The shootings that disturb us so -- school shootings and the like -- do not disturb because there are four or more people killed, but because those people had nothing to do with anything. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, falling victim to someone who just wanted to kill as many people as possible. There have probably not been 294 four of those this year.

It's kind of like, say you had a murder down the street. You'd be shocked either way, but if a wife murdered a husband for money, you're maybe not as concerned about your community as you would if it were an unsolved unconnected murder rape. Yeah the murder for money shows up as a murder, but it's one you could calmly write out the conversation about crime.

that's why I hate that 294 number people touting lately. Really it's kind of BS.

In other words, there are some crimes you could maybe use laws to kind of get out in front of, but some are just gonna happen, only the means might change a bit. The game is the game always.

NOBODY on the gun-control side of things care much about the VAST majority of gun deaths; namely, gang-violence or drug-related shootings. By far, these are the largest component of murders by gun and yet the thing that really motivates Sally Housewife to get politically involved is a shooting involving "good people."

MOST gun deaths are suicides. MOST gun murders are committed with handguns. Please explain to me how favorite talking-points like "we need to restrict assault weapons" or "we need to restrict magazine capacity" or "we need to expand background checks" do anything to tackle the real meat of the problem. HINT: they don't.

The problem of gun violence is simply a sub-type of the problem of VIOLENCE. If we could figure out how to completely eliminate violence, we'd have done it by now. My suspicion is that we're asking for the police/government to do something that is impossible: keep all the bad people away from me. if only it were so simple.

And it's not just me. There have been many many campaigns to reduce gang violence that have wanted to ban guns.

"NOBODY" is wrong.

And here is the issue: you can't ban guns. Even if you do, it doesn't affect gun violence AT ALL. I can point to examples like Washington, DC, NYC, and Chicago as examples. All cities have had very strict gun control laws (and even knife control laws) and yet they haven't eliminated gun violence. In some cases, it actually increased.

So this is a sociological problem that doesn't have a simple answer. Making "guns" the boogeyman is just another example of avoiding the problem by politicians. That's a real issue when it comes to restricting a fundamental right to bear arms.

And yes, I said fundamental. The Constitution was designed to recognize and protect rights, not grant them. Those rights are natural rights given to men by virtue of their existence in the world, not their presence in any particular jurisdiction. It's a distinction that I wish more people were aware of.

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually holds that opinion. Am I misunderstanding you?

Withholding my own opinion, I think this is a very common sentiment in the US. Among other things, this is used to justify the lack of action on inmate-on-inmate violence in prisons. More generally, you commonly find people cheering the violent deaths of anyone deemed a terrorist by the government. I don't think this is restricted to the US.

Separately, I don't think 'agarden' is intends to make any normative statement about the correct attitude. Rather, he's pointing out that "innocent" victims tend to receive greater sympathy. If there is a bank robbery in which 4 hostages are killed, there will be greater outcry than a bank robbery in which the 4 perpetrators are killed.

This doesn't mean necessarily that people don't care if the criminals are killed, but does mean that they care less than if non-criminals are killed. Do you doubt this?

I don't doubt it, but it's still hard for me to hear that other people in the same country just aren't bothered by thousands of preventable[1] deaths.

[1] (Not a gun control argument.)

1) Let's say the article was about people who fell to their death because there was no fence at the top of the Grand Canyon. Let's further suppose that this was a pattern and it has been happening with increasing frequency of late, but it is still rare because the random gusts of wind that push people over the edge are rare, and further that the people falling had no idea that it was a risk posed by touring the Grand Canyon. And then you posted that in fact 294 people fell to their deaths every year but that number includes all the people who were out climbing mountains for sport. That number might be horrific, but the mountain climbers understood the risk and chose to take it. The tourists at the Grand Canyon thought that what they were doing was safe.

2) The solution for the one problem likely has nothing to do with the solution for the other. If many of those 294 deaths are because of gang violence or criminal activity, magically removing all guns might reduce that number, but it probably wouldn't reduce it much. Someone who is out just to shoot up as many people as possible may well not try to kill anyone if he can't get a hold of a gun. But someone who needs Guido dead so that he can't rat him out, he is just going to move to the next best weapon for the job. A crossbow, or a knife, or a poison dart, or a baseball bat, or a rock, or something.

>>The shootings that disturb us so -- school shootings and the like -- do not disturb because there are four or more people killed, but because those people had nothing to do with anything.

Which I actually agree with. People have always (and probably always will) kill each other for particular reasons: money, personal hatred, revenge, whatever. But a targeted killing of a particular person or people is far different than indiscriminately killing whatever random people happen to be in some random place at a random time. The former is something you might see coming and perhaps avoid. The latter is unpredictable, unavoidable and therefore more frightening.

Did you expect criminals to obey the sign?

How many school shootings do you think we would have per year if schools were full of security guards?

How many bank shootings have we had this year? Do banks employ lots of security guards?

How ridiculous is it that we protect cash so well but we don't think kids should be protected?

Did you expect criminals to obey the sign? No, the sign it not meant for criminals.

How many school shootings do you think we would have per year if schools were full of security guards? A lot of schools do have security guards. Most schools DON'T have the funds to employ small armies.

How many bank shootings have we had this year? Do banks employ lots of security guards? I didn't look it up but know there are a lot of armed robberies in the US. I suspect there is not a lot of shootings because they are there to rob the place not kill people.

How ridiculous is it that we protect cash so well but we don't think kids should be protected? You have a point but there are a lot more bank robberies then school shootings.

You've touched on one of the problems with that argument, but the rest are even easier to address. Money is more easily corralled (it doesn't need to have daily recess). When banks are targeted, the goal is to leave with a bunch of cash; when children are targeted, the goal is to cause as much shock as possible. Banks have a much longer history of robberies (a la wild west and earlier), that stimulated them to have security guards. Those guards are a cost that hasn't historically been necessary for schools.