« Deutsche Bank has an ethics problem - not an image problem | Main | Listen, Germany! Thomas Mann on the firebombing of Lübeck »

December 18, 2012



A staircase must be sweeped from the top, but this staircase is so long you don't see its end from the bottom. Social security and welfare are not the expression of romantic moods or utopian dreams of parliaments but strong tools to ensure social peace in the society. Deny them and you will pay a price in form of higher crime rates. The U.S. imprisons 10x more people per capita with longer terms than other nations, they have the death penalty - the only visible effect is increased brutality by those trying to get away with crime, because they don't have to lose much. 30,000 killed by guns every year in the U.S.A. - it is unlikely that more gun control would change anything. Make sure that psychos don't get a gun and run amok only would reduce that number to 29,970.

In the U.S., the root of all evil is a sort of brutal social darwinism. You might lose everything, your job, your house, but at the very least you still have your gun.

The arms producers only behave as expected, they can't be blamed. You encourage them to flood the nation with deadly weapons, you create the circumstances that lead to more crime, you make sure that every idiot can have a gun.

Austrians are not responsible for the stupidity of other nations (and they have record).



I agree that the social safety net in the US in inadequate, but that does not explain these killing rampages. Most of the mass murders are carried out by white, middle class - in the case of Adam Lanza, upper-middle class - young men.

There is some deeper social pathology at play here.


There will be explanations for every single killing, but on the large scale of time and quantity each has to be regarded as an expression of the normal variance of probability. Millions have weapons, 30,000 killed every year, sometimes some dozens killed in one event. It would be wrong to pick up only the 'rampage killings' and make plans how to avoid them. Instead, you would have to change the rules for the whole 'game' to escape the variance. And even if all weapons had been banned, some psychos would find ways to kill a lot of people, with illegal guns, cars or something else. The question is not how to prevent rampage killings of some 20 or 30 victims, but how to prevent the 'normal' killings of 30,000 people per year. If you continue to accept these victims as the unavoidable price of the 2nd amendment, you also must accept the variance of the individual numbers.


Disgusting. Sell weapons to Americans and make huge profits while looking down on us.


Hattie, I suppose the U.S. sells more weapons to the world than the world to the U.S. How many people are killed by American weapons worldwide and how do Americans look at other countries? Plus, Americans buy their weapons from American retailers. International trade of weapons would be bad enough, but that is topped by the U.S.A. for also being an open and stable market for weapons of almost any kind for everyone.

The U.S. are wealthy and heavily armed. Huray, hurray, America! The world, including Glock, pays respect and looks up to America.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad