Anne Marie Murphy, 52. Emilie Parker, 6. Jack Pinto, 6. Noah Pozner, 6. Caroline Previdi, 6. Jessica Rekos, 6. Avielle Richman, 6. Lauren Russo, 30. Mary Sherlach, 56. Victoria Soto, 27. Benjamin Wheeler, 6. Allison Wyatt, 6.

...their memory demands it! Rest in Peace.

Adam Lanza fatally shot his mother in the face with her own gun. So that proves that her guns were not secured (ie gun safe). Gun Control starts with how and where they are stored.

America must get rid of Capital Punishment before the population understands that killing people is bad.

You dont kill people.

Is America really such an evil place that people need to "carry". Screw the constitution, I would move. What a living hell.

America has a terrible welfare system so this creates criminals. The best place to start fixing America and making it a safe place to live is to improve the welfare system and stop creating millions of criminals. There is no way of getting rid of the millions of guns. It would be easier to get rid of criminals and try to convince Americans to stop being so scared.

America is the most violent country on the planet that is not lawless or in the middle of a war, so the problem is not guns, but just how our society socially thinks and interacts.

So what change is the OP suggesting? We could have the same gun control laws as England, and we would still be the most violent country.

Another aspect is the copycat issues and that can be blamed on social media. We can’t prevent the one crazy and then a few other crazies that decide it would be cool to repeat with their own massacre.

London having the most cameras per sq km in the world and extreme gun control laws still see about 3000 to 4000 gun crimes per year and 17,000 knife crimes, so once again even in England if someone wanted to do mass killings they would just as easily as in the states.

The bottom line is you might change gun laws, but changing how people socially interact is something that takes a very long time to change.

Control all the guns; won't stop mass murder.

Monsanto and Big Pharma are two examples.

----

People need to change their thinking.

20 people die and it is an outrage.

500,000 die from cancer each year, sell pink stuff.

Murder is ill-defined these days.

Many thanks for the responses.

Bilk22:

Buddy there is "gun control". There are law. That's called "gun control". What are you blathering about?

What I am 'blathering' about is contained in my post...I refer you to it.

CosmicCitizen:

Gun Control starts with how and where they are stored.

I believe the best form of gun control ultimately lays in the absence of guns. My post may uphold for gun control because that is my stance, but it acknowledges that for America it is a far more ingrained complication. What happend at Sandy Hook and the other mass shooting locations around America, brings the issue of 'gun control' firmly back on the table, but those events are not about gun control itself...it is just one of many elements that need to be explored as part of the self-examination, and the discussion towards a solution. What I am acknowledging in my post is that gun control, alone, is not the whole solution, but that it may help to some degree?

Spangledbanner:

America has a terrible welfare system so this creates criminals. The best place to start fixing America and making it a safe place to live is to improve the welfare system and stop creating millions of criminals.

When you use the word 'criminal', are you referring to the 'career' criminal, or a person committing a criminal act out of desperation for some need? In medieval times, people suffered extreme abuse, maiming, or even death, simply for stealing a loaf of bread...the punishment far-outstripped the crime. Your post pertains to society in general, as does mine, but as Adam Lanza lived in a modest but affluent neighbourhood, we must conclude that his act was not bourne out from desperation, or from the state of the welfare system?

Wildtimes:

Our country is, in my opinion, TOO BIG for gun control to have any effect on reduction of violence.

Many thanks for your encouraging remarks. I agree, the problem of violence in America is too wide-scale for gun control to have much an effect. Yet, does not the size of the problem require there be some form of gun control? Maybe, instead of using the term 'gun' control, perhaps 'weapon' control would be more apt? Of course, to attempt to reduce violence, one must first look at the causes of violence and seek to eradicate them in parallel with public weapon control?

Laws don't stop people from doing what they are hell-bent on doing.

Absolutely true! I have no idea how you would go about resolving this issue.

Xtrozero:

London, having the most cameras per sq km in the world, and extreme gun control laws, still see about 3000 to 4000 gun crimes per year, and 17,000 knife crimes, so once again, even in England, if someone wanted to do mass killings they would just as easily (do so) as in the states.

Quite true, and they have. We have had mass killings here in the UK with the weapon of choice being the gun, so gun control in itself, is not the safety factor that stops them from happening entirely, but may perhaps lower their occurrence? I cannot give any gravitas to any evidence that this might be true, it may be an entirely different social factor why the UK has such a low count of mass killings, and if that is the case, whatever factor it may be, might be what is absent in America?

...changing how people socially interact is something that takes a very long time to change.

Yes it does, and perhaps, this the key. If you explore the common values that unite peoples of nations like Great Britain and America, and examine the differences, perhaps clues may arise as to why violence in America is one of the more ubiquitous ways of interaction? People interact out of perceptions, so where do you think the violence arises from?

Zroth:

Control all the guns; won't stop mass murder. Monsanto and Big Pharma are two examples.

As much as I agree with what your saying, particularly with the pharmaceutical industry, I feel it goes tangentially against the discussion, but it is something for explorative discussion on another thread. Please understand, I am not ignoring the connective strands of your thinking.

GoOfYFoOt:

What resides among us, that thrives on constant turmoil, war, and upheaval? What entity could possibly benefit from keeping the world at each other's throats? Who furthers their agenda with the continuing deaths of the innocent?

Many thanks for your kind words. I believe you frame the perennial questions quite succinctly. Why are we unable to bring ourselves within the same frequency of resonant hopes? Why is it that the very things we equally seek, be used as the very basis to keep us apart? Why is it we seemingly cannot partake of them equally? Is it the structure of our societal systems? Is it the control mechanisms of the 'trickle down' benefit of public wealth from top to bottom, so unequally shared?

GoOfYFoOt@

Many have hypothesized that we have a social problem in this country that leads to these heinous acts. I concur with that line of thinking...but, I just don't see a legal solution that keeps the guns away from those who would use them on the innocent! How on earth would we determine who is capable of such atrocities, let alone who would carry out a determined plan to commit them?

Many thanks for your articulate response. Your community sounds like a small Yorkshire village away from the larger conurbation that surround them. They can be quite ideal places in which to live and raise a family to one's own moral code and that of one's church. They can be friendly, tolerant, and inviting, and seem far-removed from the cares of the larger society of the country as a whole. Your community sounds like a sensible and pragmatic hamlet, and as things stand, little needs to be looked at with concern...may it continue so.

In order to derive a 'legal' solution to the gun problem, it is first necessary to acknowledge that there is a problem, maybe not in your community, but certainly at the national level. Once the problem is acknowledged, the more complex issue of its articulation has to be tackled. How to define the problem is an important step, but in order to move forward from 'definition', a consensus has to be agreed that the definition opted for is the right one. I believe that both federal and state governments need help from the communities within their respective boroughs to arrive at that 'definition' by equally acknowledging the gun problem to exist. It is not a political problem, but a social issue dealing with ethics and the perceived utility of the 2nd amendment.

The following paragraph is something I wrote earlier on another thread. I bring it here because I feel it has something to say about the need to tackle the issue...

It is essential that we do not remain inert or feel morally powerless in making a response. Morals do have common denominators that we can all share and agree on, and at some point, moral consensus (not mob consensus) must override certain rights when behaviour oversteps the protective boundaries of those rights. I am not arguing for any particular 'right' or 'rights' to be taken away from anyone, as I believe 'rights' become sacrosanct to civilised progress, and if we are going to lose them, we must do so with great reluctance, argument and fight. Yet, if any particular 'right' loses its power to reflect the moral code and ethical behaviour of contemporary society, are we not duty bound to revisit it, debate its usefulness, and update it as necessary, or replace it entirely? What we must never do is take any 'right' for granted.

...I feel it would be morally incongruous to deny a problem exists for fear that it may affect one's right, to do so, I am sure you will agree, would be an ethical abrogation.

There are 300 million guns in domestic American society, there are not 300 million homes. The figure is a utilitarian overkill (no pun intended), and indicates quite clearly that a problem exists. The goal of gun control has to be to reduce this number. The fact that a criminal would not follow societal rules and laws is irrelevant to the debate, you don't allow a criminal to dictate the terms or the direction of the debate, it is an entirely separate issue, one of law and its enforcement. Adam Lanza was not a criminal, but he did perform criminal acts in the last hours of his short life. Does America really need that amount of guns? Does it really need to allow the manufacture of more guns for a domestic market already groaning under the weight of such a surplus?

I believe the key to good and effective gun control would be through limitation, limiting whom can legally have a firearm, and the amount of firearms (and of course, ammunition) one can store at one's home. You have to put the legislation in place first, before you can do the physical act of reducing the surplus. What is required is a new national census of gun ownership, and a re-register of the guns and their serial numbers. This won't catch all firearms in society, but it will give an overall picture of the current situation. People will purposely hide guns or not declare them, at the risk of heavy fines or imprisonment. I also feel it might be a good idea to not allow people to carry a firearm in large cities and towns in public, with immediate confiscation and fining upon detection. There are lessons to learn from Dodge City and Wyatt Earp. It may not reduce crime figure of violence, but it would reduce violence with a gun, and that will reduce fatalities.

This would, of course, require a more efficient and focussed policing policy. There has to be a sensible and common sense approach to the problem.

GoOfYFoOT:

...until the mention of Earp and company, and Dodge City.

It was simply a reference (perhaps a clumsy one?) to Earp's insistence of taking guns from the cowboys whilst in town, but like you say, it is of a different time, and a microcosm of the current picture.

I believe that it's more about securing them and getting them out of, and keeping them out of, the wrong hands, (rather) than limiting the liberties of the law-abiding!

As much as I agree with the resonance of what you state here, I feel compelled to ask the question...why do you feel it is a limiting of liberties? You still have a right to ownership of firearms, your 2nd amendment right is not compromised, but actually strengthend by a clarity of purposeful definition, updated to contemporary requirements. I do not subscribe to a 'one-size-fits-all' situation, but to one that is meritorious...a means test I suppose. To obtain a gun legally has to be hard in order to subscribe to the spirit of effective, but not necessarily liberty limiting, gun control.

Okay. Let me ask you outright...do you believe there is a need for a more effective gun control, and if you do, how would you envisage it, and how would you apply it?

It would seem there are two concerns: a) the loss of certain liberties, and b) the criminal element? As far as I can discern, the only connective strand between the two concerns is the manner by which a gun is obtained. It is understandable to believe that gun advocates whom are indeed law-abiding citizens are the ones being made to feel the greater weight of responsibility, whom will have to make the greater sacrifice. In the short-term, it may indeed be the case, because the criminal side of the debate is a far more complex issue, and requires a wider spectrum of response. Perhaps, it may be more prudent to sort the criminal issue out firstly, before applying it to law-abiding citizens?

To me, the subject of gun control is not simply about the gun, per se, but more about societal attitudes towards it. It is about the reasons stated for the need for having a gun. Effective gun control, as far as I'm concerned, is about addressing the reasons for the need. It is in the 'need' where the obstacles for effective and demonstrable gun control lay. A confident and comfortable assurance that answers the criminal side of the debate is required that delivers people from their need to own a gun. You have to allay people of their fear of criminal gun attack. I do not accept that it is beyond the wit and wherefore of the American people to solve this issue.

Now that I've gotten that off of my chest, I'd like to respond to your questions more concisely. Please note that none of my disdain was directed at you.

As much as I agree with the resonance of what you state here, I feel compelled to ask the question...why do you feel it is a limiting of liberties? You still have a right to ownership of firearms, your 2nd amendment right is not compromised, but actually strengthend by a clarity of purposeful definition, updated to contemporary requirements. I do not subscribe to a 'one-size-fits-all' situation, but to one that is meritorious...a means test I suppose. To obtain a gun legally has to be hard in order to subscribe to the spirit of effective, but not necessarily liberty limiting, gun control.

Let me reiterate more precisely.
It's not the actions that you suggest, per se, that I disagree with. It's simply my inability to rely on the Federal Government for it's implementation. Historically, their idea of proper legislation directly affects me, the law-abiding citizen, and does little if anything, to address the reason for the action in the first place! There are just too many, egos, agendas and expectant lobbyists for policy makers to ever contrive a sound solution to a given issue.
No longer, are our elected leaders chosen on the merits of their wisdom. Nor, are they even properly vetted for their intelligence, morality or potential effectiveness. The current system is so flawed, that those with true potential, which possess genuine qualities, are often ostracized, slandered and practically politically castrated by the incumbents of the body in which they are applying!

This must be corrected, immediately!

Okay. Let me ask you outright...do you believe there is a need for a more effective gun control, and if you do, how would you envisage it, and how would you apply it?

I honestly, absolutely can not envision a system that would function to completely irradicate illegal guns in this country. There simply exists too much corruption at every level of government and law enforcement.

Now, could a system be devised and implemented that could make a substantial dent in it? Yes. Without a doubt. But it would take a vast, concerted, grass roots effort, to do so. And, while we may have an existing, suitable climate, right now...the plan alone, would take months to devise, based on the speed at which such things currently transpire.

It would seem there are two concerns: a) the loss of certain liberties, and b) the criminal element? As far as I can discern, the only connective strand between the two concerns is the manner by which a gun is obtained. It is understandable to believe that gun advocates whom are indeed law-abiding citizens are the ones being made to feel the greater weight of responsibility, whom will have to make the greater sacrifice. In the short-term, it may indeed be the case, because the criminal side of the debate is a far more complex issue, and requires a wider spectrum of response. Perhaps, it may be more prudent to sort the criminal issue out firstly, before applying it to law-abiding citizens?

Here's an off-the-cuff spontaneity...Why don't we secure two sparrows with the same rock?

What if, ALL of those who choose to participate, when applying for a firearms permit, be given a basic law enforcement class while qualifying for their "right" to bear arms. Essentially, deputizing each and every one of them. Then, those who satisfy these stringent conditions, would be free to purchase, possess and utilize, with their utmost discretion and theft-proof storage, any available weapon or weapons that they deem necessary, for their specific region or civic requirements...
I mean, we don't mind seeing guns with the local police. So someone with similar credentials would appease the masses, right? And any hysteria caused by the presence of a gun, should wane in light of it, shouldn't it? Their police power would obviously be limited to certain functions, but a cop on every street corner, that didn't have to be compensated? A set of concerned, diligent eyes at every turn, surely would be able to make progress against the criminal element, far beyond law enforcement's current ability, wouldn't it?

To me, the subject of gun control is not simply about the gun, per se, but more about societal attitudes towards it. It is about the reasons stated for the need for having a gun.....You have to allay people of their fear of criminal gun attack. I do not accept that it is beyond the wit and wherefore of the American people to solve this issue.

A response to this, can be found both in my previous paragraph, as well as my previous post.

The conversation between Elysiumfire and Goofyfoot is the best conversation I've seen here since the tragedy in Newtown. It's refreshing to see a Brit look at the situation without exuding a patronizing sense of cultural superiority and and a pro-Second Amendment American without belligerent defensiveness. I'll be the first to admit that I have at times over the past couple of days found myself acting like the latter.

I'm personally working on a thread that is similar to the last paragraph of goofyfoot's post and hope to have it posted at some point tomorrow. I'm a person who thinks the "shall not be infringed" portion of the Second Amendment is most important, but I'm trying to flesh out an idea that would appease those that believe in the Second Amendment but focus on the "a well regulated militia". It's not an easy task for one who believes that the right to own arms is as inherent a human right as the right to worship, speak freely, and assemble peaceably.

GoOfYFoOt:

...sorry for that, rant off.

Lol. I fully understand and appreciate everything you said. Here's a quote from 'Common Sense' by Thomas Paine...

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities are heightend by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

No matter what country you visit, the 'ordinary folk' you meet, regardless of their ethnic origin or their seemingly disparate culture, are very much like we ourselves. They just want to live an unremarkable life in relative comfort, relative happiness, feeling loved by those around them. They want to live in a community that can look after itself, regulate itself, and be at peace with itself...unfettered and unassailed by government intervention.

Alas, the days of the idyll hamlet, cut off from the cares of the world, are long gone, more so here in Britain than in America, because its vast size affords small communities a little breathing space from the squeezing social tentacles of the big cities. I am at odds with our world of today, its feels so alien to me, everything happens at such a fast pace; information, styles, transport, etc. It seems now that I can only appreciate the natural circadian rhythms of the wild life which is the only thing that matches the pulse of my yearning for times gone by.

I take comfort from the fact that within the next 20 years or so, my natural time span on this planet will have reached its conclusion, and my secular belief is that oblivion is my destination, and I am not troubled by it at all. If there's one thing I would like to think I have accomplished, is that I was able to inspire others in some small way to question and to think for themselves with adroit logic and humane reason, and through that focus of mind, they were able to achieve much more than I was able to. Yet, for all that I was unable to achieve for myself, I harbour not a single regret. My life was what it was, and no amount of regret will ever change it.

The world is too big for me to cure its ills, its pains too great for whatever balm I can muster to ease, but it never stopped me from trying, and as long as we can retain a sense of purpose, life retains a meaning, and encourages us to continue in hope of some accomplishment. We must never allow ourselves to stagnate, or ever convince ourselves that our actions are too small to have an effect upon the larger picture...they do.

Memories are the only footprints we leave behind, and it is the mark of a man whose memories carried in the hearts and minds of those whom knew him, are gladdened by their presence. That has to be the most succinct accomplishment of all. Best wishes.

Very well written opening post,and I agree with some of it. Thyere are some fundamental issue's which I just cannot see a solution to,however. As the OP stated,before we can expect gun owners to willingly give up their firearms,we must find a way to insure that they no longer need those firearms for protection of family and self. This,to my mind, is just not possible.

People who are not from the U.S or haven't visited much of it, I think often fail to comprehend the sheer size and spread of the country,and just how many guns there are. Disarming the law abiding citizens would be a huge undertaking,but perhaps possible.Disarming the gangs,criminals and so on would simply be impossible. Fines and jail time mean nothing to these people,they are already "outlaws"so to speak,anyway.There is simply nothing you can do to make them relinquish their weapons willingly.If you can't do that,you can't ask the upstanding citizen to relinquish theirs either,because as you correctly stated, it would be unreasonable to do so. So,what to do? Honestly,I don't know.

As to the number or type of weapons being limited and hard to get, I don't see that as being generally helpful. Most gun owners,including myself,own a fair number of weapons. This in itself is not a problem. Having more than one gun doesn't necessarily make one any more deadly,as it's difficult to use more than one at a time. While horrific massacre's like the most recent garner lots of attention,statistically they are a drop in the bucket when compared to the total number of homicides commited in a year. Most of those homicides are not commited with multiple weapons, and in fact the use of multiple weapons during a crime is relatively low. The gang banger with one handgun is a far greater threat than the enthusiast with 20. Restrictions of this sort once again punish those least likely to do any harm,while having little or no impact on the real problem. I have a dozen or so firearms, but am absolutely no threat to society,as my firearms are used for hunting or recreation.If needed I would protect myself with them,but that is not my primary purpose for them.

This,I think,brings us to the crux of the issue:the mindset of the people. If you talk to some of the older folks about firearms,they will tell you about taking hteir shotguns and .22's on the schoolbus to the school,leaving them in the principals office or their own locker,and then going out hunting with friends after school. This wasn't uncommon,and yet school shooting's were uncommon. Why is this? This is the issue we must figure out,and soon.Why are so many becoming so disconnected,so uncaring and callous, that they can walk into a school and kill innocent young children? Why are people willing to kill someone on the street for their shoes,or because they are wearing the wrong color? It is this widespread mental illness,or evil,that is the cause of the problem.

I don't KNOW what is causing the problem,but I have some idea's. First off, it seesm apparent to me that the more densely populated we become,the more violent we get.The same phenomenon can be observed with animals. Overcrowding causes stress,people under continual stress,with constant visual and auditory bombardmdent,become desensitized and start to do crazy things. For myself, a day spent out in the woods hunting by myself,without sound other than nature and no other humans in sight, is like a mental and physical recharge. I need it,I MUST have it in order to deal with the day to day stresses of life. How many people out there never get a SINGLE MINUTE of true silence and calm during an average day? Even at night the cities don't sleep,noise and light is everywhere. I jsut don't think that's how we humans were meant to live,but maybe that's just me.

One last point,and that is the acceptance of violence as a solution to a problem. We tell kids violence is not the answer,and yet we prove that statement false every day. Television shows glamourize violence at every turn,as do the vidoe games. They show violence used equally by good and bad,so no distinction is made. As adults,we know the difference,but do the kids? When you see something over and over again,you get numb to it.Remember when you were young and someone stole a Playboy from their dad or brother and showed it to everyone? Remember how exciting and exotic that was?Years later, you suddenly find you really ARE reading playboy for the articles! And then there's war. How many years has the U.S not been at war in the last century? Sure,maybe they weren't always technically in a declared war, but there was fighting non the less. It's shown on the news on a daily basis,and trhis is no tv show or video game. This is real life and death,and it's so common that it's become unremarkable. We tell the kids we're the good guys and those are the bad guys so we need to kill them and that's why it's ok,that in this case violence is the answer.And then we wonder why they are violent.

To carry that thought a little further-I respect the men and women of our militaries,they signed on to serve their country and they don't make the decisons about when or where to go to war,so I don't lay the blame on them. Government is once again responsible for the porblems,far as I can see. They,in partnership with the media, try to keep people in a constant state of fear and apprehension. They create one bogeyman after another,bringing in a new one just as quickly as they kill the last one. Naturally,this means there must always be war and conflict,with the need for huge military spending.Someone,I suspect, is making a LOT of money at this...in fact, I seem to remember a certain U.S president warning of this very military-industrial complex.

So what does this have to do with the violence we see today? Maybe nothing,maybe plenty. The way people look at guns has changed much in the last 30 years or so. The AR 15 and AK type rifles have been available for a long time,and yet their popularity is fairly recent. Why the sudden peak in interest for military style weapons? Is it because the people buying them have for years seen them glamourized on television and in the hands of the military? Companies use celebrities to advertize and promote the sales of their products,and it works. Kids see their countries military on tv using these kinds of weapons,and they are always told these soldiers are heroes,so naturally they want what the heroe's have. That in itself is not a problem,a semi auto will kill you no deader than a single shot. However, combine that with the desensitized and violence soaked youth of today,and you may just have a recipe for events like we have seen recently. It's not the guns that are causing the problem,not even the "evil assault weapopns" as the media likes to portray them. These types of school or theatre shooters choose these weapons not just because they have high capacity mags or are semi auto, but becaue of the way they percieve these weapons. They see them as cool and bad-azz and are drawn to that. There in lies the problem. Growing up,me and the otehr kids who were into guns and hunting were drawn to the beautiful wood and bluing of the classic deer rifles, or the the praticality and toughness of the stainless and synthetic guns. We argues about which one had better accuracy,which had better trajectory,which were suitable for which game and so on. Nowdays,stand at a gun counter and lsiten to what the younger buyers are talking about. You'll hear lots of discussion on how far away you can kill someone with this gun,or how may people you could shoot through with that one.Most of tehm are just blowing smoke and trying to sound cool,but that is also the problem. Why do they think that's cool? Why are they attracted to the idea of being able to kill people? Wen did this become acceptable,and how do we turn that around?

A turkey hunters shotgun is one of the deadliest close quarters weapons you could want,and yet you won't likely see one used in these types of shootings. Maybe a shotgun that's tricked out to look like some sort of assault weapon,but a wood/blue or camo shotgun?Not likely. The most successful pistol design in the U.S is the Colt 1911,usually chambered in the original .45 ACP. The round itself is still widely regarded as one of the best pistol calibre's. The 1911 model designation comes from the year of it's design or adoption by the U.S military, not sure which now. Anyway, its been around that long. Why weren't people using this gun for mass shootings all this time? Clearly the technology and availability was there, and there were plenty of others too,but somehow the mindset was different then. Weapons have not really become much more deadly. Nor have they become more available. In fact, you could argue for the opposite on both counts. Any yet,we have this situation before us. What has changed within us as a people,how do we identify and rectify it? Hope someone has an answer,we sure could use one soon.