Two of the three people who were brought to the hospital died; they were both children. Their names and ages haven't been released. The President and CEO of Danbury hospital just held a press conference and he said they had prepared for a mass shooting, and were stunned when only 3 people were brought in. I think this has got to be the biggest tragedy this state has ever seen.
Please say a prayer for the victims and their families.

I can't even begin to imagine their pain.

Here's the latest, from the local paper:

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Source-26-dead-including-20-children-in-Newtown-4118505.php

Now they're saying it was Adam, not Ryan, Lanza, who was the shooter, and their mother was a teacher at the school. She was one of the adults killed.

I'm a hardened news junkie, but the thought of all those children being executed is unbearable. AS I was driving home there were men on the corners here advertising the big gun show this weekend.

http://www.upworthy.com/how-the-media-coverage-of-mass-shootings-makes-everything-worse?c=ufb1

"As I was driving home there were men on the corners here advertising the big gun show this weekend."

Sounds like fun!

It's hard to argue with this. Really tough... So difficult that your government doesn't even try to.

How safe will you insist your government make you?... Or make you feel?

Twenty-three children were stabbed at a school in China yesterday. All survived, but given the nightmares they're going to have for the rest of our lives, it's silly to pretend that America's policies are the source of the problem.

No.

I've never fired a gun, and only touched a couple of them... But I'm seriously considering joining the National Rifle Association.

The skill of television producers at stroking the heartstrings of isolated, provincial people is a great source of this difficulty. People want to watch TV until they feel something... And when they finally do, they want to reach out into the political realm and DARE someone to say their emotional response is wrong. They want to be proud of watching TV; they want to be respected for it.

No.

"I've never fired a gun, and only touched a couple of them..."

You're probably realized that Hollywood has no idea how small arms work (there are exceptions, of course), and that they are not interested in that so much as the spectacle that can be sold.

I suggest that some firearms training should be undertaken, so that you may show yourself without anyone's spin what the limitations of gun use really are.

However much I may screech at you here, I have confidence that you can observe the basic laws of physics - something many people discard in favor of their own fantasies.

The relevance of your comments is not apparent.

See also.

Why did the NYT quote Meredith Artley of CNN.com? She's in Atlanta, not CT.

"What allows a person to gun down children?"

For anyone who is interested in the Christian perspective:

God, via giving free will to imperfect beings, allows inevitable barbarism.

Why? The answer is multifaceted.

Philosophically: lack of free will would be misery; being perfect beings would be misery; having no difficulties would be misery.

Theologically: Jesus said tragedy is a reminder, to the rest of us, to deepen our relationship with God, for we will all perish, just as did those who were caught up in the disaster. Jesus said this in Luke 13, when the Tower of Siloam fell and killed 18 souls.

I sometimes ask: why must there be such intense pain? Then I remember: in my own life, I might never have turned to God, if not for my own experience of intense misery and pain. So, for me, intense pain turned out to be a type of gift. Also: painful. I do not intend to minimize pain or torment. Or today's heartwrenching tragedy.

Just an idea: Once you've committed to walking into a classroom and killing your own mother, the rest of the people in the there stop being people, children or otherwise. They're just more rage outlets.

"What allows a person to gun down children?"

Lust for fame? If some pathetic loser wants to be guaranteed that his name & face will be on every TV and computer screen and the front page of every newspaper, and that his worthless life will be the subject of every dinner table conversation, then opening fire on schoolchildren is a quick and obvious way to go about it.

"having no difficulties would be misery"

Let me experience that and I will get back to you on how miserable I am.

"to deepen our relationship with God, for we will all perish"

God and I never had much of a relationship. I kind of always felt he was indifferent. I don't give a shit about him, he doesn't give a shit about me. Kinda like my neighbor and I.

Sorry to bash on God here-but there is no ulterior meaning to those kids being killed. It has no greater purpose. It was an act by a person without empathy. In their minds (killers) they are the victim. OK? That's how bad people think.

> Why? The answer is multifaceted.

First, when people pretend to interview themselves, they're almost always full of shit; There may be no more pretentious (or offensive) literary device in street circulation.

(A woman did that to me in conversation once; we're still friends, but it was a cold summer.)

Second, "multifaceted" is a 'polysyllabic' word which neither soothes the wounded nor convinces the unbeliever.

Poysonally, I think soothing the wounded is optional. I admire the humble warmth with which Flynne called this discussion to order in the first comment. She was sincere, apolitical, straightforward, and empathic, and we can be grateful to her for more than merely getting those things out of the way... They should guide the entirety of our response to this crisis.

But my own first response was primed by a couple of hours of heartbleedy know-it-alls on Twitter, before Amy opened the floor. I'm not actually acquainted with any of the grieving, and they won't turn to me for comfort. It should be enough to say that I'm sorry this happened to them, and that my own (distant) response should be concerned with preventing it from happening to others, where possible. We gotta watch the boundary on the other end of the field. Human nature instructs us to catch the ball and keep running right on out of the stadium; to take control... Control of other people's behavior, choices, risks... And in the Cotharn's example cited here, even their interior responses.

But a buncha children were brutally killed. Dozens. Spiritual anguish can't be answered by "multifaceted" considerations, and policy hazards won't be resisted through appeal to supernatural forces... And that's what's meant by 'Christianity,' right?

Who was interviewing you? Who brought it up? Who asked the questions you deigned to answer? In your scheme, an unseen, omniscient, omnipotent being allowed (or caused) the brutal death of dozens of innocent children; wordy explications do not square with your appraisal of this being as benevolent.

You shouldn't bother us with "Him" until we ask; and your answer should never be so clumsy, anyway.

I'll sum it up, then, Crid:

If you haven't been shooting, you have no idea.

You're in the same position you would be if you've never played football, but have seen one. Or, if you've held a guitar but never played one.

This issue is more serious. People like you, enamored of their opinion, will set aside the Constitution and forbid you from defending yourself at all, nationwide if they can. It has already happened in numerous locations - and those are ripe for harvest by killers, as in this case.

Also, what Purp said.

(Always)

> If you haven't been shooting, you have no idea.

Fuck that. With a stick. Don't bother stripping the leaves first; just jam it on up in there.

The Constitution applies to people who don't own guns and don't want to; to people who don't speak freely or congregate in faith and don't want to; and etc. etc. etc.

You have a habit, pompously effected, of demanding respect for expertise of (mundane) practicalities during discussions of morality, when some of us wouldn't trust you with the practicalities anyway.

But we trust you've been keeping up with today's headlines.

As I was driving home there were men on the corners here advertising the big gun show this weekend.

Is it at the church?

"Well we'll ask the Lord to forgive us all of our sins
And we'll look at the latest in gold plated firing pins
Well my two main men are Jesus and old John Birch
So we're going on down to the gun sale at the church"
~ "Gun Sale at the Church" by Beat Farmers

Purplepen,

I meant "Why?" as in: why does God allow free will for imperfect people, and thus barbarism? I did not intend "Why?" to indicate a specific meaning re this specific incident. The shooter was imperfect, and had free will. God did not control the shooter. Free will.

Also, I'm just saying: God loves you. He wants you to know Him.

Evil

"God loves you. He wants you to know Him."

If he could have stopped the slaughter and didn't, that's all I need to know about him.

AS I was driving home there were men on the corners here advertising the big gun show this weekend. -- Eric at December 14, 2012 1:27 PM

Was that in Connecticut or elsewhere? If it was in Connecticut I can see how it would be totally inappropriate. If you're in Omaha, why does it matter?

A gun will generally succumb to peer pressure only when it has about 3-8 pounds of pressure on the trigger. That peer pressure comes from the person holding the gun.

This mass murderer decided to do whatever on his own, and to blame the gun means that he had no free will. So what if he didn't use a gun but used a knife instead? Or used a car? Are the objects used to be blamed?

I do feel sorry for the victims and their families. I hope their days can be better in the future. I just hope everyone can have a rational thought before blaming the weapon.

This is a very difficult subject. Morally, I find myself sickened by the senseless killing, but see nothing practical that can be done to stop mass killings completely.

We had a mentally ill man kill his father, his father's girlfriend and himself with a knife and a compound bow a couple of weeks ago.

A close friend, had his son stabbed to death by a mentally ill man who then tried to kill all the witnesses in the house with a long gun he retrived after the stabbing.
Why is Switzerland so seemingly safe, and the US so dangerous when both have similar gun laws?

Part of it is perspective. We don't hear about all the bad things that have happened in other times, and othe places. They are disguised by being in a foreign language newspaper or hidden in the back pages of politically incorrect history books.

Do I think the liberal leaning press, buries stories abiut mass killings and horrendous crimes in other countries? Yes, I do, because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I suspect that no one commenting here has seen anything like the Holocaust, Stalin's extermination of 20 million Russians, Mao's Cultural Revolution, or Pol Pot's killing fields.

My grandmother was born in Russia. She immigrated to the U.S. Not one of her ten brothers and sisters who remained behind in Russia was ever heard from again, after the Russian revolution. (I don't think it was because they forgot to write.) These people aren't even statistics to you, but to me, they are real people who were murdered by Stalin. I have pictures of them.

So naturally, many spoiled, clueless and very poorly educated Americans, born after 1945, assume an unarmed society is a safer place, in spite of all the historical evidence to the contrary.

Crid,

The question was asked, i.e.,
"What allows a person to gun down children?"

The Christian answer: our Creator, who imbued imperfect beings with free will, allows it.

Separately, I agree that reasoning is no solution for anguish, and I was not proffering reason as a solution for anguish. Rather, I was offering Christian reasoning as a response to the question in the blogpost title.

The solution for anguish is God.

Last, you said:
"omnipotent being allowed ... the brutal death of dozens of innocent children", and you characterize allowing such an occurrence as being unworthy of a perfect, loving, and all powerful God.

You are referring to "the problem of pain." I anticipated this, which is why I originally referenced the philosophical response to such questions, which is: lack of free will would be misery; being perfect beings would be misery; having no difficulties would be misery.

Pain is agonizing. I fear it. I run from it. It is torment. Yet, "the problem of pain" is not a good argument against a Creator. If you were the creator of all existence, and you were perfect and loving: you would have allowed both free will and pain to come into existence. To fail to have done so ... would have been horrific.

I've never fired a gun

I can teach you how.

You should listen to McGog; he's serving Heater, Hellmouth, and the low desert area.

(more to follow)

That was for Cotharn.

The magic of Steve's response, which became apparent to me during the riots, is that I'm protected by Steve's gunmanship whether or not he gets around to sharing it with me; no bad guy will know whether I'm packing or not.

Also, if the initial reports can be believed, this is starting to look like a copycat of the Aurora Colorado theatre killings.
I have an acquaintence who is a psychiatrist at a hospital. One patient got attention because they started cutting themselves, and after seeing how much attention the initial cutter got, she said, half the ward started doing it.

How do you stop copy cats and still maintain freedom of the press?

wha tha? I think that McGog guy is me.

Also, re "What allows a person to gun down children?", it looks like Chris Rock has the answer re this incident:
“Whatever happened to ‘crazy’? . . . What? You can’t be crazy no more? Did we eliminate ‘crazy’ from the dictionary?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mq32_26Vpno

> I was not proffering reason as a
> solution for anguish

True enough. You were proffering glib, self-aggrandizing chatter as a substitute for reason. Addressing it, howsoever rhetorically, to the parents suffering this first night of sleep after the murders is indisputably (and I think unforgiveably) crass. You should be ashamed. This is not about you, your elaborate fantasies of the supernatural, or your centrality within them.

> You are referring to "the problem of pain."

Bunny, you don't need to tell me what I'm referring to... The believer's penchant for secret language and precious wordings is a weakness to every heart but his own, and I think this reflects the quintessential childishness and egotism of the whole business.

An omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god wouldn't permit suffering. Short sentence! Spotlessly clear! Stands on its own! You cannot, and WILL not, answer it without an ever-more-rickety, ever-expanding contraption of allusions, metaphors, pompous tut-tuttings, and insidious silences. But people are dead, and I'm not in the mood.

> I fear it. I run from it. It is torment.
> Yet, "the...

Fuck... I've already used the word "pompous" in this thread, but you've left me no where else to go! "It is torment," you say, as if the (popular!) contraction "it's" would rob your (imaginary) cadence of vital Christian juices and teen appeal. There's more to philosophy than bogus quotation marks and the phenomenology of a 7-year-old. I'd love to hear you tell one of the parents that you'd find a world without the murder of their child "horrific." No, don't squeal: Your wordplay is precisely that vacuous.

You've come to the wrong forum with it. And Jesus Fuck, you've come at the wrong hour.

GROW UP.

Some people never get the chance.

"Also, I'm just saying: God loves you. He wants you to know Him. "

Geez I prayed to him like once when i was 9 and he's already in love?

Ok ok I'll blow him and he doesn't even have to buy me dinner.

Crid,

the best ridicule, which you are able to manage, is to ignore that I was clearly addressing the question in the blogpost title, and to assert that I was addressing the parents of murdered children? Pathetically weak.

Look, here is what you do for people who are suffering horribly: you show up, and shut up. And nothing else.

Conversely, you, Crid, seemingly seek a solution to anguish? The only possible solution is a personal relationship with God. And, even so, the suffering will still be great.

Next: you believe the plainly worded description: "the problem of pain", amounts to "secret language" and "precious wording?" Your reasoning is idiotic.

Finally, you assert that I "WILL not" concisely and clearly respond to suffering, i.e. to the problem of pain. Yet, I have already concisely and clearly responded to it. I remind that you are referencing a philosophic issue which does not have a scientific answer. And you are addressing it idiotically. I can only conclude that you are either drunk, or high, or both, or terminally stupid.

> Yet, I

Amy does that too; starts a sentence with a conjunction and then drops an arrhythmic comma right there, boom. I think you both need more hardbacks on your shelves.

> I have already concisely and clearly
> responded to it.

Maybe I should take you at your word; that the reasoning you offer is enough to sustain your belief and defeat your horse sense... But this silliness doesn't trouble (or convince) sane, secure, adult egos.

> I can only conclude that you are either drunk,
> or high, or both, or terminally stupid.

Riiiiiiight.... Your 'faith' is about looking down on others, even on a day of national tragedy. You'll mock and exploit the sorrow of parents whose children are murdered, and still do some bloggy name-calling before bedtime. Well, most Christian and religious sentiments evaporate to this powder in good time: By Amy's clock, you made the conversion in 5 hours 55 minutes. And Little Baby Jesus will certainly commend you for your dispatch... Right?

A favorite passage, I use it here a lot:

Anything that can distinguish your group from the others could work to keep hatreds high and resist merger. Other groups, conveniently, are similarly disposed.These non-hereditary differences between one group and another- even arbitrary differences, only distantly connected with any adaptive advantage, but serving to preserve group independence and coherence- are called, collectively, culture.

Now cosmologically, my culture's better than yours. But that not the point.

The point is that the social distance you seek is gratuitous; I was never going to like you anyway, even if those children hadn't died. Meanwhile your conversation certainly doesn't recommend His company.

The only possible solution is a personal relationship with God.

No. For some people, maybe. Others of us find the solution in other people, or work, or Jose Cuervo. All are valid.

Used to be a guy named "Brain" posted here from Conn. Liked guns. Wonder if he was the shooter?

"Fuck that. With a stick."

Yeah. Far be it from you to admit you don't know something. I had hope, even though not knowing something has never kept you from believing you were golden before.

There is a point at which the mythology of the gun disappears. That point is when a person finds out that they are not magic, that they are tools capable of being misused, that they convey no magic abilities to the user, uniformed or not, and that when one is needed, nothing else will do, even though having one doesn't solve all your problems with society or personal ego.

That only happens with experience. By your admission, you have none.

"Used to be a guy named "Brain" posted here from Conn. Liked guns. Wonder if he was the shooter?"

I like guns and I am NOT the shooter. I've been around guns since I was 18 and have never shot anyone. I have had group of people make a serious attempt upon my life once, and they injured a bystander. They did without the use of a single firearm, using an improvised explosive device instead.

I decline to give up my rights because someone else abused theirs.

In more direct answer to Amy's question about what allows someone to kill children, I offer this link to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

This occurred in Bath Michigan, 1926 - a short distance from my home town of Lansing. The attacker killed 42 people including 38 children, and injured at least 58 others. A couple of books have been published on the topic, including the recent "The Bath Massacre" by Anne Bernstein.

The killer - Andrew Kehoe - DID NOT USE A SINGLE FIREARM in the attack. Semi-automatic and automatic firearms were available in 1926.

As to the question of why? He was a member of the school board and seems to have been upset about property taxes.

I see a pattern. Someone with little personal power uses a firearm to up his ... something. I don't know what. But always does so in a place where the power differential is high in their favor. Yesterday's sick fuck went to a kindergarten class instead of a biker bar to express his rage.

Additional gun restrictions won't work. Getting crazy people off the streets before they hurt others would be better but that is not PC.

Also, statistically, the safest places in the US have the fewest gun restrictions. The places with the strictest gun control measures (like DC) are horrible by comparison.

I sometimes ask: why must there be such intense pain? Then I remember: in my own life, I might never have turned to God, if not for my own experience of intense misery and pain.

So what you are saying is god is a monsterous sociopath so desperate for attention he deliberatly tortures people just to get them to beg him to stop? That's some guy you worship

I decline to give up my rights because someone else abused theirs.

Right there with ya.

Some people who went to the candlelight vigil last night were armed. Had I gone, I would have been, too.

Re: The big gun show.

Here in North Idaho. I wasn't making any particular comment, just an observation in a moment of shock. They could have been pizza signs the way they were waving them around.

I don't think gun controls are the answer-the root cause is that it's much harder to commit someone to an institution for evaluation and treatment. The mentally ill are everywhere, and even their families can't get them the treatment they need. Those are the laws that need to be changed--buying a gun isn't hard to do, registration or OT.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

This seems to be related. Britain disarmed in the 90's. Their own Olympic pistol team can no longer practice in the country, the ban is so complete. Look what it bought them.

the root cause is that it's much harder to commit someone to an institution for evaluation and treatment

I don't know that this is the root cause, although it's certainly a factor. On the other hand, it SHOULD be hard to institutionalize someone. Stripping someone's freedom and personal authority should be one of the most difficult things we do. Most mentally ill are not killers, and we don't know enough about psychology to understand why some people snap and others don't, or to predict it. Not to mention the fact that committing someone depends on 1) recognizing the warning signs that a person is going to explode and 2) having the fortitude to go through the process.

I'm going to hurl all over the next person to say that these things are caused by a lack of God in schools and public life. Sometimes it seems God is all we talk about. Some of the most hurtful assholes I know are devout Christians who wouldn't dream of missing church on Sunday. It's not about God.

As for gun control, I'll be satisfied if we don't have a contingent of people arguing that things like this wouldn't happen if MORE people were armed, because of course, all of this would have worked out differently if only those 5-year-olds had been packing.

A lot of the power and humility I've seen Christians embody while practicing their individual spiritual beliefs to enable them to walk through tragedies of this magnitude came from the anonymity and deliberate silenc of their *actions*.

The Amish school shooting comes to mind. Humbling. Never, ever could I imagine putting aside my own grief and anger to travel to the home of the family that raised the monster that ended my own Childs life. It's inconceivable. Yet, without fanfare, without announcement or anticipation of accolades there went the procession of victims families in the crudest of transportation to comfort the family of the shooter and bestow on them absolute forgiveness.

This type of gesture is where it's at for me.

Not some pious anonymous poster wagging their finger demanding allegiance to a higher power for comfort and solace. It's trite. And it's stupid.

Faith is verb. And it's about quiet courage. Not condescending absolutes.

Faith is verb. And it's about quiet courage. Not condescending absolutes.

Feebs, you are a beautiful soul. These words just ring so true. I love ya.

The only possible solution is a personal relationship with God.

Fucker never empties the dishwasher.

Yesterday's sick fuck went to a kindergarten class instead of a biker bar to express his rage.

Funny how that works.

The guy's crazy, but not so crazy that he picks out a spot where his rampage will be cut short by an armed victim pool.

That seems to be the pattern. Even the Fort Hood shooter knew his victims would be unarmed.

> Far be it from you to admit

Sulking is not sexy, Rad. It's a blog. We get it: You're a furry-forearmed Superman with calloused palms, a chest full of Craftsman™ tools, and deeply-held beliefs. Stipulated, 'K?

> That point is when a person finds out that
> they are not magic

The Constitution doesn't demand that people use guns before the Amendment applies, and this isn't an oversight. If you want to insist that people do so, go ahead, and let us know how it works out for you. I'm guessing you won't persuade, and your problem isn't with me. It never is.

Wicked Brit nationalism notwithstanding, this is something you need to bear in mind this weekend.

Television doesn't due strength, growth or dignity... It doesn't do LIFE.

Death has one thing going for it: Eventually, it's over, and you can play some spots for the Ford dealer out on Dixie Bee Highway: Dealin' Days are back!

Life never ends.

Feebie,

the Amish forgiveness reminds of Wedgwood Baptist Church members, in Fort Worth, TX, who sincerely forgave a shooter who came into a 1999 church service and murdered 7 - including 4 children and 2 23 year olds, and injured an additional 7. The difficulty, of genuine forgiveness, makes it moving and inspiring.

Second,
You accused me of:
1. sanctimony
2. anonymity
3. demanding allegiance
4. wagging my finger.

re anonymity:
you can Google "gcotharn", and instantly find much information about me. My name is Greg Cotharn, and I live in Fort Worth, TX.

re demanding allegiance:
I disagree. Free will exists. I have not been demanding anything.

re sanctimony:
Does any mention of Christian reasoning amount to sanctimony? Are Christians merely to be seen - in performance of actions of which you explicitly approve - yet never heard? Else: sanctimony?

I commented for two reasons:
a. I suspect this comment section is visited by atheists and agnostics who are interested to know accurate Christian reasoning re the question in the blog title: "What allows a person to gun down children?"
b. I have frequently noted, here, and in many other places, instances of Christian reasoning being misrepresented.

I desire accuracy. I do not demand conformity. I plead guilty to presumption, but not to sanctimony. A little presumption is not inappropriate for a freewheeling blog comment section. IMO.

re wagging my finger:
Was I truly wagging my finger at Crid? Or, was I simply refusing to be placidly fucked over by his foolishish? Must I be timid and weak? Is it a Christian imperative? I think not. Such is simply another (unintentional) misrepresentation of the religion. There is nothing weak about Christianity.

Pride - defined as believing oneself to be superior to another - is a giant sin which constantly creeps in, for everyone. However, being vigilantly alert to this sin ... does not equate to failing to stand for truth (which would be standing for a lie), and does not equate to creating a persona of a timid and weak creature (which would amount to being a type of pompous lie).

So, I have some disagreement, yet appreciate your reminder of the grace which was displayed by the Amish.

Ever'buddy goeda church tomorrow, so this guy can tell you why abject murder of children makes his life worth living. With eye contact.

It'll be great. Dress up a little. They're serving punch in the basement.

"With eye contact."

and, so, you are reduced to scorning good manners (eye contact) on the blog of a woman who wrote a book about beating some manners into impolite persons, and you are reduced to scorning warm human communication (eye contact) on the blog of a woman who loves a researcher who hugs strangers. You are reduced to constantly misrepresenting what I have said on a blog which celebrates truth and fact. At least your scorning of Christians is consistent with this blog. Congrats: you are 1 for 4.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Epicurus

> you are reduced to scorning good manners

Again, Cothy, a man so cynical as to cheerfully prattle about imaginary friends after a tragedy like this isn't equipped to scold about manners. Jim has you cold: Yours is not a new confusion. You got nuthin'.

> Congrats:

Was Jesus into sarcasm? I missed that part...

Just KIDDING!!!… Not really asking.

"You should listen to McGog; he's serving Heater, Hellmouth, and the low desert area."

I know everything looks worse on video but we have *got* to get that yard cleaned up.

See also another frequent link:

A diplomat isn't someone who is unfailingly polite; he's merely someone who is never unintentionally rude.

A psychotic break, sad, plain and simple.

Amy says:
"I hate, hate, hate when people seeking a cheap shot try to use my book and/or the subject matter."

I understand, partly b/c it angers me when Christianity is misrepresented or misused. I apologize.

> when Christianity is misrepresented or misused

Aw now, don't beat yourself up about it.

Crid,

I worded my statement to encompass the truth that I am sometimes a source of misrepresenting and misusing Christianity. Amy said she hates it when people misuse her book. I did not exactly copy her, and thus say: "when people [misuse]". I wanted to be inclusive of my own misuse.

Jim P quotes Epicurus:
"Is [God] able [to prevent evil], but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."

[Note: Epicurus made a philosophic assertion, and I will answer at a philosophic level. My answer has nothing to do with assuaging anguish of grieving parents. There are no words to assuage anguish, and certainly no philosophic argument. The only solution to anguish is the presence of God.]

Allowing evil is not malevolent; it is loving. W/o allowing evil, there would be no free will. Lack of free will would be horrific. We would no longer be humans as we currently understand humans. Instead, we would be human-like puppet things. Human-like puppet things would not have the ability to freely choose love.

Allowing evil is related to allowing suffering. If no pain, then we would experience constant pleasure. Such would be a horrific existence.

An imperfect analogy, but: think of women who have a medical condition which causes them to experience scores of orgasms per day. Their pleasure creates suffering.

Think of the Twilight Zone episode in which a bank robber is shot and goes to a cloud filled celestial city in which a kindly white haired gentleman gives him everything he wants. The bank robber soon becomes bored and irritated. He summons the gentleman:
-Can you send me back to Earth?
---Of course not. You're dead.
-Well, then I must belong with my friends in the Other Place. Send me there.
---Oh, we can't do that. Rules, you know.
-What is this place, anyway?
---This is the place where you get everything you want.
-But, I thought I was supposed to like heaven.
---Who said anything about Heaven? Heaven is the Other Place.

A world w/o suffering appears more like hell than heaven. And it is the same with evil. It is he same with difficulties in general. A world w/o difficulties would be horrific.

If any of us were the creator of all existence, and were perfect and loving: we would choose to create conditions which allowed difficulties, and pain, and evil. It would be the loving thing to do. The alternative would be unimaginably horrific.

Who said this?

[A]n ever-more-rickety, ever-expanding contraption of allusions, metaphors, pompous tut-tuttings, and insidious silences.

> Epicurus made a philosophic assertion, and
> I will answer at a philosophic level..

There's more to being 'philosophic' than avoiding contractions such as "I'll," but Amy's readers are no doubt enthralled that Epicurus will finally be receiving some high-voltage intellectual review, just 2282 years after his death. From you. Here.

> Allowing evil is not malevolent; it is loving.

Community college?

"The only solution to anguish is the presence of God."

This assertion negates itself.

Here's some light reading that may help (Oolon Colluphid is the author of several books on religious and other philosophical topics):

Where God Went Wrong

Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes

Who Is This God Person Anyway?

Well That About Wraps It Up for God

These people have provided lots and lots of practice.

No, really... More than anything else they've done in my generation, they've sought to make social distance from others.

As noted earlier in this discussion, I'll never understand why.

Were we knocking down their door?

Or were they appearing, uninvited —with their faux-intellectual, emotionally-tonedeaf, logically-oblivious sales pitches— in hours of national tragedy?

Magog,

I intend none of the following as disrespect. I simply disagree.

If you were the Creator: would you eliminate pain? suffering? free will?

You said, earlier:
"If [God] could have stopped the slaughter and didn't, that's all I need to know about him."

If you were Creator, where would you draw the lines? Would you only allow child death by means other than slaughter? Would you only allow a certain number of children to die in any one place? Or, would you refuse to allow any child death? At what age would you draw the line for child death: under age 6, or age 8, or age 12, or age 18, or where?

If you drew lines vis a vis child death: how would those lines affect parental protective instincts towards children, and thus affect parental behavior?

To me, the elimination of child death, even via horrifying massacre, would amount to a greater wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Separately, your argument, re the appropriateness of God allowing the massacre, is intellectually arrogant. Your argument anthropomorphizes God. You are saying:
1. I, a human, cannot see any way in which God's action is valid. Therefore,
2. God's action is invalid.

You are not allowing for the possibility that God has understanding of cause and effect which is far beyond our own understanding.

I'll give the Bear Trap example. It is premised on a greater difference in understanding, between man and God, than exists between bear and man.

A bear is caught in a trap. Man seeks to free him. Man first shoots tranquilizers into the bear. The bear, having lesser understanding, believes he is being attacked. Man, in order to release the spring of the trap, then shoves the bear's leg further into the trap. Were the bear still awake, the bear would perceive that man was being malevolent.

If that is how a bear would perceive the loving actions of a man: how much greater is the potential misperception, of man, about the loving actions of a God?

There are no gods. There is no Thor, there is no Aphrodite. Mars in a planet, not a deity of war. Nor does a Christian god exist, and Jesus was killed for being a pain in the ass. He did not rise from the dead, and he's not coming back to rescue you from your Earthly existence.

We are all we have. That's why it's important to treat each other well, because we are all we've got. Anything else is make believe, and while that works well in theater, film, and story, it's an infantile way to live a life.

The weird part, the imaginary interview thing, is a big part of this stench.


Cothy the Pedagogue:

God, via giving free will to imperfect beings, allows inevitable barbarism.

But why, Cothy? Why would He do that?

Why? The answer is multifaceted...

                       ————————————————

Hey Cothy, time for the Lightning Round!® What's pain like?

Pain is agonizing.

Do you fear it?

I fear it.

Do you run from it?

I run from it.

But is it torment, Cothy? Is pain torment?

It is torment.

Good to know!

                       ————————————————

God has understanding of cause and effect which is far beyond our own understanding.

What metaphor will you select from your enormous, scholarly file cabinet to make your point clear to us, the unwashed & confounded masses, Cothy?

I'll give the Bear Trap example.

Oh goody.

Any souls you harvest with this shit, here or elsewhere, deserve what happens to them.

But seriously, who are you practicing for?

"Separately, your argument, re the appropriateness of God allowing the massacre, is intellectually arrogant."

And your argument, that an omnipresent and omniscient god allowed these children to be slaughtered, describes not a loving creator through whom we can ameliorate our suffering, but a twisted psychopath who giggles at the terror he could stop - but won't.

Tell you what, get him on a talk show and let's get his side of the story, because buddy - you're doing a piss-poor job of telling it.

Magog,

Once again, you anthropomorphize God: you demand that God make himself known in a way in which you, i.e. a human, would make yourself known.

To me, it must be reasonably conceded that a God would be likely to make Himself known in an extremely wise way, i.e. in a way which would be based upon understanding which is wiser than mere human understanding.

Re this CT massacre:
will you concede a possibility that more good than bad will come of this?

If so, then you must concede that God might have acted virtuously (via creating imperfect beings who have free will; via refusing to interfere in order to prevent the massacre), and this would constitute a defeater for your assertion that a God who would allow this massacre is an unworthy God.

If not, then you are asserting there exists no possibility that more good will come of this than bad. To me, such assertion seems impossible to reasonably defend.

"you demand that God make himself known in a way in which you, i.e. a human, would make yourself known."

That's right. I demand that my creator communicates with me in a way that my feeble human brain can comprehend.

Otherwise I'm left to sacrifice lambs, read tea leaves, and study entrails of slaughtered doves and hope for the best.

You're telling me the Almighty knows when every sparrow falls but he can't use e-mail?

Please. Spare us your pathetic excuse for a god.

Or at least get him a smart phone.

> you anthropomorphize God

No more than you do, if you argue his omnipotence is constrained by logic rather than the author of it.

I'm starting to think yer not real bright. Or devoted yourself, in a personal, to-the-marrow kind of faith.

Just one link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We7DyKWw61I

Magog says:
"I demand that my creator communicates with me in a way that my feeble human brain can comprehend."

Magog,

Thank you for your responses.

Our Creator does communicate His presence in a way which humans comprehend.

He communicates in a way which He, as God, chooses. He does not communicate in a way which you, as a human, would choose for Him, or demand from Him.

God promises that those who seek Him will find Him. He loves you, and He wants you to know Him. But you must freely choose to seek Him.

Steve Daniels,

I can provide multiple links in which Hitchens' ignorance is exposed. I liked Christopher Hitches a lot: loved that he made me laugh; loved his guts and courage. But he was a polemicist. He was unknowledgable re philosophy, theism, theology. I am very glad that he presented the challenge, to Christianity, which he presented. And I admire his courage in that endeavor. But his ignorance was exposed in multiple instances. You can find such video yourself, on YouTube, and in other places.

btw:

Christopher Hitchens agreed that Christian worldview regarding suffering was internally consistent. In other words: Hitches did not believe Christianity was truth, yet also did not believe that the problem of pain was a legitimate method of impeaching Christianity. Hitches agreed with Christians: if a Christian God does exist, and given the desire for human beings to have freedom to make significant moral choices, and given that there will be ultimate justice, therefore Christian doctrine re suffering is internally consistent.

You can see William Lane Craig summarizing this, and displaying teasing mocking of Hitchens poor debate performance, beginning at 5:28 of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc8F1t32M7E&playnext=1&list=PL5003848839551D78&feature=results_video

> But you must freely choose to seek Him.

You're apparently going to insist, no matter how inappropriate the hour.

> his ignorance was exposed in multiple instances.

Riiiiiiiiight. You don't actually cite any "exposures"… You declare rhetorical victory (over a dead man) and move along.

Mortality is a (poorly-considered) theme of yours.

Tell us about your education, Cothy.

WLC was pathetic; Hitch mopped his ass in every encounter I've seen. Did I mention the "ever-more-rickety, ever-expanding contraption of allusions, metaphors, pompous tut-tuttings, and insidious silences"?

Yes?

OK.

Crid,

Don't take my word for it, though I watched both the informal and the formal Craig vs Hitchens debates, and though I cannot recall ever seeing Hitchens so famfloozled as at the formal debate. Rather, consider the website, Common Sense Atheism, which said this after the formal debate:

“Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.”

and here is an article http://www.bethinking.org/resources/dawkins-refuses-god-debate-with-william-lane-craig.htm
with applicable quotes re Craig, Hitchens, and Dawkins alleged fear of Craig.

Even better: go watch the formal debate for yourself. Hitchens was in over his head. It was a massacre. Seriously. Watch for yourself. God ought have intervened, out of mercy for Hitchens, if He were not so malevolent.

" He loves you, and He wants you to know Him. But you must freely choose to seek Him. "

Hail Satan.

Amy,

I have tried to warn you, previously, that you ought not tie your own credibility to a belief that Hitchens had excellent understanding of philosophy and theology. You've chosen to ignore my advice. A pity.

Some old movie dialogue that may help gcotharn understand himself:

Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?

Comicus: Stand-up philosopher.

Dole Office Clerk: What?

Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.

Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a *bullshit* artist!

Magog,

I get your message. Thank you for considering my message. I pray that you will, on some future day, shift your opinion.

> I have tried to warn you... A pity.

More a clucking hen than a grown man. This is the representation of Christianity for which you'll be judged.

Pasadena.

Steve Daniels,

That's me, babe.

I can provide multiple links in which Hitchens' ignorance is exposed.

I can brew my own beer.

I liked Christopher Hitches a lot: loved that he made me laugh; loved his guts and courage. But he was a polemicist. He was unknowledgable re philosophy, theism, theology. I am very glad that he presented the challenge, to Christianity, which he presented. And I admire his courage in that endeavor. But his ignorance was exposed in multiple instances. You can find such video yourself, on YouTube, and in other places.

There have been at least five mass extinctions on this planet that we know of. I don't see anything in the universe that actually gives a shit about those lives lost. Presumably, your god created those as well, and then didn't give a shit about them. Or are you one of those "The Earth is six-thousand years old." reality deniers?

Science. It works, bitches.

"I pray that you will, on some future day, shift your opinion. "

I'm sure the parents of the slaughtered students prayed as well. Look how that turned out.

I'm pretty sure Cothy was known, in a previous incarnation here, as Pseudonym.

He didn't do so well in that guise, either. I think he never want to college, and is kinda ashamed.

Steve Daniels,

I have to point out that I see no contradiction between science and Christianity. A tremendous number of scientists are Christians, and they see no contradiction between science and Christianity. Many philosophers are Christians - being Christian is almost a hip trend among philosophers - and they see no contradiction between science and Christianity.

Also: 4.54 billion years sounds like the most reasonable guess, so far.

Crid,

No.

For me to use a pseudonym, or to have used one in a past comment section, would feel, to me, kind of cowardly. I should stand behind what I say, and I do.

Your admiration for Craig is expressed through precisely the same mechanics as was that of the 2009 guy. Craig, YouTube, claims of indisputable (if imaginary) defeat for Hitchins, no rhetorical specifics. This convinces me that you are, in fact, the same guy. (Amerz: IP logs?)

If not, if this mundane theologian attracts multiple instances of Biebarian devotion from the same kind of white male blog visitor to Amy's website, well, that's an interesting factoid... But it's certainly not convincing in matters of cosmology.


> Also: 4.54 billion years sounds like the most
> reasonable guess, so far

Geology too, huh? You'll casually describe what sounds like a reasonable guess, as if you've reviewed all the literature... But you'll only speak provisionally, like a gen-yoo-ine Texas scientist, rather than a inane goof with imaginary friends.

What EXACTLY is your degree?

Steve Daniels,

Right again.

I have to point out that I see no contradiction between science and Christianity.

Your inability to see that has been noted.

A tremendous number of scientists are Christians, and they see no contradiction between science and Christianity. Many philosophers are Christians - being Christian is almost a hip trend among philosophers - and they see no contradiction between science and Christianity.

You are riding on *such* a pretty bandwagon. And a large one at that. Many, many, *many*! Eat shit! It tastes good! Fifty billion flies can't be wrong!

Also: 4.54 billion years sounds like the most reasonable guess, so far.

Ah, so you pick and choose among the bible stories you believe. You need to know, I was raised by descendants of Seventh Day Adventists. I reject their religion, but you have to respect the way the accept the *entire* bible, not just the parts that work for them. You seem to be cherry picking.

Why can't god be a giant turtle that swims through the heavens, carrying the world upon its back? Why is it the Greek gods are relegated to the status of myth, while your god is an existant all knowing consciousness? And why does your all knowing consciousness give a shit is a couple of guys want to suck each other's dicks?

Don't get me wrong, if your childlike belief gives you some comfort in a hostile world, it's cool with me for you to hang onto it. Much in the same way children find comfort in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, and/or Santa, I would not deny it to you. But please, leave the thinking people alone. Ok?

Thanks.

Crid,
there are other possibilities.

re Craig
Is it possible that Craig is an excellent advocate for theism, and that multiple Alkon commenters are aware of this? If you had ever actually listened, and focused in, on Craig's arguments, then you would understand that his arguments are formidable, and you would understand why Dawkins is alleged (by fellow atheists) to be afraid to debate against Craig.

At 23:30 of the linked video, Sam Harris, in his introductory remarks in a debate with Craig, said Craig is "the one Christian apologist who seems to put the fear of God into my fellow atheists." Harris went on to describe receiving phone calls from other atheists, urging him to "please don't blow this" debate with Craig. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-harris-notre-dame

re "4.54 billion years sounds like..."
I have no expertise. And I tried to use "sounds like" as an indicator that I have no expertise. From what I have read, carbon dating is legit and is cool, and 4.54 billion sounds like the best estimate.

You do astonish, in your wild lurching efforts to discredit me.

Amy,
thank you for making the effort re the IP check.

Sheesh. Y'all don't have to get tied up in knots. gcotharn is just trying to understand it-doesn't-make-any-sense slaughter by using it-doesn't-make-any-sense logic. Perfectly understandable.

One would need incomprehensible justification for incomprehensible acts.

> gotharn has only commented as gotharn,
> not Pseudo.

So Pseudo's address of 11-16-2009 is not available? That is a pity.

> Is it possible that Craig is an excellent
> advocate for theism

Well, he didn't convince me, in the hour-forty-whatever I gave to him on youtube earlier this year, so I wouldn't call him excellent. Snake-oil salesmen can't really aspire to excellence, though they often achieve proficiency.

> and that multiple Alkon commenters are
> aware of this?

Multiple Alkon commenters enjoy country music too, but they're easier to forgive. Again, the resemblance is in the Craig adoration, the need to (fraudulently) describe Hitchens as overwhelmed, and the failure to say in even a few words what part of an argument failed...

As if, and this is a theme here this week... As if you can badger someone into agreeing that they've seen a really good TV show, and their cosmological allegiance will be ripe for the picking. There used to be a guy who'd show up here two times a week and quote the Nicholson speech from A Few Good Men. We assumed he was terribly lonely, and that we knew why.

> And I tried to use "sounds like" as an
> indicator that I have no expertise.

As I've been tempted to say so many times in this thread.... If you have no expertise, then what the fuck do you know from a reasonable "guess"?

A man who would repeatedly say, at an hour like this (but NOT to the faces of those who [presumably] most need to hear it), that "Allowing evil is not malevolent; it is loving," is anything but reasonable.

> Y'all don't have to get tied up in knots.

No, but why not? Cheaper than tickets for shitty action films.

> gcotharn is just trying to understand it-doesn't-
> make-any-sense slaughter by using it-doesn't-
> make-any-sense logic.

If he could do so silently, his error wouldn't be noted. He's squirting this stupidity at people who have better things to talk about this weekend.

> Just one link:

I haven't seen a Hannity clip since last time this was under discussion.

His voice, his mannerisms, his attitude... This guy just did not suffer enough schoolyard beatings.

Do you suppose it too late?

Asking for a friend.

'K.

Imagine....

I have tried to warn you, previously, that you ought not tie your own credibility to a belief that Hitchens had excellent understanding of philosophy and theology. You've chosen to ignore my advice. A pity. -- gcotharn at December 16, 2012 3:44 PM

This comment shows your desperation. You are now impugning a dead man on his supposed knowledge, or lack thereof. Not that he had valid or invalid points.

You are not arguing whether his points are valid, and that you can refute them. You are arguing that Hitchens did not understand philosophy and theology. So all of his comments are invalid.'

This is the same as your response to my Epicurus post:

Jim P quotes Epicurus:

"Is [God] able [to prevent evil], but not willing?

Then he is malevolent."

Allowing evil is not malevolent; it is loving. W/o allowing evil, there would be no free will. Lack of free will would be horrific. We would no longer be humans as we currently understand humans. Instead, we would be human-like puppet things. Human-like puppet things would not have the ability to freely choose love.

Then you are saying that free thought and liberty are an enjoyable experience and that paradise is hell?

Then what happens when you get to heaven? Are you tortured by being at peace and controlled by God™ and Jesus® in Heaven or do you live through a Hell™ being in Heaven?

Amy,

Thank you for making the check. People with losing arguments resort to anything to justify their argument's validity.

They either realize the truth or become dogmatic.

They need to go away and run the truth tree and then come back and come up with valid arguments.

According to the bible

1. god made us in his image
2. we are like god
3. anything we ask of god in jesbus' name will be given to us

So if Gog demands god use a smartphone to talk to him, according to the bible god will use a smart phone to talk to him

The fact that god does not, means he isnt real
The fact that you argue that we can not comprehend gods thought process means you are directly contradicting the bible - you should be burned at the stake for you damnable heresy

You all make me sick. Nothing will come of constant bickering about the existance of God and any gun laws that you need to see changed/fixed/erased. Whatever. You are so busy trying to win an internet argument (which is ridiculous), that you've lost total sight of what is happening.

Twenty children were slaughtered. 20. Six adults were killed trying to protect those children. Stop and think about that for a moment. Take a deep breath, close your eyes, and think about your own children, your nieces/nephews, neighbor kids, etc. Now think of the 26 families that are dealing with this loss.

Shame on all of you. Now is not the time to play "I can use bigger words than you on an internet blog and am therefore superior to you in every way.". It is a time that we should all be coming together as a nation to find a solution to make sure that no child is killed while trying to learn addition and subtraction again. Time for discussion, but not just heated argument. Time to listen to one another because surely, we can try to come up with a solution instead of further divided our population.

I am at a loss how to make that happen, but I cannot stomach the thought of ever seeing this sort of thing in the news again.

Jim P says,
"[A]re saying that free thought and liberty are an enjoyable experience and that paradise is hell?"

First, let me tighten my own statement, which is the source of your question:
"Allowing evil is not malevolent; it is loving. W/o allowing evil, there would be no free will. [...] [Humans] would not have the ability to freely choose love."

So, my premise is that free choice of love is a good thing. My assertion: in order for humans to freely have this choice, evil must exist.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

re your assumption that I refuse to rebut Hitchen's assertions

I share, with you, a frustration at persons who choose to launch personal attacks, as opposed to rebutting reasoning and assertions. And, of course, I am also guilty of making personal attacks. Later, I almost always regret having done so. But, in the moment: I rarely regret it! :)

I have, in another thread, linked to persons who rebutted various of Hitchen's assertions. Do you really want me to rebut a Hitchens' assertion? thus opening up the entire ouvre of Hitchens' assertions over time? thus turning this into a full fledged widespread hashing out of theism vs antitheism? We, you and I, probably do not want to cause everyone here to go full metal jacket.

In the beginning, I wanted to show the Christian reasoning re the philosophic question in the blogpost title. Then, suffering was raised as an issue, and I wanted to show that Christian reasoning, re suffering, is internally consistent, and is not a valid reason to impeach Christianity. Which is to say: you guys can cling to other reasons for disbelief (until those reasons are eventually impeached), but "suffering" is not a worthy argument.

which, suffering, i.e. the problem of pain, is a noble argument. Extremely NOBLE. It would take a monster to fail to recognize and acknowledge that. But, philosophically, the problem of pain does not hold up as a reason to impeach Christianity.

You all make me sick.

Here you go:

http://www.gocomics.com/cathy/

Renee, got news for you sweetie, people die every day. And in greater numbers in countries not the USA

> You all make me sick.

Go away; never return.

> Take a deep breath, close your eyes, and think
> about your own children, your nieces/nephews

There's really nothing less attractive (or useful) on the surface of our moist globe than a woman in the mood to cluck. And this is a distinctly feminine problem: A need to affirm that we should and do feel the same things (in properly controlled circumstances, of course), so that deep down, we're all really just the same person.

But we're not, and I don't like you, Renee.

"It is a time that we should all be coming together as a nation to find a solution to make sure that no child is killed while trying to learn addition and subtraction again."

And what we're discussing here is that (A) the solution is not to turn to a god who let them get slaughtered and (B) not to turn to a government who let them get slaughtered and (C) not to give up our rights to defend ourselves against those who would slaughter us.

> I cannot stomach the thought of ever seeing
> this sort of thing in the news again.

Back for more! Looking at that exit line from Renee: seeing this sort of thing on the news.

This isn't about children for her. It isn't about murderers or mental health. It's not even about guns.

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about at December 14, 2012 2:13 PM— She's got no suggested principles for dealing with others, or changing opinions... No specifics or even generalities for policy that she's composed for us to consider. This woman has given her life to television... And she wants to be admired for having the perfect emotional responses to her favorite programs.

Fulfilling this social need for her is not worth your Constitutional rights, your safety, or your time. I don't even think you should consider it.

But hey, it's a free country, right?

It is a time that we should all be coming together as a nation to find a solution to make sure that no child is killed while trying to learn addition and subtraction again. -- Renee at December 17, 2012 8:03 AM

The best response is to take all concealed carry laws from every campus; that is a a state's right issue. Have an armed security officer on every campus. Encourage every single teacher to carry concealed.

Hardening a target discourages an animal from targeting the population in the facility. I have been to gun shows,and NRA related events. I also attend ren fests where about 25% of the population is carrying a sword or other weapon of mayhem. Take a guess where I feel safest?

The Aurora shooter had eight CCW licensees in the audience. They all observed the gun ban signs and didn't carry that night. What do you think would have happened if just four pulled and fired?

It is not a matter of law abiding citizens.

Crid,

I do not watch television, aside from the news. I was simply trying to point out that it seems that no one has taken any time to grieve before spewing hateful messages and extreme solutions. Take it for what it was worth. I used to think that people on this site were intelligent, but I've reconsidered my position. Enjoy the "No, you're stupid!" free-for-all. Maybe next time you can say something about my mother too?

Kisses and hugs...

> I do not watch television, aside from the news.

Yesyesyes, we've established this: You want to be admired for your taste. (And when that sweet lil' Katie Couric bats those Irish eyes of hers and asks us to emote, every heart goes a-flutterin'....)

> it seems that no one has taken any
> time to grieve

Preposterous... I've been moved like Hell... Every sane man has.

But you said "grieve," right? Well, kitten, that's not our responsibility, because we are not intimate with these families. We're surprised and saddened to hear that these people died, but on the other hand, we never knew they were alive, either. It would be plainly rude to publicly speak of fucking the wife of a man unknown to me, perhaps Newtown burgher: Your "grieving" his children, in his hour of brutalized vulnerability, strikes me as no less coarsely pornographic.

> Maybe next time you can say something
> about my mother too?

Well...

> Kisses and hugs...

She taught you sarcasm.



This was a profound and upsetting event. Many people think the problem is policy. I think those people are wrong, and we're going to talk about it whenever we want to... And we want to now.

There's a certain kind of idiot out there who lives an indoor life and raises children and has insufficiently challenging adult interactions; this kind of idiot comes to believe that she was put on this planet to scold. The straightforward irritation of these encounters isn't too troubling for other adults, but they can be awfully embarrassed for her.

I'm actually a working engineer. Yes, my initial post was emotional. I was distraught by the entire ordeal. Making such broad characterizations about me based on my emotional reaction is simple and sad. Since you've brought up my opinions, here they are...

I believe that C&C should be more wide-spread than it is. However, I believe that anyone who carries a gun should have some obvious way to identify themselves to the authorities in the event that they are trying to protect the innocent. I would hate to see a hero shot by the police simply because the police are unaware of who gets the "good guy" and who gets the "bad guy" status.

Second, I don't believe that establishing even more policies and laws will fix a damn thing. Better enforcement of existing policies would be nice though. I would like to see people policing their own neighborhoods, schools, and homes. I'm not talking about vigilante justice, just a presence that deters such insanity.

Finally, I would like to see a police presence in every school. I do not believe that we need to make the schools prison-like, but we need to do something to protect our most vulnerable citizens. At least if there is an armed officer present, he/she has the absolute authorization to take out a threat.

Blart! Game on!

"Absolute authorization" is an animal new to me. Yet I'm sure this will go well. Just seeing those two words together, I don't see how anything could possibly, possibly go wrong with "absolute authorization."

Of "a presence."

Because you're "distraught" by the ordeal, in its entirety.

How can I argue with such a well-articulated response? I lay down my sword.

Good. Don't VOTE, either, OK? And surrender the fantasy that your world can be made perfectly safe and un-troubling if only you could take over the lives of other people. It's little girl's fantasy, and it's neither helpful nor admirable.

But let's take one last opportunity to consider the notion of "absolute authorization."

And let's imagine an armed guy with A.A. and a weapon (maybe an assault rifle!) in every school in the nation.

To make them safer.

I believe that C&C should be more wide-spread than it is. However, I believe that anyone who carries a gun should have some obvious way to identify themselves to the authorities in the event that they are trying to protect the innocent. I would hate to see a hero shot by the police simply because the police are unaware of who gets the "good guy" and who gets the "bad guy" status.

The propeller beanie with the flashing blue light isn't enough?

Second, I don't believe that establishing even more policies and laws will fix a damn thing. Better enforcement of existing policies would be nice though. I would like to see people policing their own neighborhoods, schools, and homes. I'm not talking about vigilante justice, just a presence that deters such insanity.

A "presence"? An armed "presence" running around everywhere? Have you heard of Trayvon Martin? He met an armed "presence", and now he's dead for being the wrong color inside the gate.

Finally, I would like to see a police presence in every school. I do not believe that we need to make the schools prison-like, but we need to do something to protect our most vulnerable citizens. At least if there is an armed officer present, he/she has the absolute authorization to take out a threat.

A police officer has no more authority to use deadly force than anyone else. Not even more than you, scary as that sounds.

Move to Singapore. I hear it's very safe there. You may die of boredom from all the restrictions on your behavior, but you'll be safe. Very, very, safe.

I believe that C&C should be more wide-spread than it is

You a Red Alert or Tieberium fan?