Connecticut School Shooting

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Robert!

Yes, the European Union seems to be just a cart with broken wheels.

All the best
Jukka

[caz]

I choose to prepare for eventualities and provide myself with the option of defense should I need it. Just like I live in a hurricane prone state so I stock up on food and water during hurricane season. Perhaps that makes me a survivalist nut, I prefer to think of it as prudent planning.

Hi Ally,

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

In the UK we don't really have to prepare for hurricanes any more than we have to prepare for the end of the world.

Similarly, we do not have to be as prepared as anyone living in a gun prone state to defend ourselves from intruders with guns.

Not nearly as rare as hurricanes, but thankfully still rare enough.

We must be doing something right - or less wrong. I don't envy you, I must say, but I think I understand the current need in your part of the world.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

I support gun rights. I support the right to bear arms. There is absolutely no reason on earth why I should not have a gun, therefore, law or not, I will carry a gun.

In Errata's above example, if the woman hadn't waited til after she was raped to attempt to find a means to defend herself, maybe she wouldn't have been raped in the first place. America has made it so laughable to carry a weapon, whyever would you, and then goes oh gee, rapes? burglary? murder? Terrible! but don't carry a gun! That just makes you a crazy nut! Because being unarmed guarantees you won't be victimized!

And the whole idea of making bullets outrageously expensive is a ridiculous one. So the idea to reduce innocent bystanders is to make it prohibitively expensive for people who own guns to actually practice shooting them... thereby making it pretty darn sure there's going to be innocent bystanders
(Etc...)

I apologize for Etc. ing your post, but I just did it to save space, not minimize or hide your words.

Everything you say is true. Or could be true. I have absolutely no desire to minimize the potential danger in the world, nor do I wish to gloss over the potential benefits of owning a gun. It's not like I never wished I had one, though those wishes were fleeting, and often based in anger rather than a desire for protection. But that's me.

What I am saying is that something isn't working. And we know that. And we know the availability of guns plays a part in it, though probably not even the lion's share of the problem. But we know that changing how human beings perceive each other takes time. A lot of time. So surely there is a short term solution. I don't know what that is.

You perceive society as frowning on carrying a gun. Probably because you carry one, or at least own one. Likely you grew up in a household that had a healthy respect for firearms. I did not. I was taught differently. The emphasis in my house growing up was on different methods of protection. Especially once I was diagnosed Bipolar. I have never owned a gun, and I don't want to own one. And I keenly feel society judging me for not having a gun. People tell me that if I don't have a gun, I deserve to be raped and murdered. That I am stupid for not protecting myself. They say that I am part of the problem, because if I don't shoot someone who breaks into my house, then I am letting him go to murder someone else in their sleep. I have been told that things like these shootings are my fault.

Maybe it's the different communities we live in. Maybe it's the different things we watch on tv. Maybe it's that society is so conflicted that nobody can win. When I find out that people are carrying a gun, I ask why before I judge. Which isn't to say I don't end up judging anyway, I'm human, and some people just scare me with their reasons. But I must say the favor has never been returned to me. I have very good reasons for not owning guns, for being uncomfortable around guns.

The idea of limiting bullets is a ridiculous one. The fact that it was proposed by a stand up comedian attests to that. I could say that shooting ranges could provide bullets for anyone who wants to practice, that ways could be figured out to accommodate learning to fire a gun accurately, but that's not the point. The point is that I see evidence that people need to change their priorities. What is worth a life? How far are you willing to go to take a life? A life is worth a life, I think everyone would agree on that. Is a tv worth a life? Is a car? Is keeping teenagers out of your woods worth a life? I don't think they are. People kill people for these things.

We had an incident where a guy broke into the garage of a house, and was shot by the homeowner. He was mentally ill, completely treatable but he lost his job and couldn't get insurance or pay for his medication. It made me sad, even though the homeowner was technically within his rights. I think the guy could have stood on the other side of the door to the garage and waited to see if the guy came into the actual house instead of hunting him down, or called the cops before shooting the intruder instead of after, but I wasn't there. But that burglar could have been me. He needed help, not three bullets in the face. He wasn't violent, he wasn't evil. I don't think he deserved to die. Not that I think he had any business breaking into garages, but should he die for that?

If a bullet cost $1000, people don't take shots at 14 year olds who have wandered onto your property at 10 o'clock at night. They might also wait upstairs to see if a burglar is willing to just grab a couple of things and go instead of killing someone over home electronics. Or they might invest in a good alarm system instead. They might keep their bullets in safes so that if a kid takes their rifle, all he has is an expensive club. It's not an actual suggestion for a solution, but if people cannot bring themselves to value human life, it at least forces them to value what they use to take human life, and be reluctant to part with it. If people can't look ahead to be certain that their weapons will not be used in ways they do not wish them to be used, then a monetary value might force them to take precautions to protect their weapons. It's still kind of amazing how many guns get taken out of unlocked cars here.

So no expensive bullets. Clearly it can't work. But what can? My parent's had a policy that if we don't take care of our things, we don't get to replace them. Which was extraordinarily inconvenient for me when my car broke down because I forgot to change the oil. It took six weeks to save up enough to get it fixed, in the meantime I'm walking a couple of miles to work every day. Would that work? If you take shortcuts in selling a gun to somebody who then uses it the commission of a crime, should you spend an equal amount of time in jail? There are a lot of people who do not treat guns like weapons that should only be used in times of extreme danger. There are a lot of people who start to channel John Wayne, or think it's a toy. Obviously not every gun owner. Probably not even half. I'm willing to accept that I just live in a concentration of those people. How do we change those attitudes?

I don't know. I have a lot of different thoughts, and a world I would like to see. But it's not all about me. And I don't know how to convince anyone of what I think is important, or if I should even bother to try. It's just a conversation.

[caz]

How do you know when someone is psychotic and deranged if they have never had any problems if they have never been in trouble with police or other authorities?
Jordan

When one goes mad with mommy's gun and your kid doesn't come home from school?

Just guessing.

Sarcasm aside, what you ask is the whole problem in a nutshell. That's just it - you don't know. But you do know with every fresh horror that they are out there, and their access to guns (legal or illegal) is turning them into far more effective killing machines than they might otherwise be.

So - what's to be done about it? Nothing at all? I thought Americans were more imaginative than that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

How?

How do you know when someone is psychotic and deranged if they have never had any problems if they have never been in trouble with police or other authorities?
Jordan

Hi Jordan,

You don't know, which is why I think the default position should be 'not entitled', rather than 'entitled', to bear arms. Possession of a gun should be illegal unless, and until, the person seeking such possession has satisfactorily completed (at his or her own expense) a psychological assessment of suitability. That would make gun ownership harder and more expensive. I don't expect you to agree with that, but it's my view. Nothing can guarantee that there will never be another tragedy like the mass murder in Connecticut, but everything possible should be done to minimise the risk. Would Adam Lanza's mother have passed such an assessment? Who knows? If the facts are as reported, she had serious concerns about her son's mental health, but taught him to use a gun. If true, that wasn't sensible and a lot of people (including her) have paid the ultimate price for her error of judgement. There are no easy solutions to gun crime, but I can't support an argument which reckons that if everyone is entitled to carry a gun people will be deterred from shooting each other. I have read your examples showing that, in local areas the statistics are favourable but overall, as another poster has pointed out, the USA has a very high incidence of mortality from gun crime.

This is an emotive issue, so I'm going to move on from this thread now as I've said all that I wish to. I suspect you're going to disagree with the above, as you're perfectly entitled to, but I'm going to leave it at that.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I've heard some guff spouted on here but that really does take the biscuit.
Principles? "Individual rights"?

Freedom might mean different things in different countries but in Scotland it means the right to live in peace without fear.

Living in peace and without fear is not a right.

It is not remotely approaching a right.

There is a risk someone will attempt to damage your person or property.

From there, you have the opportunity to defend yourself.

Now, what Americans understand better than we do is that the opportunity to defend yourself should be governed by the individual rather than the state.

We are so far brainwashed in this country, with all the left wing bollocks that has infested this country post WW1, that it doesn't enter people's heads that we shouldn't rely on the government to keep us safe. The American political scene is held up as a joke by many over here, which it is on the face of it, with the celebrity that goes with it; but scratch the surface and the Americans hold far more political acumen than we do.

As a group, they understand that power corrupts and a healthy country strikes a balance with government power. And's that really what the right to bear arms is about; as is freedom of speech. Give credit where it's due, they aren't prepared to hand over control as easily as we are; and we all know it all ends horribly when the control is tipped too far in the government's favour.

[Limehouse]

Living in peace and without fear is not a right.

It is not remotely approaching a right.

There is a risk someone will attempt to damage your person or property.

From there, you have the opportunity to defend yourself.

Now, what Americans understand better than we do is that the opportunity to defend yourself should be governed by the individual rather than the state.

We are so far brainwashed in this country, with all the left wing bollocks that has infested this country post WW1, that it doesn't enter people's heads that we shouldn't rely on the government to keep us safe. The American political scene is held up as a joke by many over here, which it is on the face of it, with the celebrity that goes with it; but scratch the surface and the Americans hold far more political acumen than we do.

As a group, they understand that power corrupts and a healthy country strikes a balance with government power. And's that really what the right to bear arms is about; as is freedom of speech. Give credit where it's due, they aren't prepared to hand over control as easily as we are; and we all know it all ends horribly when the control is tipped too far in the government's favour.

Oh boy! Could this be the same country that persecuted hundreds of its own people by asking them if they had ever been members of the communist party? By accusing hard-working, decent people with a social conscience of activities that were 'unAmerican'??? What price 'freedom of speech' (or even thought!) for those people?

So Americans don't hand over control to their Government so easily? Could that be because the real control is in the hands of giant corporations? Is the NRA exercising 'freedom of speech' and the 'defence of rights' or are they just big bullies with big mouths, lots of money and a hell of a lot of influence?

Do Americans have the same access to a wide range of media news channels and newspapers/news sources as we do or is their news dominated by virtually one owner?

The boy who killed all those children grew up with a gun mentality. In his own home, he found assault weapons and stacks of ammunition. Enough bullets to wipe out the whole school. Why did his mother need five guns? Why did she need all those bullets?

QUOTE: Now, what Americans understand better than we do is that the opportunity to defend yourself should be governed by the individual rather than the state.

Who was defending those little children? Who was defending their teachers?
Are you wiping away the tears of the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents and friends of those little children and their brave, brave teachers who tried to save them?

[Errata]

When one goes mad with mommy's gun and your kid doesn't come home from school?

Just guessing.

Sarcasm aside, what you ask is the whole problem in a nutshell. That's just it - you don't know. But you do know with every fresh horror that they are out there, and their access to guns (legal or illegal) is turning them into far more effective killing machines than they might otherwise be.

So - what's to be done about it? Nothing at all? I thought Americans were more imaginative than that.

Love,

Caz
X

In fact very very few people just "snap". It only seems that way because the people in their life weren't paying attention. In fact I've never even heard of it happening, and I spend a lot of time in the mental health community in varying roles. I've heard lots of people being described as having just snapped, but they didn't. Some of them were predictable enough for us to lay odds on the exact day it would happen. The closest thing I can even think of that comes close to this idea of being sane one moment and batshit homicidal the next is PTSD. And anyone who has ever know anyone with PTSD knows that they are symptomatic long before they get triggered into a combat state.

When you're a kid growing up with a mental illness, and therefore spending time in group therapy or whatever with other kids with mental illness, it is proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only time nobody has any idea that something is wrong is if they don't want to know. Parents are notorious about it. They don't want there to be something wrong with their kid. Part of it is shame, part of it is fear, a lot of it is simply wanting what's best for their child. And it manifests from everything to refusing to get a child diagnosed or treated, to stubbornly insisting that their child is somehow the exception to the disease. And it's not like it gets better as an adult. Then you get a lot of people who don't want to know, not because they want what's best for you, but because they don't want to put the time into doing something about.

The irony is that the mentally ill are far less likely to do this than the non mentally ill. Less than 2% of Schizophrenics are in any way violent. I'm afraid you normals don't have as good a record. Someone treating their bipolar are so rarely violent I can't find statistics on it. Untreated, yes, we can be violent on the manic side, but there is no way anyone sees the preceding behavior as remotely normal. Autism is a little different. Severely autistic kids can be incredibly violent towards themselves. You hear of cases where kids shove pencils through their arms, or bite their lips off. But these aren't mainstreamed kids. Otherwise, there just isn't violence in the autism spectrum. The problem is their mind blindness. They can't interpret expression or intent, or project what is going on in someone's mind. So sometimes they hurt people without meaning to, because they can't project a feeling of pain in someone else. There isn't any inherent danger in teaching autistic children to use guns. In fact given their mechanical inclinations, it's probably safer to teach them than to let them find a gun on their own. But someone with autism will not be able to interpret threat.

But I'm always entertained by the "people just snap" theory. If we can't do anything because people just snap, then shouldn't we function under the assumption that all gun owners could snap at any second? Even responsible and respected gun owners?

[Hunter]

Oh boy! Could this be the same country that persecuted hundreds of its own people by asking them if they had ever been members of the communist party? By accusing hard-working, decent people with a social conscience of activities that were 'unAmerican'??? What price 'freedom of speech' (or even thought!) for those people?

I don't know. Maybe You should ask the thousands of Americans who are buried at Normandy...or at Valley Forge... or even at Gettysburg. I can't even visit the graves of my own family members who have died all over this world because I don't even know where they are buried. Maybe we should ask them, "What price freedom?"

So Americans don't hand over control to their Government so easily? Could that be because the real control is in the hands of giant corporations? Is the NRA exercising 'freedom of speech' and the 'defense of rights' or are they just big bullies with big mouths, lots of money and a hell of a lot of influence?

The cost of membership in the NRA is $35 a year. Most members are not of any "elite" class such as many contribitors to so-called left wing causes. They are people who are factory workers, teachers, construction workers, folks who own small businesses and their employees, law enforcement and people who have served in the military to defend all of our rights.

Do Americans have the same access to a wide range of media news channels and newspapers/news sources as we do or is their news dominated by virtually one owner?

I have access to a thousand or more media outlets with many viewpoints. The BBC or anything like it is not, or ever has been the the primary source for information..

The boy who killed all those children grew up with a gun mentality. In his own home, he found assault weapons and stacks of ammunition. Enough bullets to wipe out the whole school. Why did his mother need five guns? Why did she need all those bullets?

Do you really believe that whatever his mother had was the driving force for his mentality. Did Timothy McVeay have a mentality for ammonium nitrate or a Ryder rental truck? How many innocent people did he kill?

QUOTE: Now, what Americans understand better than we do is that the opportunity to defend yourself should be governed by the individual rather than the state.

Who was defending those little children? Who was defending their teachers?
Are you wiping away the tears of the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents and friends of those little children and their brave, brave teachers who tried to save them?

The only person who had a firearm in this "gun free zone" was the one person with guns who killed these children. As soon as people arrived with the means to deal with him, he killed himself rather than face an effective response.
He did not go down to a firing range and pick on those folks.

Someone very dear to me faced something like this on a much smaller scale, but it was personally just as big to me as she is the love of my life. Fortunately, she had a firearm that she was trained to use to prevent him from doing her harm. When he saw that he was going to meet effective resistance, he ran. Good for him. Call me selfish, and at the time I didn't give a damn how he may have gotten his weapon. I was just glad the person whose life I value much more than his had the means to deal with him. And I will never relinquish her right- or mine - to do so, until the very people who want to deprive me of that right give up their armed bodyguards to protect them from personal danger as well.

[Limehouse]

I don't know. Maybe You should ask the thousands of Americans who are buried at Normandy...or at Valley Forge... or even at Gettysburg. I can't even visit the graves of my own family members who have died all over this world because I don't even know where they are buried. Maybe we should ask them, "What price freedom?"



The cost of membership in the NRA is $35 a year. Most members are not of any "elite" class such as many contribitors to so-called left wing causes. They are people who are factory workers, teachers, construction workers, folks who own small businesses and their employees, law enforcement and people who have served in the military to defend all of our rights.



I have access to a thousand or more media outlets with many viewpoints. The BBC or anything like it is not, or ever has been the the primary source for information..



Do you really believe that whatever his mother had was the driving force for his mentality. Did Timothy McVeay have a mentality for ammonium nitrate or a Ryder rental truck? How many innocent people did he kill?



The only person who had a firearm in this "gun free zone" was the one person with guns who killed these children. As soon as people arrived with the means to deal with him, he killed himself rather than face an effective response.
He did not go down to a firing range and pick on those folks.

Someone very dear to me faced something like this on a much smaller scale, but it was personally just as big to me as she is the love of my life. Fortunately, she had a firearm that she was trained to use to prevent him from doing her harm. When he saw that he was going to meet effective resistance, he ran. Good for him. Call me selfish, and at the time I didn't give a damn how he may have gotten his weapon. I was just glad the person whose life I value much more than his had the means to deal with him. And I will never relinquish her right- or mine - to do so, until the very people who want to deprive me of that right give up their armed bodyguards to protect them from personal danger as well.

Hi Hunter,

My post was not meant to be a criticism of Americans personally, but a response to the post that suggested Americans enjoy boundless freedom and democracy whilst we (the British) live in some sort of Big Brother state.

Both countries are far from perfect and whatever their governments do, countries are made up of citizens like you and me. Citizens should be united, not divided. It isn't individuals or mass corporations that should drive change and strive for better things, it's collective citizens. That was my point.

Julie

[Ally]

Similarly, we do not have to be as prepared as anyone living in a gun prone state to defend ourselves from intruders with guns.

It should be noted that none of the intruders in my examples had guns. It was the homeowners who had guns, and were therefore able to defend themselves from intruders. Which is fortunate. Or do you think an unarmed 12 year old has any chance at all against a grown man, whether he happens to be armed or not?

We must be doing something right - or less wrong. I don't envy you, I must say, but I think I understand the current need in your part of the world.

Huh. I wasn't aware that there was no crime in England and never any home break-ins. Interesting.

[Ally]

And I keenly feel society judging me for not having a gun. People tell me that if I don't have a gun, I deserve to be raped and murdered. That I am stupid for not protecting myself. They say that I am part of the problem, because if I don't shoot someone who breaks into my house, then I am letting him go to murder someone else in their sleep. I have been told that things like these shootings are my fault.

Huh. Interestingly enough the 24 hour news cycle rarely, if ever seems to be discussing people who save themselves using guns. They rarely, if ever discuss arming homeowners for their defense. They rarely if ever discuss the good that comes from owning a gun. Less than 20 percent of the adult population owns a gun. So I find it interesting where this overwhelming societal pressure is coming from.

The point is that I see evidence that people need to change their priorities. What is worth a life? How far are you willing to go to take a life? A life is worth a life, I think everyone would agree on that. Is a tv worth a life? Is a car? Is keeping teenagers out of your woods worth a life? I don't think they are. People kill people for these things.

I don't agree a life is worth a life. I think it depends on whose life you are talking about. Is my tv worth a life? Depends whose life. Mine, or the criminal dirtbag who has entered my house illegally. His life isn't worth jackcrap to me. I don't believe a human is somehow imbued with some sort of intrinsic value or worth, just because they happen to possess human DNA. Your life is only worth the value you place on it and what you choose to do with it. If you choose to enter my home illegally, uninvited, with the intent to commit a crime, your life has absolutely no value, whatsoever.

We had an incident where a guy broke into the garage of a house, and was shot by the homeowner. He was mentally ill, completely treatable but he lost his job and couldn't get insurance or pay for his medication. It made me sad, even though the homeowner was technically within his rights. I think the guy could have stood on the other side of the door to the garage and waited to see if the guy came into the actual house instead of hunting him down, or called the cops before shooting the intruder instead of after, but I wasn't there. But that burglar could have been me. He needed help, not three bullets in the face. He wasn't violent, he wasn't evil. I don't think he deserved to die. Not that I think he had any business breaking into garages, but should he die for that?

I guess he should die for that. I was unable to find the specific case that you were referring to though the bottom line remains the same. Should a person be able to feel safe in their own home?

If a bullet cost $1000, people don't take shots at 14 year olds who have wandered onto your property at 10 o'clock at night.

What precisely would a 14 year old be doing wandering on my property at 10 O'clock at night? Other than getting shot?

They might also wait upstairs to see if a burglar is willing to just grab a couple of things and go instead of killing someone over home electronics.

Ah. Why don't we all just stand on the street corner and hand out our stuff for free since apparently we should view our homes as all you can take buffets. No one kills anyone over home electronics. They kill people because people violate their homes and violate their need to feel safe in the places they work to maintain.

It's not an actual suggestion for a solution, but if people cannot bring themselves to value human life, it at least forces them to value what they use to take human life, and be reluctant to part with it.

Just out of curiosity, why should people value human life? What makes HUMAN life more special than any other kind of life on the planet? I value humans, specific humans who are worth valuing. I don't value a life, just because it's DNA happens to be the same basic form as mine. I don't value the life of all humans equally, why should I? No one does. No one ever will. No one will EVER pick the life of say, Ted Bundy over the life of their own child. No one will ever pick the life of the old lady stranger down the street over the life of their own child. No one, ever, will value all human life equally. All people hold certain lives higher than others, it is all just ranking the hierarchy.

[Ally]

So Americans don't hand over control to their Government so easily? Could that be because the real control is in the hands of giant corporations? Is the NRA exercising 'freedom of speech' and the 'defence of rights' or are they just big bullies with big mouths, lots of money and a hell of a lot of influence?

The NRA isn't a corporation. It's an organization. That people choose to join. So if the NRA has influence, it's because people choose to allow them to have it. Rather like elected officials. Or are you actually equating a voluntarily joined organization that people support with their time and money to be a bully, because they fight for a cause? If that cause were some liberal "help the people" cause that you actually supported, would you be calling them "bullies with big mouths" or would you applaud them for fighting the fight that people pay them to represent?

Do Americans have the same access to a wide range of media news channels and newspapers/news sources as we do or is their news dominated by virtually one owner?

Virtually one owner? You mean like the BBC? But no, we americans are inbred illiterate retards with only one source for news, the wire that we get hooked up to and have the gov'ment propaganda fed directly to our brains. We ain't got no cable tv or international news or interwebs that allows us to get no knowledge or brain feed nowhere. Nossir.

Who was defending those little children? Who was defending their teachers?

Nobody. You know why? Because it's illegal to carry a gun onto a school campus. Maybe if it wasn't, an actual law abiding citizen would have been there to defend those little children. If you are planning a mass slaughter, always smart to do it in the place you know won't have any resistance.

[caz]

But I'm always entertained by the "people just snap" theory. If we can't do anything because people just snap, then shouldn't we function under the assumption that all gun owners could snap at any second? Even responsible and respected gun owners?

Er, yes, that would be good, Errata - since there's obviously a very big problem identifying the ticking time bombs before they go off. These people may not 'just snap', but that's exactly the effect they have, because these school shootings are always sudden, unexpected and seemingly unpredictable.

The saddest two words in the American language are: "I carry". The right to 'carry', followed by the desire to 'carry', seem to have inflicted the need to 'carry'. I just hope we in the UK don't ever get to that point.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

The NRA isn't a corporation. It's an organization. That people choose to join. So if the NRA has influence, it's because people choose to allow them to have it. Rather like elected officials. Or are you actually equating a voluntarily joined organization that people support with their time and money to be a bully, because they fight for a cause? If that cause were some liberal "help the people" cause that you actually supported, would you be calling them "bullies with big mouths" or would you applaud them for fighting the fight that people pay them to represent?



Virtually one owner? You mean like the BBC? But no, we americans are inbred illiterate retards with only one source for news, the wire that we get hooked up to and have the gov'ment propaganda fed directly to our brains. We ain't got no cable tv or international news or interwebs that allows us to get no knowledge or brain feed nowhere. Nossir.




Nobody. You know why? Because it's illegal to carry a gun onto a school campus. Maybe if it wasn't, an actual law abiding citizen would have been there to defend those little children. If you are planning a mass slaughter, always smart to do it in the place you know won't have any resistance.

Ally, you have made fair and valid points to my comments. However, you have, I feel, taken my comments out of context. They were made in response to the suggestion that America is a completely free society where freedom of speech and actions is always valued compared to the Uk where left wingers have, apparently, brainwashed everyone into a state of passive compliance.

I did not suggest that the NRA was a corporation, although perhaps I phrased my point badly. What I meant was that, although the Government of America seems to exercise less control over its citizens than the UK, they are neavily influenced by large corporations. Secondary to that, the NRA does influence state legislation.

The BBC is publically owned. We have numerous other sources of news. The poster to whom I was responding (Fleetwood Mac) suggested we in the Uk are all brainwashed. I was making the point that Fox news controls virtually all of the Tv news in America. I was not suggesting people do not have access to other sources, just that there is just as much chance of Americans being 'brainwashed' by the media or the state as there is in the UK.

AS I have said in previous posts, this tragic event probably could not have been prevented because if this young man was determined enough he would have obtained a weapon, legally or not. However, I did make those comments before I knew that his mother kept five guns in the house, at least two of them capable of firing multiple amounts of bullets very quickly. It was just too easy for him to take those guns and do what he did in a very short space of time.

I can kind of understand how America has reached the position where ordinary, decent, law abiding citizens will carry a gun to protect themselves and defend themselves from attack, but I do wonder about how a society gets to the stage where that is considered necessary. How is it that many Americans will consider their fellow countrymen a potential threat? I don't mean to sound critical or condescending, I really want to understand the issue.

Julie