Before Columbine we had no pupils running amok here in Germany.

13. Seifert, Walter, 42 June 11 1964 Volkhoven
31. Charva, Karel, 34 June 3 1983 Eppstein
45. Kausler, Robert, 27 Dec. 21 1972 Erlangen
...
(these lists themselves are morbid to the core btw... ordered by number of victims)

Ok, those weren't pupils - but does that really matter? IMO it's more like this: after Columbine, people running amok get more coverage and the public is more aware of these events ("oh my it happened again"). Also, the media impact of such a killing spree is global nowadays, no matter where it happens.

Maybe it also is the easy availability of violent pictures that burn into the brains of adolecents, waiting there to be copied into real world every once in a while, for whatever crazy reasons. I dont know.

I don't know either. I'd say violence in general really isn't any more present nowadays than any other time in history. Probably more to the contrary. Most of us have seen a lot less first-hand death and mutilation than those generations before us. But then we're exposed to a lot more of our culture industries' heavily aestheticised, sometimes glorified, sort of big-screen 'clean' violence that is designed to be pleasant to 'consume' (look at, read about, engage in (video games)).

Its true, Gnullbegg. There were school crimes before Columbine. As i found out, there even was one in 1913 here in Germany. But in all those cases, the perpetrator was a psychologically disturbed adult with no connection to the school he has chosen. But since Columbine a strong increase of school shootings occurred, of which all or almost all were commited by pupils or former pupils of the school.

X, if you can't connect the dots that is not my problem. I don't want to write three pages. Neighbor is clearly a metaphor. Human societies obviously learn and reaffirm certain things by observation and group think. Montagne said men are in part measured by how they face death. If we measure a man by how he views the deaths of others, x are you even human? Your views seem to devolve back to primate societies. Maybe you should revive the character Anti-Gui Monkey. It'd be easy for you, there wouldn't be any need to act.

Either you are A, totally naive and ignorant about the real reasons behind the underfeeding in the forgotten continent Africa. (which I expect to be true)
or B, totally biased making distinctions in humans, valueing the life of a USAmerican more than the life of someone else, particularily some faraway lobbyless Africans (which i also expect to be true)
or C, you are aware of either of one and hypocritically campaign against X for not mainstreaming with you on this topic. (which I hope is at most only partly true)

So I'm either ill-informed, arrogant about life, or sheep my opinions? Quite a claim to make when I only gave you a paragraph of my opinion on the matter. I shouldn't feel right mourning for the deaths of children, when 100s die in Africa, you're right. I should loathe myself for performing such an act. Why I don't go every day crying and mourning about the deaths of Africans is astounding and I should hate myself. That's right. I would be morally and philosophically superior if I saw this event and said: Well you can't mourn this event because you don't see the deaths of Africans in the same light, because I'm right and you're wrong.

Let me know when someone dies in your family so I can remind you that 100s die in Africa and that you should mourn their death instead. Judging by your logic, that's what you should do when someone dies in your family. Remind everyone that 100s die in Africa and that you're morally superior for mourning them instead.

Let's be honest for a second, all life is equal. This doesn't mean I have to have an emotional response to every loss of life equally. I found this event very tragic, and I mourn it. I feel sympathy for those directly affected by the event, and so I express such sympathy. For the same reasons I would mourn a death in my family, I mourn the deaths of those involved in this event.

(Also, before this little paragraph you said 100,000 Africans die a day. You're trying to tell me 365,000 people in Africa die a year due to malnutrition. If I take the more civilized countries populations (Egypt, South Africa, etc.), if this statement is correct, then they're repopulating at a rate much faster than I anticipated looking at their population growth percentages. Of course, does explain why AIDS spreads so damn fast, they're populating faster than rabbits.)

I will try to enlighten you all on that topic in easy comprehensible words. Africa's kids don't die because they can't be fed by Africans. They die because we dont let them be fed by Africans. We (the industrialized countries), simply don't allow them to feed themselves. The only sector in which third world countries can compete with our highly developed industries is the agrarian sector. Now what i want from you is too google the amout of subsidies that are put in that sector each year by the industrialized countries, you would be surprised. If you have only average intelligence and logic to add together what that means, your conclusion should be evident, if not i will help you out:
Those subsidies lead to low prices for mass produced staple food. On african markets, european or US produced food will be cheaper (thanks to subsidies), than the local competition for the African buyer. The African buyer therefore will tend to their produce and ignore the local. What does that mean for the African farmer now?
He can not sell his produce since he has to compete with price dumping, so he has to change his produce. Now what is he going to produce next? He is going into cash crop. That means luxury articles for industrialized markets, above all coffee, but lately also biofuel (yes, a new pervesion, we drive on what other people can't afford to eat)
Now i want you to google again, which product on earth has the second highest global revenue, just right after oil. Again I am sure you a highly surprised.
The interest we (industrial countries) have in the African continent is solely exploitational. Ressources and cash crop, shipped out leaving almost nothing for the local markets.
Justifying this monetarian gain with "inevitablitly" is the outrageous act.

I love this first sentence. 'Okay, so I'm assuming you're stupid so I'll try to make it easier for you to understand.' If you don't feel the need to debate with me seriously and take me as an equal, why bother debating with me at all? If you want, I can use larger words as well to make my point known, but seeing as I wasn't directly arguing with you I made my word choice with the mindset that this is an international forum. English is my first language, and I'll be damned if I can't figure out what you mean if you use larger words.

Really, you think it's stunning to me that coffee is 2nd? Doing the math is quite simple. Coffee shops are nearly as frequented as gas stations, and the ratio of coffee shops:gas stations is approaching 1, you can easily conclude that since the sales of coffee are close to the sales of gas that the resources driving such sales must be pretty close together on the list. Petroleum being #1 means that coffee is very close or is #2 (hard to determine since I'm looking at this on a micro scale and deriving the logical macro output). This is the easy/lazy way to form the assumption. Since I'm the consumer, it's quite easy to determine the top 10 resources. (A bit skewed based on local, but I live in Houston, 4th largest city in America)

I'm not going to waste anymore of your time if you stop wasting mine. It's insulting to have to explain such basic economics.

Let's be honest, there's no real way to fix the African problem, it's something that their people will have to fix themselves. You can go on and on about the mistakes of the past, of the present, but not much will make a damned different. The task at hand involves completely demilitarizing all of the dictators, competing with them on a fairer basis, and educating the 800 million or so people in the less civilized countries.

The first will never happen, because there's no gain to be had by any country to go in there and flush out the rats who have tyranny over those people. I don't see any countries signing up to have soldiers killed in the name of saving a continent that may or may not be saved by this very action.

The second will never happen, because even if you were to get America's hands off it, Europe's hands off it, you'll never get China's hands off it. China has the biggest grip on the continent, and is the most important one to target. America and Europe can't piss off China.

The third will never happen, because the education does them no good. The education won't help them within their own country. They'd have to go to an industrialized country to apply their lessons, no matter how basic. It's almost better for them to learn farming as best and as fast as possible.

So next time you pour a hypocritical tirade of outrage upon X for rightly disagreeing on this collective hysterical dismay upon the death of a two dozen people, just because you people aren't able to get gun control laws straight once and for all, think first and inform yourself.

I forgot that I'm hypocritical, hysterical, and stupid for holding an opinion that I can back up with just as much logic, facts, and reasoning. I was guilty of only calling you arrogant, of which I admitted being guilty of as well. You can insult me all of you want I guess though, it's your method of argument, and if I were to insult you, I'm being a fool.

Went over the character limit. Mahbad.

I could argue with you with you about the necessity of gun control solely with your logic. If you don't think that gun control is necessary, because it wouldn't change a thing (which is absurd), I will ask you this:
Why not make nuclear weapons or material accessible for everyone? Everyone willing to buy it should require a license and a class and and psych screening.
I am sure that you believe gun accesibility is some secret divine right for the US citizen and you would be less hypocritical in arguing that way "Yes i know guns kill people, I know we would have far less violent deaths than without them, but i like to shoot my guns, its makes me feel great"
I would have less problems with that point of view, it would be at least coherent.
So in case all that went past you and you doubt that stricter gun laws will lead to less violent deaths read some more studies like this one: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf , since i don't want to chew through all that again.

Why thank you for completely skipping nearly 90% of my entire argument. Now let me address your narrow refutation of my argument.

What a bad representation of my logic. The logic presented, that you even quoted, was talking about how killing a room full of people can be done in a way easier than with a gun. (Also for those who are wondering, I made a mistype, the guns in this case were not automatics, and were pistols stolen from the perpetrator's parents.) Putting that aside however, nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction only for the use of the Military. I would doubt: 1. You'd be able to buy such weapons 2. Could ever have a reasonable reason for having one (thus failing screening. If you weren't aware, you must state the reason of why you're buying your weapon to get the license. Most obvious reason is self-defense. Assault weapons cannot be taken out of the property, so there is control.)

Let's assume then, because that was a terrible example, you meant something such as a military grade machine gun, military grade grenades, or rocket launchers. Again, how can you justify such a thing for personal use or self-defense? It'd be quite hard, and the idea of obtaining a license for these things would be quite difficult.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence in anyway, I found this quite astounding and wouldn't mind sharing it. Did you know that proceeding Pearl Harbor that the Japanese considered storming California? When General Yamamoto heard of this consideration he refused to carry it out saying something along the lines of how impossible it would be to actually hold California. Since most of the residents owned guns, it was quite possible that if the American Military didn't snuff them out that the residents themselves would win control.

I think the most important thought pattern behind guns is using them as a means of survival in a crisis situation. What happens if a crisis overwhelms the police force and looters come forth to rob your house? Do you just sit there whimpering in the corner as they rape your wife and steal your stuff, then shoot you all? You really think that your gun laws would stop them from procuring a gun in those instances? What if it's a corrupt police force doing this?

As for your religion bashing, how immature. You think being an asshole makes your point seem more intelligent? In the end, you merely prove yourself as an asshole and make the very people you're insulting seem more intelligent. (I'm not religious, I'm an atheist. I find that if you want to convince people to see eye-to-eye with you, then set yourself as the example. Degrading people and insulting them when they don't ask for it is a good way of doing just the opposite.)

And another mistype. 'Assault weapons can't be taken out of the home' I mean to say it's only possible to get a 'Concealed Handgun License', which are pistols and not hand cannons. (Revolvers, and large pistols are considered hand cannons). I didn't really follow it up with that statement so you could misconstrue it.

T(Also, before this little paragraph you said 100,000 Africans die a day. You're trying to tell me 365,000 people in Africa die a year due to malnutrition. If I take the more civilized countries populations (Egypt, South Africa, etc.), if this statement is correct, then they're repopulating at a rate much faster than I anticipated looking at their population growth percentages. Of course, does explain why AIDS spreads so damn fast, they're populating faster than rabbits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/dec/13/how-people-die-global-mortality-visualised

You're trying to tell me 365,000 people in Africa die a year due to malnutrition.

As you can easily see for yourself, that has been the case for 2010. ~370,000 deaths from malnutrition alone. Africa is big - bigger than Europe, the US and China combined. There's over a billion people living on that continent. It helps to actually inform oneself about things like this, you know.

Of course, does explain why AIDS spreads so damn fast, they're populating faster than rabbits.

Wait what was it again one does not make 'jokes' about?

Guys, you can't judge the severity of something like this by the amount of deaths. As humans, we feel grief and sympathy because we relate to these people: We can see ourselves as young children attending elementary school, as parents of those young children, as citizens living in that town, etc. and it shocks us to think that something so horrific could've happened to us as well. Starvation in Africa is just as horrible, but it has an apparent cause and can be predicted/stopped with the proper funding. You don't count tragedy by the numbers

Also, quit hating on X. He's not insulting anyone by making a few jokes, he's just lightening the mood. There's no rule that says you have to flip out and fall into depression after a horrible tragedy no matter how much it bothers you. After all, who doesn't enjoy insulting hellbender's grammar?

As you can easily see for yourself, that has been the case for 2010. ~370,000 deaths from malnutrition alone. Africa is big - bigger than Europe, the US and China combined. There's over a billion people living on that continent. It helps to actually inform oneself about things like this, you know.

It's less than that when you consider taking civilized countries that should be able to feed their people out of the equation. Your source even proves that. Thank you.

Wait what was it again one does not make 'jokes' about?

Glad I have to explain myself. I recently looked at the population growth rate for Africa, which was stunningly large even though I knew the mortality rate was low. As rabbits have a tendency to repopulate quickly, it's a good simile to describe how they're repopulating quickly.

Was going to post something here, but Lolowut did it for me. Thank you, Lolowut.

Montagne said men are in part measured by how they face death. If we measure a man by how he views the deaths of others

"Death" and "deaths of others" aren't interchangeable. I can't believe how much you misinterpreted that quote. It's blatant that he is talking about how we face our own death, not the death of strangers.

---

Kisa Gotami had an only son, and he died. In her grief she carried the dead child to all her neighbors, asking them for medicine, and the people said: "She has lost her senses. The boy is dead. At length Kisa Gotami met a man who replied to her request: "I cannot give thee medicine for thy child, but I know a physician who can." The girl said: "Pray tell me, sir; who is it?" And the man replied: "Go to Sakyamuni, the Buddha."

Kisa Gotami repaired to the Buddha and cried: "Lord and Master, give me the medicine that will cure my boy." The Buddha answered: "I want a handful of mustard-seed." And when the girl in her joy promised to procure it, the Buddha added: "The mustard-seed must be taken from a house where no one has lost a child, husband, parent, or friend." Poor Kisa Gotami now went from house to house, and the people pitied her and said: "Here is mustard-seed; take it!" But when she asked Did a son or daughter, a father or mother, die in your family?" They answered her: "Alas the living are few, but the dead are many. Do not remind us of our deepest grief." And there was no house but some beloved one had died in it.

Kisa Gotami became weary and hopeless, and sat down at the wayside, watching the lights of the city, as they flickered up and were extinguished again. At last the darkness of the night reigned everywhere. And she considered the fate of men, that their lives flicker up and are extinguished. And she thought to herself: "How selfish am I in my grief! Death is common to all; yet in this valley of desolation there is a path that leads him to immortality who has surrendered all selfishness."

Putting away the selfishness of her affection for her child, Kisa Gotami had the dead body buried in the forest. Returning to the Buddha, she took refuge in him and found comfort in the Dharma, which is a balm that will soothe all the pains of our troubled hearts.

The Buddha said: "The life of mortals in this world is troubled and brief and combined with pain. For there is not any means by which those that have been born can avoid dying; after reaching old age there is death; of such a nature are living beings. As ripe fruits are early in danger of falling, so mortals when born are always in danger of death. As all earthen vessels made by the potter end in being broken, so is the life of mortals. Both young and adult, both those who are fools and those who are wise, all fall into the power of death; all are subject to death.

"Of those who, overcome by death, depart from life, a father cannot save his son, nor kinsmen their relations. Mark I while relatives are looking on and lamenting deeply, one by one mortals are carried off, like an ox that is led to the slaughter. So the world is afflicted with death and decay, therefore the wise do not grieve, knowing the terms of the world. In whatever manner people think a thing will come to pass, it is often different when it happens, and great is the disappointment; see, such are the terms of the world.

"Not from weeping nor from grieving will any one obtain peace of mind; on the contrary, his pain will be the greater and his body will suffer. He will make himself sick and pale, yet the dead are not saved by his lamentation. People pass away, and their fate after death will be according to their deeds. If a man live a hundred years, or even more, he will at last be separated from the company of his relatives, and leave the life of this world. He who seeks peace should draw out the arrow of lamentation, and complaint, and grief. He who has drawn out the arrow and has become composed will obtain peace of mind; he who has overcome all sorrow will become free from sorrow, and be blessed."

I can copy/paste Buddha quotes from the internet too.

Nice one! I love how you assume that we are all buddhists!

I think the most important thought pattern behind guns is using them as a means of survival in a crisis situation. What happens if a crisis overwhelms the police force and looters come forth to rob your house? Do you just sit there whimpering in the corner as they rape your wife and steal your stuff, then shoot you all?

This is, like, demented. Texas isn't that bad, man. And I'm pretty sure that Japan aren't interested in invading you any more.

Fucking facepalm, Trollussa. That is intended for the person with the word Buddha in his name, who was posting Buddha quotes in every single thread a week ago.

And you don't have a problem with hell bender assuming that we're all Christians.

100,000 * 365 = 36500000

It's less than that when you consider taking civilized countries that should be able to feed their people out of the equation. Your source even proves that. Thank you. [...] Glad I have to explain myself. I recently looked at the population growth rate for Africa, which was stunningly large even though I knew the mortality rate was low. As rabbits have a tendency to repopulate quickly, it's a good simile to describe how they're repopulating quickly.

1. Actually, your statement about population growth & mortality rates makes no sense at all.

2. Why you would think that my source does anything more than providing a breakdown of the main causes of death for various age groups & regions of the world is beyond me.

3. Reflect upon your use of the term 'civilized country' in this context. For example, look at the statistics for South Asia. India & Pakistan are nuclear powers. India is a democracy.
Take those out of the equation as well then. What about China? Yeah, continue. Go down that route; embrace the conclusion that there's no systemic malnutrition at all and everything is just government corruption. Pretty damn convenient, but still wrong.

4. Why don't you go on and educate yourself about the actual reasons for the high birth rate (and while you're at it, recognize the recent downward trend here which can be attributed at least in part to successful development assistance (e.g. foreign aid in women's education)) instead of just 'looking at it', then? It might keep you from comparing people with rabbits next time, which is not only offensive as fuck but also shows that you're currently talking about stuff you obviously know not nearly enough about, as it just simplifies the issue at hand beyond recognition.

5. Special thanks @Platypus for such a highly useful comment.

The double facepalm is for you...
First you should know that the theory behind your post is buddhism...
Second if you would have read one of my posts, I've never assumed that we are all christian nor try to convince someone to become one, but I just ask for respect my religion as I respect the atheism and the agostisicism, even if I disagree with them.
A man is respectful mostly toward the people who are different from him.

I can't respond to that, you've so completely misunderstood what I wrote. So I'll just add that you don't have to be Buddhist to get something out of that parable.

In france there are gun laws
massacres don't happen
so gun laws prevent massacres
if you can find a hole in that logic (except that americans are more prone to murder people than the french) then please tell me...

In france there are gun laws
massacres don't happen
so gun laws prevent massacres
if you can find a hole in that logic (except that americans are more prone to murder people than the french) then please tell me...

Here's a direct quote from wikipedia:

"Nanterre massacre 27 March 2002 Nanterre 9 19 injured. Death toll includes perpetrator.

2012 Midi-Pyrénées massacre March 19, 2012 Midi-Pyrénées region 7 French Muslim attacked a Jewish school, killing 3 young children and a rabbi at the school; assailant also killed 3 French soldiers"

Better logic would've been:

In France there are gun laws
The frequency of massacres is low
So gun laws prohibit people from massacres.

In which I would attack it like this:

Population of France: 65,436,552
Population of USA: 311,591,917

Ratio of USA to France: 4.58

Draw your own conclusions.