And as we get into the same tired old arguments in support of guns (and here is the cultural/societal part of the problem - that anyone is invested, at all, in supporting guns): guns have one purpose, and one purpose only - to kill. That makes them different from cars, from knives, even different from explosives.
US Connecticut Shooting
- Thread starter AeryFairy
- Start date
This is how it functions, not its purpose. Much like the purpose of a car is transportation, not the mechanism by which an internal combustion engine functions.
And the intimidation is dependent on what?
Oh, Jesus H. Christ.
I was talking about cars.
And you were the one who brought up intimidation.
I'm done with this conversation - it's gone well beyond the point of productivity or even intelligence.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
You're brighter than this. When something upsets one's worldview, the solution isn't to run away.
Part of what enriches us as human beings is to look at all sides, to figure out how the world is, what the world can be, and how to get from here to there.
The sad thing is, you probably think I'm some rabid gun-nut. That's far from the truth. But I tend to be a moderate pragmatist, which seems to confuse individuals.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
Yep. This sick ******* showed signs long before Friday, I'd bet on it. And mommy dearest and everyone else close to him ignored them.
Sweetie, you're not upsetting my worldview. (See, you're not the only one who can be condescending.)
As I said, this conversation has just descended into ridiculousness, and I'm done.
But if you want to comment on personalities generally: You're fairly intelligent, and you've read enough to be fairly well informed on a fairly wide range of subjects. That doesn't make you as well informed on any particular subject as you seem to think you are, judging from your eagerness to educate everyone else, from telling a soldier he's misinformed in his use of weapons terminology to telling the female members of this board what they should and should not discuss in the women-only forum.
And no, I don't think you're a rabid gun nut, or even a gun nut. I think you're just a guy with an oversized ego who thinks he's better informed than he actually is, someone who prides himself on his emotional objectivity to the point that it's not objectivity but rather an egotistical interest in being different from the herd, and someone who is actually extremely tone deaf to nuance.
As I said, this conversation has just descended into ridiculousness, and I'm done.
But if you want to comment on personalities generally: You're fairly intelligent, and you've read enough to be fairly well informed on a fairly wide range of subjects. That doesn't make you as well informed on any particular subject as you seem to think you are, judging from your eagerness to educate everyone else, from telling a soldier he's misinformed in his use of weapons terminology to telling the female members of this board what they should and should not discuss in the women-only forum.
And no, I don't think you're a rabid gun nut, or even a gun nut. I think you're just a guy with an oversized ego who thinks he's better informed than he actually is, someone who prides himself on his emotional objectivity to the point that it's not objectivity but rather an egotistical interest in being different from the herd, and someone who is actually extremely tone deaf to nuance.
I have already expressed my opinion on the mother's focus on guns as well as having weapons (and especially those kinds of weapons) available in a house in which she was raising a troubled child.
But, realistically, apart from those issues, what do you think that the family of someone like this can do, especially once the child passes the age where the parents can physically and legally force him to take medication/attend counseling, etc.?
Oh for crying out loud. In the aftermath of a mining disaster, is one not allowed to discuss mine safety issues? In the aftermath of Japan's nuclear disaster, was one not allowed to talk about nuclear power safety issues?
Shame on you.
ETA: Oh, and Annia - just so you know; I have up close experience with the effects of gun violence - a murder/suicide in the family. I can think of no more appropriate time to consider the issues surrounding gun and mental health issues.
I don't understand all these comments on this thread criticising people for apparently pushing their political agendas. This tragedy in the US has raised a lot of questions about safety in schools, about gun control, about mental health issues and support available for ill people and this is a debate thread. I realise emotions are running high but I don't see why discussion should be stifled as we are all intelligent people and should be able to talk about these subjects.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Do you really think it's really beneficial to drag other threads into the debate? Do you think it helps your point? Do you think it helps the debate?
At least I know that the assault weapons ban actually didn't actually ban most semi-automatic pistols.
I believe the thinking is that we can discuss gun control, even gun control that wouldn't make an effective difference because "isn't even the thought of children getting killed a horrible thing"?
Discuss mental health or anything else though, and you're going to be accused of taking the spotlight off of gun control.
So yep, at this point it's a gun control debate. I guess we can't expect much better. God forbid we talk about the victims or the survivors.
ledboots
Peace
Sometimes, armed citizens in the US stop or mitigate this kind of senseless violence. In 1997, how many of you remember the Mississippi school shooting? More of us would if it had not been for the armed school principal.
From wiki:
The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and a trenchcoat,[1] he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car. Then Myrick demanded "Why did you shoot my kids?" to which Woodham replied, "Life has wronged me, sir."[2]
From wiki:
The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and a trenchcoat,[1] he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car. Then Myrick demanded "Why did you shoot my kids?" to which Woodham replied, "Life has wronged me, sir."[2]
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
That's where we need changes along with changes in gun laws. While I am NOT for banning all guns, I don't think anyone outside of police and military need access to assault weapons. But we need laws to deal with psychos that are dangerous to others. Any qualified psychiatrist can pick out someone likely to kill well before it happens but as it stands now nothing can be done until the nutcase acts. Hell people had to die before laws were finally changed on stalking. Years ago I had a guy, and I didn't even know him, who would sit outside my house each evening and say things when I'd come out to my car. I was told by police they couldn't do anything because what he was doing wasn't against the law. He had to break a law first.
All of this keeps reminding me of one of my favorite SVU episodes, where the courts were about to let a sociopathic 13-year-old back onto the streets after he'd already killed. So the psychiatrist involved solved the problem. I know it's a make-believe show but some of the plots are based on real life. We coddle potential criminals too much. I am all for mental health help for people, hell some might say I need it myself, but we need to stop babying the ones who have shown they are subhuman and will kill and maim others. And I mean the ones under 18 too. We had a couple 16 and 17 year olds beat a classmate to death here a few years ago. Not even 2 miles from my house. And some people had enough nerve to say the poor murderers didn't understand what they were doing. They were "kids" and needed to be coddled as such. They weren't 4. They were just shy of legal adulthood. Thankfully the court didn't agree that they shouldn't be held responsible. And it was the same as this fool in Newtown. After the fact everyone that knew them said they weren't surprised.
I'm tired of no one taking responsibility for their own actions. It's the guns' fault people died, not the psycho pulling the trigger. Let's ban pit bulls (or whatever 'dog of the decade') instead of holding the HUMANS that use them a weapons responsible. Let's put a tax on pop because it's Pepsi's and Coke's fault people are obese from it. Because they pour it down our throats by the gallon of course. And let's sue McDonalds and win because you are stupid enough to dump hot coffee on yourself.
Someone as bright as this shooter evidently was would have found a way to cause great harm even if he didn't have easy access to guns thanks to his mom, who likely lived in denial about how fucked up he was. Timothy McVey caused more loss of life without using a single gun.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
A "locking up the psychos" solution will ultimately be abused and result in people who do not fit some pre-defined mold (e.g. veg*n, Atheist, etc) to be incarcerated or institutionalized.
I can see it now...a 21st century witch hunt where neigbor accuses neighbor of not being normal..
I can see it now...a 21st century witch hunt where neigbor accuses neighbor of not being normal..
yakherder
老外
I probably would have been locked up long ago.
Wouldn't it be easier to just make it illegal to murder children?
Wouldn't it be easier to just make it illegal to murder children?
AspireToExpire
chomp chomp chump
http://news.msn.com/us/gunmans-mother-kept-trials-of-home-life-hidden
Sounds like a weird, effed up family. Obv.
Sounds like a weird, effed up family. Obv.
