The attack in Orlando is directly comparable to the attacks in Paris and Brussels, but with two exceptions all the Facebook posts I've seen have been about politics, policy, and the offensive (or adequacy) of public statements by political figures. It made me wonder at first if people think of Americans as real human beings (after all, most of us have seen a lot more fictional Americans than we've ever met real ones), but it seems that political responses are at least as strong, perhaps stronger, among my American friends.

Weren't the attacks in Paris and Brussels carried about by teams?

This seems to be an isolated American (yes, of Muslim background) who wanted to kill gays.

We sell AR15 guns legally here so people can do this if the spirit moves them. Are they sold in Paris and Brussels?

But I have no political motivation. My only motivation is no more needless deaths.

Sorry, but "no political motivation" is not persuasive. You may not be politically motivated in the sense of wanting to advance the interests of the Democratic party, but everything you've said has to do with the political aspects of this incident (not to mention the by-the-way-we-need-socialism bit!).

I don't want to have the gun-control argument now. I'll just say that if you think there's an easy solution you're wrong. My point is that both sides immediately took up their positions and started, as it were, shooting at each other:

"We must get rid of guns! Down with the NRA and its Republican lackeys!"

"We must get rid of violent Islamists! Down with political correctness and its Democratic lackeys!"

Franklin Graham is one of those who posted that this is the President's fault. So by that logic if the USA spent more money on defense, and somehow wiped out ISIS, we would not have crazy people buy assault weapons and kill innocents. If that will do it them I'm for it, but the logic is a little shaky.

I don't think there is an easy answer. The entire country is dysfunctional. Things like this happen in other countries and action is taken. Here, yes, we yell at each other then stop yelling, and commence the yelling again after the next tragedy. A country of morons who deserve to die in gun violence. We also deserve Trump.

And yes, Maclin, you are right--and I don't mean right in a political way. ;-)

AMDG

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/06/some-reflections-on-the-orlando-horror.html

"We need an inquiry into the correlation between drug abuse and violence. I believe this is the most rational and effective response to the horrific news from Orlando."

...

"Yet shootings of the kind we now see – lone individuals appearing in public places and murdering complete strangers until killed by the police, or until committing suicide, do not occur in any significant number until the 1960s. Look, for example, at this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

So it is simply illogical to attribute these shootings, in their modern form, to guns *alone* Of course the availability of guns forms an important part of the explanation, but their presence in large numbers is still , by itself, an *insufficient* explanation for this specific phenomenon. The same obvious point can be made about the far smaller number of such shootings in Switzerland, a country where there is also very widespread possession of guns by private citizens."

...

"So if our purpose is to prevent such shootings in future, then it seems to me we have a duty to go beyond making speeches or writing articles about the folly of US gun laws. These may be morally self-satisfying, and politically popular. But they do not seem to me to address the complexity of the issue."

It's because the Swiss are not "a country of morons".

Bombs are illegal, as assault weapons should be.

Still seems little point being upset. I mean, if you're a nation of morons, who cares if you all die? (This is not my opinion, btw).

Anyway, the main issues are almost certainly drug use and severe mental illness. I would argue that most of the criminals doing this are psychopaths. These factors are being overlooked and ought to be addressed.

"Sorry all, I become Art Deco on the subject of guns after (yet another) mass killing. I still think I am right, but apologize for being a jerk nonetheless."

Stu, I think we all agree that these crimes are terribly upsetting. It's understandable if our emotions run high. I look forward to a proper discussion down the track, when Maclin writes about it.

I just noticed that I said "so much information...around". Heh. That was supposed to be "misinformation." Too much information that isn't actually information. What's that old joke?--"It ain't what you don't know, it's what you do know that ain't so."

I become Art Deco on the subject of guns

No clue what this means. Guns are not my hobby. Not impressed with the President's discourse on guns (or Saul Cornell's), for reasons stated elsewhere.

*when

I was not impressed with the president's discourse on guns, either. But then I wouldn't be. I must say I'm pretty annoyed with everybody saying we're somehow all to blame, especially you disgusting homophobe.

Maclin, when I did a concealed carry course last year, the stats we were presented with showed that the majority of gun deaths were males aged 25-21 and related to drug use.

Also they showed similar rates of gun deaths per 100,000 people for the US and Britain, except for these higher crime areas. I must look them up again. I only mention it here in case you want to include that in your future post.

I've been waiting for someone to blame this on Christianity. Has that not happened yet?

Yep. Courtesy staff attorneys of the ACLU. Natch.

It happens again and again, and one side (mine) says let's do something about gun laws.

There are an antheap of cases abroad. Not sure where these rampage killings are most common on a per capita basis. American rampage killers tend to use long guns rather than grenades or vehicles. IIRC, long guns are made use of in about 3% of all homicides in this country and instances of homicide with more than two victims account for about 3% of all those killed by homicide in a typical year. So, controls on guns will have little effect on overall homicide rates, though they might contain the number of rampages. The thing is, Nancy Lanza complied with Connecticut state regulations and locked up her weapons in a safe. She didn't have an arsenal. She owned four guns. She was also taking steps to have her son committed to an institution (Clayton Cramer's main concern). "Gun control" means mass confiscation or it means pretty much nothing.

'"Gun control" means mass confiscation or it means pretty much nothing.'

Yep, that sums up the bottom line pretty well. And confiscation is just not feasible. So...those stats that you (Art) and Louise quote are an important part of the picture, and are in fact the kind of data I was assembling. Although long guns may be disproportionately involved in rampage shootings, getting rid of them would not make a very big difference in the overall picture. And if you factor out specific geographical areas with very high chronic crime rates, our rate of firearms homicides would not be all that high. This is part of the reason why it annoys a guy in a small town in Nebraska when you want to take away his guns because drug dealers in Chicago are shooting each other.

It's funny that people think there is something sinister about the NRA's influence. One may think their cause is unjust, but being active for it and attempting to influence legislation is what any group with a cause does.

Btw I am not a gun enthusiast or a member of the NRA.

You know, I got to thinking on the way home that everything that I saw about the shooting for quite some time was people asking for prayers for the victims and their families.

This might be because don't follow anybody that posts a lot of sensational political stuff.

AMDG

Seen on Facebook a minute ago: "just because Christians didn't pull the trigger doesn't mean you get a pass on this."

It's not really the government's fault, it is the fault of the people. The people think that assault weapon ownership is more important than the lives of the little kids at Sandy Hook. That's what Americans believe. What a wonderful country!

Correction. Nancy Lanza owned seven guns (1 shot gun, 3 rifles, and 3 pistols). He took four to the school that day and used two (a rifle to kill the students and employees and a pistol to kill himself).

Come again? A gun is not a necessary implement to killing a mess of people all at once. The distinction between 'assault weapons' and ordinary weapons is factitious. These sorts of events account for a low single-digit minority of killings. Also, a great many of the perpetrators kill themselves; they're not really subject to deterrence, just incapacitation. You intend we do just what?

Sandy Hook seems like a poor instance to use in support of an "assault weapons" ban. The pistols the guy carried were just as deadly as the rifle, and were easier to conceal (obviously). I would venture a guess that the reason he used the rifle and the reason people want to ban it are basically the same: it looks scary.

Did anything at all resembling a coherent motive on that guy's part ever emerge?

The rifle had a greater magazine capacity. But what I mean about Sandy Hook in particular is that the victims were so utterly defenseless that the killer might well have been able to kill as many children with one six-shot revolver.

I've never read a really detailed account of what went on but on the face of it I've always been a little surprised that the death toll was not even higher.

Did anything at all resembling a coherent motive on that guy's part ever emerge?

It seems from content on his computer that he conceived of topping some other mass murderer's death toll as an accomplishment. From what's been published, it appears he was damaged goods with important missing pieces which truncated or destroyed his capacity to empathize with other people.

See also the Bever brothers in Oklahoma. That one is still being limned but it appears the older brother saw butchering a great many people as a way to make his mark in history and he sold his brother on the idea. (The parents in that family were peculiar but also very conscientious. The father got good character references from his supervisors and proximate relations, though his daughter has said he had a bad temper in domestic circumstances).

These people are extreme outliers. You're going to have trouble getting your mind around what motivates them because they are just not like you (or me).

Just to be clear: I'm not arguing either for or against a ban on what are called assault rifles. I'm just trying to establish the fact that a ban would not have a big effect on the overall level of gun violence.