Connecticut School shooting!

[waggy]

ugh. What irritates me is threads like this, and teliviosn.

It wasn't guns that caused it. Turn on ANY news program at ANY time of the day. you know whats on? the damn shooting. the shooters face is plasterd all over, it has special music for it, they keep talking about him time after time. 24 fucking hours a day and will for a week or so.

They blame guns, TV, music, and video games. Guess what. none of that caused it.

This was the actions of a crazy individual and the media who makes them a star. Go to sights like 4chan. Where they list the top mass murders and joke about it being a game.

one of the news channels had a guest who said the best thing to do is not plaster his face, name or statistics all over.

oh yeah. i hate that they keep interviewing the kids. WTF parents no..bad idea. just bad.

 

[waggy]

I

People all over the world have mental illness and bad days, but they lack the means to take their pain and frustration out on other people. Unlike American killers that have done it over and over and over and now to 6 and 7 years old.

tell that to the parents of the kids at the camp in norway.

this wasn't a gun issue. this is a mental illness issue. I do think in teh US we ignore the fucking issue. We need to actually deal with people with mental illness instead of throwing them on the street or just flat out ignoring them.

 

[Ausm]

tell that to the parents of the kids at the camp in norway.

this wasn't a gun issue. this is a mental illness issue. I do think in teh US we ignore the fucking issue. We need to actually deal with people with mental illness instead of throwing them on the street or just flat out ignoring them.

I agree with your assessment on this issue. That's why I think the implementation of the ACA is a good step forward for people who couldn't afford the help and the drugs to combat their depression.

 

[Geosurface]

Guns aren't the issue and mental illness isn't the issue either. They're both part of it, but neither is "the issue."

Fact is, there are bazillions of guns out there that will never be used inappropriately.

There are also bazillions of people with mental illness of some type or severity or another... who will never harm themselves or others.

Millions of people go through depression, anxiety attacks, suicidal notions or homicidal notions and never act out on it.

It's not legitimate to take away their rights until they actually DO something illegal. It isn't moral.

Does that mean we just have to sit around and wait to pick up the pieces after some shit like this happens? Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means.

Deal with it.

Shit happens, it sucks, be glad it's rare.

A big part of why this stuff happens more is that there are too many people. Someone mentally ill enough and motivated enough to do something like this is a very rare item indeed. Start to have 7 billion people and you will be playing the lottery often enough, you will simply end up with more of them. It's a numbers game. But they're still rare, and we don't need to infringe on the rights of everyone else because of them.

Another aspect to it along with all the others, is the media. The media sensationalizes it and adds a fame motive.

But I'd rather have 1 mass shooting a week or a day across this nation than compromise the first amendment rights of the press or the 2nd amendment rights of the people who have done nothing wrong, and never will in 99.999999999999% of cases.

There are some voluntary cultural realignments that could help and I hope those happen for many reasons beyond just a reduction in mass shootings. I will remain hopeful but doubtful those readjustments in our culture happen.

 

[Druidx]

I already have my thought that might prevent this tragedies, where is yours? and don't give me fuzzy logic crap like cure mental illness shit.

People all over the world have mental illness and bad days, but they lack the means to take their pain and frustration out on other people. Unlike American killers that have done it over and over and over and now to 6 and 7 years old.

We heard your logic, it's the NRA's fault not the killers.
I'll stick with my fuzzy logic over your finger pointing.

 

[Engineer]

But I'd rather have 1 mass shooting a week or a day across this nation than compromise the first amendment rights of the press or the 2nd amendment rights of the people who have done nothing wrong, and never will in 99.999999999999% of cases.

That's completely fucked up (on the 2nd amendment that is). Thank God it hasn't gotten that far. If it had, I assure you that the 2nd amendment would be in complete danger.

 

[Geosurface]

That's completely fucked up (on the 2nd amendment that is). Thank God it hasn't gotten that far. If it had, I assure you that the 2nd amendment would be in complete danger.

How many drunk driving deaths per day do you need to see it hit before you are willing to turn over your car to the government and spend the rest of your days on a bicycle?

How many before you willingly give up your right to drink?

I'm consistent. I say, I don't give a flying fuck what the numbers are, my rights are my rights. And I've never even drank enough to be buzzed at age 32, and have never fired or interacted with a firearm of any kind except when the Navy required me to.

 

[Darwin333]

Oh that explains it - anyone with more than minimum wage instantly becomes conservative when you live in places like New Orleans

I don't go by any political label because none of them actually fit me. And I don't actually live IN New Orleans, right next to it in Jefferson Parish.

 

[Darwin333]

Drinks on you! Next week then! Lol

I'm gonna hold you to that lol

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Let's not mention or consider the fact that the kid was left without a father in his life due to the 60% divorce rate in this nation of pussies. When it comes to problems in life: Don't address them! Divorce that shit so you don't have to reason. Take more pills so you don't have to think about it. Derp derp

 

[Engineer]

How many drunk driving deaths per day do you need to see it hit before you are willing to turn over your car to the government and spend the rest of your days on a bicycle?

How many before you willingly give up your right to drink?

I'm consistent. I say, I don't give a flying fuck what the numbers are, my rights are my rights. And I've never even drank enough to be buzzed at age 32, and have never fired or interacted with a firearm of any kind except when the Navy required me to.

It's not the cars, it's the alcohol.

As for your rights, I assure you, if what you would accept as OK (for you) were to happen, you would indeed lose that right, whether you like it or not.

 

[sigurros81]

How is it false? So guns are made for killing... so what? Not all killing is bad, just like not all driving is bad. The fallacy is in placing the morality of driving over the morality of using a gun. In placing cars in a different category than guns because of some supposed "need" or "usefulness" that is apparently superior to the "needs" and "usefulness" of guns.

I would argue that the need for extreme self defense, say, after a natural disaster like Katrina or in a situation like the Rodeny King riots is just as relevant as the more mundane daily needs for a car, if less frequent. This need could easily be met by "assault weapons", as it was in both mentioned scenarios.

Here's the arguments I'm hearing for banning high capacity magazines/assault weapons.

1. They are not "needed".
2. They are dangerous.

So why don't we ban other things that fit that criteria? And don't say "because they serve other purposes" as we've established that "they are not needed", ergo their "purpose" isn't enough to justify it.

1. An SUV is not "needed". It has no practical "purpose" (given the availability of Jeeps, pick-ups, and minivans).
2. An SUV is dangerous.

1. A pocket knife is not "needed", unless one is doing something that requires a knife.
2. A pocket knife is dangerous.

1. Nail clippers are no "needed" unless one is clipping nails.
2. Nail clippers are dangerous in certain contexts.

My point is the logic behind the arguments in favor of banning assault weapons and high capacity magazine is the same "logic" that's brought us beyond dumb TSA regulations and UK-style "need" and "proportional force" arguments where people get locked up for defending themselves. The argument invalidates itself because it's general, and if applied generally leads to absurdity.

The only attempt to specify its scope consists of an abstract moral, philosophical argument that guns are somehow different from other dangerous items due to their range of potential uses. If that's the case, then the argument is no longer about saving lives and dangerous items, but about philosophy and subjective impressions.

Therefore, I find the "need and danger" argument to be incredibly weak as a grounds for practical legislation.

I hope this is the argument of an 8 year old who is still developing mentally. Because if this is the argument of a full grown adult, I'm embarrassed for humanity.

/epicfacepalm

 

[Dude111]

Because criminals don't obey gun laws.

They dont obey knife laws either!!!!! -- 22 kids in china were knifed in an attack in school the other day (Thankfully no one died)

 

[Geosurface]

Let's not mention or consider the fact that the kid was left without a father in his life due to the 60% divorce rate in this nation of pussies. When it comes to problems in life: Don't address them! Divorce that shit so you don't have to reason. Take more pills so you don't have to think about it. Derp derp

Agreed.

And I think feminism is to blame for a lot of the fatherlessness.

People crusaded to get it to the point where a woman didn't need to keep the father around but could instead have the government strong arm the money out of him, or out of society in general.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

There was never any reformulation, that was my original argument. Sorry if I was unclear on that, I wasn't responding to you at that point.

You state guns should be regulated more than other similarly dangerous items due to some perceived "purpose". Cars are dangerous, especially dangerous in the hands of a madman, but in your mind this potential danger is excusable due to their primary utilitarian uses.

Guns, in your mind, have no similarly exculpatory "primary purpose". This is an issue of subjective philosophy, not a logical fact. It is also completely irrelevant to the argument that "assault weapons should be banned because they are especially dangerous".

To put it in one line, the argument in favor of banning assault weapons/high cap mags is: "These items should be banned because they are especially deadly, and their only purpose is to kill mass amounts of people." The second half of that sentence is an irrelevant and vague detail, subject to the reader's perception of such use. It is not a valid support for the argument "assault weapons/high capacity mags should be banned because they are especially deadly."

What your argument boils down to is "crazy people should not have access to assault weapons because they are especially deadly". Well no shit. Crazy people shouldn't have access to a lot especially deadly things (like, for example, CARS). And we have laws in place to limit said access. Now if you want to debate said laws fine. You can argue in favor of gun licensing, (which, I should point out, is based on a similar philosophy to car licensing), among other things.

But the fact is, the guns = cars analogy is not inaccurate merely due to a subjective, perceived difference in primary purpose. They are both extremely deadly in the wrong hands, extremely safe in the right hands, and are widely owned. Therefore they can be compared and equivocated on those grounds.

a) I am not calling for banning anything.

b) The guns=cars analogy is obviously faulty, for the reasons I and others have repeatedly written.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Guns aren't the issue and mental illness isn't the issue either. They're both part of it, but neither is "the issue."

Fact is, there are bazillions of guns out there that will never be used inappropriately.

There are also bazillions of people with mental illness of some type or severity or another... who will never harm themselves or others.

Millions of people go through depression, anxiety attacks, suicidal notions or homicidal notions and never act out on it.

It's not legitimate to take away their rights until they actually DO something illegal. It isn't moral.

Does that mean we just have to sit around and wait to pick up the pieces after some shit like this happens? Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means.

Deal with it.

Shit happens, it sucks, be glad it's rare.

A big part of why this stuff happens more is that there are too many people. Someone mentally ill enough and motivated enough to do something like this is a very rare item indeed. Start to have 7 billion people and you will be playing the lottery often enough, you will simply end up with more of them. It's a numbers game. But they're still rare, and we don't need to infringe on the rights of everyone else because of them.

Another aspect to it along with all the others, is the media. The media sensationalizes it and adds a fame motive.

But I'd rather have 1 mass shooting a week or a day across this nation than compromise the first amendment rights of the press or the 2nd amendment rights of the people who have done nothing wrong, and never will in 99.999999999999% of cases.

There are some voluntary cultural realignments that could help and I hope those happen for many reasons beyond just a reduction in mass shootings. I will remain hopeful but doubtful those readjustments in our culture happen.

I think this is a completely misguided view, with respect to the way mentally ill people are treated.

As yet we don't know a lot about Adam Lanza, but James Holmes, for example, was apparently perceived as a highly dangerous, mentally ill man by the entire staff of the U of CO school of psychiatry, yet they could take no action to get him committed. I think that's wrong, and if they had, he would have harmed nobody. I myself defended a mentally ill man who was put on a 72-hour hold because he was severely depressed with signs of psychosis. He could not he committed past the hold period, and ended up drowning his 6-month-old baby. I could list many more examples, but one that comes to mind is this kid, who killed two people after his parent spent years trying to get him help for his increasingly crazy and violent behavior - http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...store-slayings-Suspect-s-creepy-past-recalled

I would like to see some reforms to these laws - accompanied by judicial scrutiny to protect the patients' rights - because at this point we err so strongly in favor of patients' rights that it's often impossible to protect the public from violent crazies.

 

[nextJin]

What baffles me are people still going on and on about banning gun sales, even if you banned the sale of assault rifles, there are hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) already in circulation. The only way to effectively solve this is too ban all firearms across the country and quadruple the searches at the borders along with a thousand percent increase in border security.

Not to mention the door to door seizure of all firearms. Good luck with that on MLK Drive or in the south.

None of that is going to actually be effective, something (in my mind at least) that would be is to target mental health across the board, yearly checks for all registered gun owners of any type linking to a database with family members mental health issues.

Basically, if you have kids who are effectively psycho you're not getting a weapon or after being diagnosed you have to store them outside that child's residence under a mental health doctor says they are fine.

Doctor confidentiality is completely removed for mental health issues. They can report their patients to the police, parents, child services, etc. if they feel they are psychopathic or a threat to others.

I am just pulling things out of my ass, but something focusing on the problem should be discussed. Every single one of these are from two things;

- Weapons
- Mental instability

Target BOTH, don't target just the weapons because it won't change anything.

I am a gun owner, and I do see some legislation that could help tackle this. But it is not across the board bans, it's not going to work and anyone saying it will are just taking advantage of a horrible situation to further their beliefs.

 

[nextJin]

I think this is a completely misguided view, with respect to the way mentally ill people are treated.

As yet we don't know a lot about Adam Lanza, but James Holmes, for example, was apparently perceived as a highly dangerous, mentally ill man by the entire staff of the U of CO school of psychiatry, yet they could take no action to get him committed. I think that's wrong, and if they had, he would have harmed nobody. I myself defended a mentally ill man who was put on a 72-hour hold because he was severely depressed with signs of psychosis. He could not he committed past the hold period, and ended up drowning his 6-month-old baby. I could list many more examples, but one that comes to mind is this kid, who killed two people after his parent spent years trying to get him help for his increasingly crazy and violent behavior - http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...store-slayings-Suspect-s-creepy-past-recalled

I would like to see some reforms to these laws - accompanied by judicial scrutiny to protect the patients' rights - because at this point we err so strongly in favor of patients' rights that it's often impossible to protect the public from violent crazies.

This is what I meant with Mental Health issues being tackled across the board.

+1

 

[Geosurface]

Something (in my mind at least) that would be is to target mental health across the board, yearly checks for all registered gun owners of any type linking to a database with family members mental health issues.

Basically, if you have kids who are effectively psycho you're not getting a weapon or after being diagnosed you have to store them outside that child's residence under a mental health doctor says they are fine.

Doctor confidentiality is completely removed for mental health issues. They can report their patients to the police, parents, child services, etc. if they feel they are psychopathic or a threat to others.

Yep let's increase the stigma on getting help for people with mental illness even more. Let's make them feel that getting help is essentially equivalent to calling up the cops and saying "Hey I'd really like it if you start tracking me as a dangerous individual." Which will make them let it get even worse before they seek help, if they do.

Let's blow confidentiality out of the water, increase paranoia about those with mental illness (which is a huge number of people.) Do you have any idea the number of women in their 20's on anti-depressants for instance?

What mental illnesses do we set up to trigger this sort of shit? Just depression? Suicidal thoughts? What? This is a very very complex area of medicine and I don't see how you can accurately set up the boundaries of where you start taking peoples' rights away.

And do you honestly think it's moral or within the spirit of the constitution to remove rights from people who have not done anything wrong? Because you think they might?

Just face it, you can't stop these horrible events. The more you try, the worse you will make society for lots and lots of innocent people.

Take a deep breath, and accept that shit happens.

Thankfully, things like this are outrageously rare.

What I'd approve of is setting up a national network of psychologists who are willing to work for free or at reduced rates, linked up by local area to people who anonymously register in the system as someone who worries they may be headed toward doing a mass shooting, or murder suicide. The system then links them with one of the professionals, and anonymity is maintained throughout.

If someone makes direct, tangible threats that they will be doing a mass shooting, I approve of committing them and removing their right to legally own guns.

But you talked about "if your kid is crazy you can't have guns" okay well... what if your crazy kid is friends with a non-crazy kid whose dad has guns, and his first stop before his mass shooting is to break into that kid's house and steal the guns while the dad is at work and his friend is at school? Or he knifes them and takes the guns?

 

[nextJin]

Yep let's increase the stigma on getting help for people with mental illness even more. Let's make them feel that getting help is essentially equivalent to calling up the cops and saying "Hey I'd really like it if you start tracking me as a dangerous individual."

Let's blow confidentiality out of the water, increase paranoia about those with mental illness (which is a huge number of people.) Do you have any idea the number of women in their 20's on anti-depressants for instance?

What mental illnesses do we set up to trigger this sort of shit? Just depression? Suicidal thoughts? What? This is a very very complex area of medicine and I don't see how you can accurately set up the boundaries of where you start taking peoples' rights away.

And do you honestly think it's moral or within the spirit of the constitution to remove rights from people who have not done anything wrong? Because you think they might?

Just face it, you can't stop these horrible events. The more you try, the worse you will make society for lots and lots of innocent people.

Take a deep breath, and accept that shit happens.

Thankfully, things like this are outrageously rare.

There is a vast vast difference between what I am suggesting (worded wrongly or not) and women in their 20's on anti-depressants.

In almost every single case the power to do something was not given to those who could have threw these people into psych wards/nut houses.

I came up with crude off the hip ideas that effectively target the root cause. I never said I was heading to the capital to start drafting legislation. Ideas and Laws should be discussed, vetted, discussed even more, thrown out and discussed again and again until it is something everyone can agree on.

I firmly believe that instead of the anti gun crown or the NRA, the people who help draft these laws should be doctors, not emotional leprechaun f*** coasters who have nothing better to do than to take advantage of a horrible event to make them feel better about themselves.

NINJA EDIT:

What I'd approve of is setting up a national network of psychologists who are willing to work for free or at reduced rates, linked up by local area to people who anonymously register in the system as someone who worries they may be headed toward doing a mass shooting, or murder suicide. The system then links them with one of the professionals, and anonymity is maintained throughout.

If someone makes direct, tangible threats that they will be doing a mass shooting, I approve of committing them and removing their right to legally own guns.

But you talked about "if your kid is crazy you can't have guns" okay well... what if your crazy kid is friends with a non-crazy kid whose dad has guns, and his first stop before his mass shooting is to break into that kid's house and steal the guns while the dad is at work and his friend is at school? Or he knifes them and takes the guns?

See I agree with this type of thinking, something along this is what I am getting at. Like I said I was shooting from the hip (wow that sounds bad). However law enforcement should be notified if they believe that person is about to go kill people or they should have the power to put them in a hospital. That alone would have prevented the theater shootings.

 

[waggy]

I think this is a completely misguided view, with respect to the way mentally ill people are treated.

As yet we don't know a lot about Adam Lanza, but James Holmes, for example, was apparently perceived as a highly dangerous, mentally ill man by the entire staff of the U of CO school of psychiatry, yet they could take no action to get him committed. I think that's wrong, and if they had, he would have harmed nobody. I myself defended a mentally ill man who was put on a 72-hour hold because he was severely depressed with signs of psychosis. He could not he committed past the hold period, and ended up drowning his 6-month-old baby. I could list many more examples, but one that comes to mind is this kid, who killed two people after his parent spent years trying to get him help for his increasingly crazy and violent behavior - http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...store-slayings-Suspect-s-creepy-past-recalled

I would like to see some reforms to these laws - accompanied by judicial scrutiny to protect the patients' rights - because at this point we err so strongly in favor of patients' rights that it's often impossible to protect the public from violent crazies.

I agree.

I think as a nation we shy away from actual help. we tend to ignore and hide it. This is a shame.

We need to help people who are like this. even if they don't want it. If not for there sake then for ours.

Seems nearly every time something happens like this we find out they have major mental issues. (seems to me a no brainier. anyone that hurts kids like this has to have something loose).

 

[Geosurface]

There are a lot of things in this world I'd like to see stop happening:

Over-eating
Smoking
Drug use
Domestic abuse
Child abuse
Scamming elderly people out of their money
Psychics scamming the grieving
Religion
Rape of the environment
Westboro funeral protests
Bullying at schools
Gay kids being driven to suicide by bullying
Mass shootings
Car accidents
Drunk driving

And a whole host of other nasty stuff.

But I'm realistic enough about human nature, personal freedoms, and just the way the world is when you have a shit load of people... it's too complex of a system to stop these things. You just accept it, and try not to watch news that makes it seem a lot more common than it is, so you can go on with your life.

 

[Ausm]

I agree.

I think as a nation we shy away from actual help. we tend to ignore and hide it. This is a shame.

We need to help people who are like this. even if they don't want it. If not for there sake then for ours.

Seems nearly every time something happens like this we find out they have major mental issues. (seems to me a no brainier. anyone that hurts kids like this has to have something loose).

I think this has to do with Republicans push for "rugged individualism' and fuck everyone else it's not my problem/don't want to pay for it attitude that they demagogue as "Socialism".

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

There are a lot of things in this world I'd like to see stop happening:

Over-eating
Smoking
Drug use
Domestic abuse
Child abuse
Scamming elderly people out of their money
Psychics scamming the grieving
Religion
Rape of the environment
Westboro funeral protests
Bullying at schools
Gay kids being driven to suicide by bullying
Mass shootings
Car accidents
Drunk driving

And a whole host of other nasty stuff.

But I'm realistic enough about human nature, personal freedoms, and just the way the world is when you have a shit load of people... it's too complex of a system to stop these things. You just accept it, and try not to watch news that makes it seem a lot more common than it is, so you can go on with your life.

That doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't try, or that reasonable measures to deter these things can't work. When the federal government made high-mounted third brake lights mandatory, rear end collisions dropped in half. Under your rubric, they shouldn't have bothered to enact this law because, hey, accidents are going to happen. Why have laws at all? People are just going to break them!

 

[Spicedaddy]

Guns aren't the issue and mental illness isn't the issue either. They're both part of it, but neither is "the issue."

Fact is, there are bazillions of guns out there that will never be used inappropriately.

There are also bazillions of people with mental illness of some type or severity or another... who will never harm themselves or others.

Millions of people go through depression, anxiety attacks, suicidal notions or homicidal notions and never act out on it.

It's not legitimate to take away their rights until they actually DO something illegal. It isn't moral.

Does that mean we just have to sit around and wait to pick up the pieces after some shit like this happens? Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means.

Deal with it.

Shit happens, it sucks, be glad it's rare.

A big part of why this stuff happens more is that there are too many people. Someone mentally ill enough and motivated enough to do something like this is a very rare item indeed. Start to have 7 billion people and you will be playing the lottery often enough, you will simply end up with more of them. It's a numbers game. But they're still rare, and we don't need to infringe on the rights of everyone else because of them.

Another aspect to it along with all the others, is the media. The media sensationalizes it and adds a fame motive.

But I'd rather have 1 mass shooting a week or a day across this nation than compromise the first amendment rights of the press or the 2nd amendment rights of the people who have done nothing wrong, and never will in 99.999999999999% of cases.

There are some voluntary cultural realignments that could help and I hope those happen for many reasons beyond just a reduction in mass shootings. I will remain hopeful but doubtful those readjustments in our culture happen.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/gun-deaths-a-familiar-american-experience/

"Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids."

Shit happens, you're right. It just happens a lot more in the US than anywhere else...
I doubt there's more mental illness per capita than in other countries, I'm pretty sure however that there are more guns.

I'm Canadian, and I don't know any middle-aged woman who owns a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and assault rifles. Would the killer have found a gun somewhere else if he didn't have the arsenal at home? Probably, but it would've been harder. It's not about stopping all gun deaths, it's about reducing how often it happens.