I didn't say guns CAUSED shootings. I said guns were CAUSAL FACTORS. How? Well, pretty clearly if there WERE no guns, there would be no SHOOTINGS. Ergo, among the factors present in ANY shooting must be a gun.<br><br>In a previous post you claimed that BULLYING was a causal factor. You can't suppose that bullying CAUSES gun violence because of course it doesn't; not all victims of bullying become killers. Does bullying contribute to gun violence? Is it one of the causal factors? That is debatable. But what is not debatable is that GUNS are causal factors in shootings.<br>
<br>So by your argument if all we're allowed to look at is CAUSES, then it would be hard to do anything to limit gun violence. There is no reason to discuss the topic at all and certainly no reason to discuss bullying or almost any other contributing factor. On the other hand, if we're going to look at the CAUSAL FACTORS that contribute to gun violence it makes no sense to ignore the fact that guns are essential to gun violence.<br>
<br>Joe<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><br>
How does a gun CAUSE a shooting? The only way I can see a gun
being at fault for a shooting is if it fires accidentally. It was
certainly a factor in the shooting, hard to have a shooting
without one, but it didn't cause it. It requires a human being to
choose to pick up a gun and do something with it.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
On 01/01/2013 02:14 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><div><div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>How could you possibly claim that a GUN was NOT at least one
of the causal factors in a SHOOTING? I don't want to insult you
but ...<br>
<br>
On Dec 31, 2012, at 11:06 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>On 12/31/2012 10:20 PM, Saundra
Lund wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> Although,
I could easily use Paul – with respect to the Newtown
murders, he recently made a comment about shooters,
Columbine, and bullying that was factually wrong, too </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1f497d">J</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">
<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Was the Columbine shooting not related to bullying? I'm no
expert historian on this subject or anything, but that was
what I remembered from when we were trudging through the
aftermath of that event.<br>
<br>
My point, if I recall correctly, was that we should be
focusing on the causes of these spree shootings, instead of
trying to make them go away by taking away one set of guns.
So if the causes of Columbine did not involve bullying, then
we should be focusing on what those causes actually were.
That's a more direct and probably more cost-effective
solution, imho.<br>
<br>
You see, that's the thing. I go into these things expecting
to have a conversation. Someone says something, others
provide more information, ideas get bandied about, I learn
something, I find I'm wrong in some areas, right in others,
everyone walks away with a better idea of what's going on.
Instead, I'm supposed to be a member of a college debate team
or something. And people are keeping score and I don't even
know what rules they are using.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>