Something triggers this kind of behavior. It's not always the same issues, but certainly you can admit that it's not normal for someone to go around shooting other people. Is attacking the problem from the mental health side enough, no, but neither is ignoring that it is a contributor to the problem. The knife attack in China the same day seems to have a mental factor as well.
US: 30 shot at school, China: 22 knifed at school
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Something triggers this kind of behavior. It's not always the same issues, but certainly you can admit that it's not normal for someone to go around shooting other people. Is attacking the problem from the mental health side enough, no, but neither is ignoring that it is a contributor to the problem. The knife attack in China the same day seems to have a mental factor as well.
It isn't normal by the standards that you might go by, perhaps.
Tell me. Do you think Anders Brevik was insane?
Or was he just just really, really angry about something?
Tell me. Do you think Anders Brevik was insane?
Or was he just just really, really angry about something?
The Marquis,
Maybe you should read what Bells wants for gun control, notice it does not abolish guns. As for cars:
- We require everyone get a license to drive, hey why not do the same for guns?
- cars are used for all sorts of things, many of which vital. Hand guns and so called assault guns are used to killing people, target practice to prepare for the day you need to kill people, and laying around somewhere between practice and killing people. Maybe if we could limit guns to shot guns and non-clip feed hunting rifles, which have other uses besides killing people (sport and hunting game for food)
I don't see why we can take practical measures to try to reduce the number of guns that end up in the hands of psycho murders and not law abiding good people without this silly idea that we are going to take away all guns. If these psychos are limited to knives we would have a reduce murder rate, as seen when you compare China's child killing spreers verse American ones for example.
Maybe you should read what Bells wants for gun control, notice it does not abolish guns. As for cars:
- We require everyone get a license to drive, hey why not do the same for guns?
- cars are used for all sorts of things, many of which vital. Hand guns and so called assault guns are used to killing people, target practice to prepare for the day you need to kill people, and laying around somewhere between practice and killing people. Maybe if we could limit guns to shot guns and non-clip feed hunting rifles, which have other uses besides killing people (sport and hunting game for food)
I don't see why we can take practical measures to try to reduce the number of guns that end up in the hands of psycho murders and not law abiding good people without this silly idea that we are going to take away all guns. If these psychos are limited to knives we would have a reduce murder rate, as seen when you compare China's child killing spreers verse American ones for example.
Angry enough to push him past the point of resistance to do harm to others. I'm not a psychologist, and don't pretend to be. I think he was, from society's point of view. He might view what he did as very rational.
Bells
Staff member
No, you should not stand by it because they are two completely different animals. It is literally like comparing apples to oranges.
And people like you reacting to even a hint of some form of gun control are lazy. You don't like change. It forces you outside of your comfort zone and your pre-conceived notions and beliefs. I mean look at the Americans in this thread. They have just had a horrendous massacre, where small children were gunned down like animals by a mentally ill man who got hold of his weapons after he murdered his paranoid survivalist mother who was legally allowed to purchase all of these weapons and more.. And they still shift uncomfortably at even a hint of gun control against semi-automatic and automatic assault weapons.. Why does anyone need weapons that people in the army use in times of war? I'm serious.. Why do they need it?
We have seen time and again, people who arm themselves to the teeth in this fashion, have either themselves or members of their families using those weapons to commit mass murders. We saw it in Columbine and we saw it last week. We have also seen time and again, trigger happy buffoons who should not be allowed to operate a microwave oven, being given the legal right to purchase and own assault weapons who then go on to kill members of their own family by accident because they thought it was a burglar coming to the door. They aren't using those weapons to hunt. So why have them? Are they afraid, like Mrs Lanza was, that the world would end and they need their guns to keep their food stores safe?
In all of these threads, not a single gun advocate has been able to say why they need these weapons and why they seem to believe their rights or their lives will end if laws are enacted to prevent everyone from gaining such easy access to these weapons.
We have seen in Australia, the UK, for example, that stricter gun control laws reduces the rates of mass shootings.
So it is easy to be like you and wring our hands and say 'it's not the answer' and be lazy because it just isn't worth the hassle to do something better.. Or it may be better to fight for a solution.
I have explained to you why you cannot compare.
Men, in particular, were required to own their military rifles in Switzerland because there are no armed forces. No army. So the country is meant to be defended by the populace. So all males are required by law, to be conscripted and trained. They then take their assault rifles home upon finishing their training and they are not allowed to purchase bullets for said rifles and the Government only gives it to them during training or exercises or if it is required to (ie, by law).
However in recent years, the number of men electing to take their weapons home have dropped and yes, their laws are probably much stricter than that in the US:
But hey, you keep comparing those apples and oranges..
Then what do you suggest?
You balk at even back ground checks, it seems, as a form of gun control.. I find your argument on this subject lazy. You think something should be done, but you can't quite say what, so you prefer to just point the finger at everyone and tell them they are wrong without offering anything of substance in return.
Should there be a philosophical change in the US regarding it's attitudes on guns? I think that is desperately needed. But the first step that should be taken in the immediate is a discussion about what types of guns people should be allowed to purchase and why they feel they need it.
Have you failed to noticed that the shooter in this instance was actually mentally ill and lived with his mother who was a paranoid survivalist who was stockpiling weapons legally because she thought the world was going to end soon?
Is that hard for you to comprehend?
Or is that normal for you?
You do realise it is harder to get a driver's license in the US than it is to purchase a gun, don't you?
I mean you have to know how to drive it, you have to take lessons, pass tests, your background checked, after you obtain your drivers license, you can be randomly and routinely stopped and your identity checked and your vehicle checked.
Yet any schmuck can walk off the street and purchase an assault weapon with many not even undergoing a background check or a psychological test...
What does that tell you?
Not hard enough, the way some people drive, but yeah, your point still stands.
Senator Feinstien's new proposed gun control bill has over 900 excemptions in it. This is just more feel good legislation. We have had over a half century of gun regulation and hasn't worked.
The good news is I am hearing some talk of improved mental healthcare.
She was not a paranoid survivalist, the news articles I read said that specifically. EDIT: Sorry apparently she was.
The thing is we don't need a reason. In the USA we have a right to own guns for no particular reason. Some people feel that they are the only thing that could prevent a government from oppressing us.
What weapons? There is no substantial difference between a gun for hunting and one for shooting people. And more restrictive laws would not have prevented the incident in Connecticut. It's too late to prevent the prevalence of guns in the USA. They are already everywhere.
Last edited:
But perhaps the usual interpretation of the results of the Milgram experiment is wrong.
1) Because criminals will always have access to them and some people want a level playing field.
2) Because it acts as a strong deterrent against any form of violent oppression.
3) Because the U.S. is a free country, not a safe one.
It's sad when people go on killing sprees and I'll speculate that there are mental health, socioeconomic, and genetic aspects that feed into it. This is a price that the U.S. has to pay for freedom.
Bells
Staff member
How's that working out?
I mean, do you not have police officers?
Which the US is at risk of....?
The irony is that the shooter's mother stockpiled these weapons (along with food and water apparently) because she thought the US was about to collapse and she stockpiled to protect herself from what she believed was the inevitable end of the world...
Worked out well, didn't it?
Tell that to the parents of those children.
Tell them that their children are the sacrificial lambs for your freedom to own a firearm.
Hasn't worked? violent gun crimes has gone down significantly since 1970! Yes true correlation is not causation but it clear the people are not even willing to even examine the data, we have dozens of other developed countries with varying gun laws to review as experimental models for what works or not, we have historical record in this country. Why can't this subject be approached rationally and practically? What so wrong with trying to limit gun ownership to sane and law abiding citizens, why its it always equated with trying to take away your guns? Is asking for more background checks, required training, proper storage, psych exam from gun buyers and owners that horrible? And why not use revenue from ammo tax and fining for gun storage violations to help pay for more psychological services to detect psychos early before they become a problem and get them the treatment they need?
Let this be a lesson. In your end of the world bunker, your worst enemies are those you bring with you.
Nothing is really wrong with this approach, except that psychos aren't predictable, and in most cases, this would not have prevented anything. In this case, the kid didn't buy any guns himself.
The fines for gun storage violations may have convinced the mother to store her guns more safely, and the funding that provided for psychological services may have helped treat this guy before he became a serial killer.
It has pros and cons like any approach. Many people have successfully killed armed intruders breaking into their homes and cars. Police are an afterthought because you really can't carry an officer in your pocket. They often only have the opportunity to react after a crime has been committed.
Any country is at risk of it. It could be from the government, the mob, a white supremacy group, etc. Reality simply doesn't forbid it and deterrents are a powerful tool.
It's quite ironic.
I absolutely would. And their parents should already know that. If you live in the U.S. then your freedoms might come at the cost of a family member's life. Freedom and safety don't coexist well... and the U.S. is a free country (most definitely not a safe one).
Except there is no real treatment for this. And he could easily have killed her and taken the key. I don't think there are any easy solutions here.
Who to say it was a key? What if it had been a combination lock and she only knew the combination, heck it could have been a key but she was the only one that knew were the key was! Lets say for example the psychological services were cheaper, or completely covered by medical insurance, or that schools were required to do psychological testing of all students, chances would have been more likely then that this child would have been spotted and services would have been provided potentially for free, that could have helped him.
There are reasonable things we can do that can reduce the chances of these events happening, at the very least an armed cop/security officer at every public school could have reduced the death toll.