The death of so many (or indeed any) children provokes an immediate emotional response, as it should. You will not see any argument from me and if you look closely you will see (I believe) a complete consensus on the abhorrence of that crime.
My disagreement is that your disappointment is based on different interpretations on what the cause and possible solutions to such a crime might be. I agree that some of those alternative views can be based selfishness, ignorance and what I often refer to as 'armchair analysis', however my interpretation of your post was that you are also 'disappointed' by views that I think in actuality are well informed and based on respect, compassion and care for fellow human beings.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with seeing a discussion about a massacre morph into a discussion about politics and ballistics but (and I want to say this as respectfully as I possibly can) it really is quite decent and naive view. The widespread abhorrence that you share is exactly the type of social condition that politicians exploit in order to pursue their existing agenda. Sometimes they exploit it and sometimes they manufacture it but sadly whenever possible they will use it....
I suspect that many (but not necessarily all) of the posts that you find so disappointing have been made by people that understand this so there is a question that I would ask you to consider... Is the world a better or a worse place if people are not easily manipulated and do not accept an expansion of state control due to a single emotionally charged event???
I should also add a qualification to that question... Is the world a better or a worse place if people do not accept solutions that do not even address the root cause of a problem???
