Another mass shooting in America

[wlfers]

fps said he cites real events, and made it seem that mass violence is achieved through almost exclusively the usage of firearms. so I provided him with a handful of real events.

we're not talking about single victim homicide are we now? i was clearly responding to

When a lone person decides to kill a crowd of people, he (always he) uses guns.

which clearly isn't true. so yes, bringing up mass attacks carried out by bombing certainly is relevant whether or not you personally think that method isn't feasible. keep an eye on the context of the discussion.

 

[wlfers]

I feel like some better regulation of guns is a great middle ground, but we aren't getting anywhere with the party split in America with the us against them mentality.

I agree with parts of your post, and I attribute it to the political climate where any concession is viewed as failure. During the discussion about the assault weapons ban, hunters gave in because they'd maintain their hunting rifles and accesories and that left a sour taste in the mouth of other gun owners who owned semi-auto rifles that "looked naughty".

On the other side the gun control folks view any concession as also failure. Here in California we have some of the most convoluted and outlandishly stupid gun legislation that does nothing for the safety of it's citizens. They picked out firearm attributes that look "scary" or names that are "scary" and started to ban them instead of implementing any reasonable gun control that entailed education and safety. They won't concede that most of them really don't know what they're talking about so they're nit picking over visual features- not conceding over completely trivial nonsense like a forward vertical handgrip on a centerfire semi auto.

Also since they foolishly banned by make, you cannot buy a colt AR15 or a kalashnikov 47, but you can own a rifle of the same type. Saiga for example makes the same ak47 receiver with an altered trigger assembly in russia. Just throw a bullet button on a rifle with a "pistol style" handgrip (if it has a removable magazine) and you're good to go.

I view this as an analogy for the greater firearms issue in America, neither side is willing to concede anything for the greater good of the nation, no matter how dangerous or legitimately uninformed their viewpoint is.

 

[fps]

fps said he cites real events, and made it seem that mass violence is achieved through almost exclusively the usage of firearms. so I provided him with a handful of real events.

we're not talking about single victim homicide are we now? i was clearly responding to



which clearly isn't true. so yes, bringing up mass attacks carried out by bombing certainly is relevant whether or not you personally think that method isn't feasible. keep an eye on the context of the discussion.

It's a fair point to be bring up counter-evidence when I was that specific with my point. Point taken, there are other methods that people have used. A timeline like this A Timeline Of Mass Shootings In The US Since Columbine | ThinkProgress suggests in any case, action can surely be taken on both fronts? I was stunned that someone tried to use the example of 9/11 as *evil does what evil does*, and didn't advocate any kind of restrictions on guns, given the amazing number of extra checks now added to airport security in America, and also a no-fly zone for unapproved planes that extends into Canada, I think I read somewhere (please correct if wrong). The point being, action was taken to prevent it happening again.

The killer's guns were, according to the paper I'm reading, legally owned by someone who he lived with. In basic terms surely everyone in a given house should have a licence to be in a house that has a gun. Is this already the case, does anyone know? I don't, if someone can enlighten me that would be great.

 

[flint757]

On the other side the gun control folks view any concession as also failure. Here in California we have some of the most convoluted and outlandishly stupid gun legislation that does nothing for the safety of it's citizens. They picked out firearm attributes that look "scary" or names that are "scary" and started to ban them instead of implementing any reasonable gun control that entailed education and safety. They won't concede that most of them really don't know what they're talking about so they're nit picking over visual features- not conceding over completely trivial nonsense like a forward vertical handgrip on a centerfire semi auto.

You know the one thing I notice is that the biggest issue with banning anything in particular is that it removes the responsibility so they no longer teach you about safety and proper practices. I relate this similar to abstinence being tought in schools. What does this accomplish? The schools not teaching students about safe sex at all (because they aren't having it, right ). This leads to high rates of pregnancies and other things we should want to avoid as a society.

It's a fair point to be bring up counter-evidence when I was that specific with my point. Point taken, there are other methods that people have used. A timeline like this A Timeline Of Mass Shootings In The US Since Columbine | ThinkProgress suggests in any case, action can surely be taken on both fronts? I was stunned that someone tried to use the example of 9/11 as *evil does what evil does*, and didn't advocate any kind of restrictions on guns, given the amazing number of extra checks now added to airport security in America, and also a no-fly zone for unapproved planes that extends into Canada, I think I read somewhere (please correct if wrong). The point being, action was taken to prevent it happening again.

The killer's guns were, according to the paper I'm reading, legally owned by someone who he lived with. In basic terms surely everyone in a given house should have a licence to be in a house that has a gun. Is this already the case, does anyone know? I don't, if someone can enlighten me that would be great.

Not everyone has to have a license. Would be impossible if you had children. What they should require, though, is that everyone in the home get taught gun safety and if there are children in the house add a special safety course for the owner as well. If the gun is in the home then everyone should be taught the proper safety practices.

I never specified the weapon and also said that it may not have been the same situation at all without the gun but it wouldn't have stopped him from hurting people. But let's just take your example...

If he'd bludgeoned/stabbed/sucker punched just ONE child/person/whatever... Is that better? Fuck no...

Why not try to understand what it is that makes people want to hurt others instead? I can't help but think that perhaps *some* people didn't get the proper nurturing growing up and that *sometimes* they'll take that out on people that had nothing to do with it because of either some false association they've made in their mind, a complete lack of reasoning altogether or something somewhere in between.

Whatever the case, I couldn't care less whether or not we're "allowed" to have guns. I just don't think taking them away will keep people from finding ways to take people out.

Folks have planted bombs before...

Strapped bombs to themselves...

Make home made throwable/plantable explosives...

Drive your car into a crowd (based on what I see in traffic on a daily basis they seem to just be handing out driver's licenses too)...

Some of these have been brought up before, and I realize that they're less common, but I feel like that's only because there's what most would consider to be a quicker, more effective means of completing the task. That said, with the most effective gone, the next effective becomes the go-to move...

It might also be interesting if we just outlawed "concealed" weapons. In other words, everyone must open carry.

On the one hand... YES... Criminals will still conceal; that's a no brainer. But maybe if they saw the number of people in that area that DID have guns they'd be slightly less ballsy. That or they'd continue to prey on areas where they know the majority wouldn't have one, like a school.

I just really don't think that a person sick enough to open fire on children would be any less likely to do something crazy if he'd had to choose another tool.

Well that is presuming that someone, being unstable as is, would be capable of doing some of the alternatives. If it were possible to remove the guns from all of the mentally ill, there'd probably be a drop in incidents. If bombs really were the second go-to then at least they risk killing themselves before harming someone else. I really don't think it'd be a 1:1 thing though. I do think it'd help if it could actually be enforced in a proactive way.

While any tragedy is terrible (and shouldn't be compared) it can't be ignored that someone beating up one kid would in fact be the better alternative than 26 dead. Both terrible things that I'd wish on no one, but can not be logically ignored either.

Mental instability is a tough bag of tricks to handle. Mental illnesses are hard to remedy unless the patient wants help in the first place. Therapy doesn't work otherwise.

Medication is an option, but then if you skip or quit taking it your disorder comes back. My friend does this from time to time (bipolar) and gets manic. When she is in this state she is a danger to herself and others, but no one can force her to take her med's either.

There are no simple solutions.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

When a lone person decides to kill a crowd of people, he (always he) uses guns.

Ban all men!

 

[Dooky]

Here in Tasmania we had a mass shooting at Port Arthur in 1996. 35 people were killed.
Weeks after this event the Australian government imposed new gun laws that severely restricted the availability of firearms. Since then, Australia has had 0 mass killings of any kind. So if the argument goes, "if the person doesn't have access to a gun they will find another way to commit mass murder", then how come in the last 16 years it hasn't happened?

 

[mr_rainmaker]

Fact: At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs.)


Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher. Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR - Nonprofit Mental Health Watchdog



Psychiatric Drugs and Mass Shootings | 2012

 

[mr_rainmaker]

a interesting read? tinfoil required...

Sandy Hook Shooting – Discrepancies (not conspiracies….. yet) | The Last Refuge

 

[Jakke]

Hey guis... Since criminals don't tend to follow laws.... Why not get rid of all laws then?


I also think we should ban all men.



Morgan Freeman denies making statement about school shooting

 

[Konfyouzd]

Dude, obviously we know now that you feel strongly about the issue. And that's fine. However, when it gets to be that 1 out of every 3 posts are yours reaffirming that people will always find a way to do violence, I think you can bow out or offer a new argument. And we're "going after" one type of atrocity because it's so common and requires little to no skill. Sure, someone could plan out bombings/killings/etc in the vein of "Law Abiding Citizen," but at the end of the day, the gun represents the greatest percentage of violent crime when considering how easy it is to use and get ahold of.



Uh, I think that ANY police department in the nation could present you with a room full of reports filed on violence done by guns. Bringing up 40% of the notable bombings in the last century won't do much to help your case, especially given the reasons already discussed as to why bombing is not as feasible a means to kill people for the general populace.

I'll change my argument when those coming at me propose a new one. It's been a stalement for several pages. I don't believe that removing guns will help anything. People just think that because it's the most obvious solution whenever you hear that someone has been shot.

 

[Konfyouzd]

You know the one thing I notice is that the biggest issue with banning anything in particular is that it removes the responsibility so they no longer teach you about safety and proper practices. I relate this similar to abstinence being tought in schools. What does this accomplish? The schools not teaching students about safe sex at all (because they aren't having it, right ). This leads to high rates of pregnancies and other things we should want to avoid as a society.



Not everyone has to have a license. Would be impossible if you had children. What they should require, though, is that everyone in the home get taught gun safety and if there are children in the house add a special safety course for the owner as well. If the gun is in the home then everyone should be taught the proper safety practices.



Well that is presuming that someone, being unstable as is, would be capable of doing some of the alternatives. If it were possible to remove the guns from all of the mentally ill, there'd probably be a drop in incidents. If bombs really were the second go-to then at least they risk killing themselves before harming someone else. I really don't think it'd be a 1:1 thing though. I do think it'd help if it could actually be enforced in a proactive way.

While any tragedy is terrible (and shouldn't be compared) it can't be ignored that someone beating up one kid would in fact be the better alternative than 26 dead. Both terrible things that I'd wish on no one, but can not be logically ignored either.

Mental instability is a tough bag of tricks to handle. Mental illnesses are hard to remedy unless the patient wants help in the first place. Therapy doesn't work otherwise.

Medication is an option, but then if you skip or quit taking it your disorder comes back. My friend does this from time to time (bipolar) and gets manic. When she is in this state she is a danger to herself and others, but no one can force her to take her med's either.

There are no simple solutions.

I read a story about a lady whose son had manic episodes and he was always threatening to kill her. It was written in response to the incident we've been discussing. She said it was one of the hardest decisions she'd ever made, but she ended up putting him in a mental institution since he was seemingily such a danger to her at the very least.

I'm not sure that decision is always made soon enough. Sometimes I think that the "kids" are no longer kids by the time those closest to them decide that that's what's best. It has to be tough to do.

In a way just pointing at guns seems like a cop out to avoid dealing with a more difficult problem.

 

[caskettheclown]

Staying out of the gun control conversation if possible.

Its horribly sad that things like this happen in this world.

I think people as a whole need to work together more to help each other grow to be better people while also teaching our kids to kinder and more caring. I'm not saying we should all be "hippies" and that anger is bad. Anger can be a positive thing if used positively and productively. I'm just saying we need to be more willing to spot out the people who need help even if they say the don't. When I was extremely depressed and suicidal, I told people I didn't need help and I was fine but I actually did need help desperately.
Obviously there are going to be "bad apples" but when we as a whole change the way we live our lives for the better then there will be a whole lot less "bad apples" in this world

 

[Konfyouzd]

*applause*

 

[Randy]

A couple points, since I haven't had a chance to make it back into this thread over the weekend.

What's most frustrating to me is that, yes, there is no black-and-white, single piece of law solution to this but all the "we need to learn to love eachother" "pay closer attention to the mentally insane" comes up every time something like this happens, and is so vague that nothing is implemented to help. It's a convenient segway away from having to do anything.

While, personally, I think the media's done a better job not making Adam Lanza a superstar, I see all over the place, the media cautiously memorializing Nancy Lanza. The woman raised a psychopath and she obviously didn't do enough to protect us from him. She kept weapons unsecured in the house with a dangerous person. For that, she's proportionately responsible for what happened. She was the person closest to him so if "we're all supposed to watch out for one another" and all that crap, she failed in the worst possible way.

So what do we do? Another thing that frustrates me are all the people, across social media and in here as well, that say "well, evil exists and it's unpredictable so let's just accept it and do nothing". No, there are things that can be done but you break down problem bit by bit, so that you can handle them. Personally, yes, I think that means some form of gun control but no I don't think that means an outright ban. As I've said previously in this thread, more responsibility among gun owners to keep their weapons in safes and secured. One option would be regular inspections and if they're not in compliance, their license and their weapons should be taken away. If you're a responsible person and you take care of your weapon because you enjoy them so much, keeping them safe isn't a big deal and you don't have anything to worry about.

With regard to the "crazy people will kill with anything they can get their hands on" angle, fine. As was mentioned about 9/11 earlier in this thread, when those acts occur, we come up with guidelines accordingly (in the example of 9/11, stricter rules at the airport). Obviously there's no such thing as a "one size fits all crazy person and weapon" law that will cover all cases. No matter what, crazy people will exist and murder will happen. But we can reduce it. There are holes in the current system that are exploited regularly and there's nothing wrong with addressing those holes as they expose themselves.

 

[flint757]

I read a story about a lady whose son had manic episodes and he was always threatening to kill her. It was written in response to the incident we've been discussing. She said it was one of the hardest decisions she'd ever made, but she ended up putting him in a mental institution since he was seemingily such a danger to her at the very least.

I'm not sure that decision is always made soon enough. Sometimes I think that the "kids" are no longer kids by the time those closest to them decide that that's what's best. It has to be tough to do.

In a way just pointing at guns seems like a cop out to avoid dealing with a more difficult problem.

A larger issue too, though, is that most parents will not do what the lady you described did. I'm sure some would, but a lot of parents live in perpetual denial about their kids problems whether they are physical, mental or behavioral. Nobody wants to think their child is broken and as such some choose to ignore it.

 

[TheDivineWing22]

The problem really is the stigma around mental illness/conditions, in my opinion. My girlfriend is in grad school for school psychology, so she knows obviously more than I do about the subject, but sent me two articles written about the shooting, one from the huffington post and the other, a response to the article from a member of the National Association of School Psychologists. I think everyone should take the time to read them both.

I am Adam Lanza's Mother

NASP member's response

 

[YngwieJ]

The Wonkette, which usually writes satire, wrote an interesting piece on gun control and the absurdity of the arguments gun advocates typically use.

 

[groph]

The only role for gun control advocates is being a human shield, when the bullets start firing. Hypothetically speaking, if all firearms became illegal to buy or possess, it wouldn't decrease the amount of firearms that already exist. If it were up to me, it'd be legal to carry an RPG for self-defense.

As for preventing or dealing with random mass murders, is to use ancient Roman forms of punishment. As in, the CO shooter should be publicly tortured/execution, and this guy's body should be mutilated and his head on a pike. The Romans also used the execution of one's entire family as a deterrent.

Good thing it's not up to you.

 

[mr_rainmaker]

n '95, Holder called for anti-gun info campaign: 'Brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way'

By Joel Gehrke December 17, 2012 | 12:23 pm

President Obama promised “meaningful action” to prevent gun violence, but he didn’t explain exactly what that meant. Although a push for some kind of gun control legislation seems likely, there’s also the possibility of an anti-gun “informational campaign” as described in 1995 by then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder.
Holder, now Obama’s attorney general, proposed using various levers of media and pop culture to attach a social stigma to guns, just as smoking has been stigmatized in recent decades.


“One thing that I think is clear with young people and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this,” Holder told the Women’s National Democratic Club while discussing how to curb gun violence in D.C. “It’s not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
To that end, he called for the “creative community” — “those ad agencies that create these snappy ads and make me buy things that I don’t really need” — to focus on convincing young people that “it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore.” He emphasized that newspapers and television need to devote prime space to these ads.

More From WashingtonExaminer.com


12 Next

 

[mr_rainmaker]

a good read if ya got the time

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf