|
Post by Pharcellus on Dec 22, 2012 21:43:25 GMT
The Newtown, CT massacre was a travesty, even to the level of being obscene.
It has, yet again, brought the tired old battle of gun rights vs gun control to the forefront again, with all sides inveighing with copious hyperbole over what caused it and what should be done about it. Even video games and popular media have been dragged into the debate yet again, by no less than the head of the NRA.
I am for gun rights, I do believe that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a double-edged sword, for both the purpose of protecting the State as well as casting out tyranny. The Founding Fathers SAID as much, repeatedly.
So what I see is the right-wing nutjobs blaming everything except the sorry state of gun laws in this country, and the left-wing nutjobs saying that the second amendment doesn't apply to personal protection or throwing off tyranny.
I think I would like to stretch back their flip-top heads and slam a gallon of STFU juice down their gullets so we can start getting some signal through all the goddamned noise.
Even as a supporter of gun rights, I KNOW that ALL freedoms come with responsibility. We have to have some way for us to properly exercise our freedoms without depriving others of theirs. I *DO* think that gun ownership should require some kind of training and evaluation before you can own a firearm. I also believe that people who have violently abused other people's freedoms or who are clinically mentally unstable should be prevented from owning/purchasing firearms. I realize that they can probably still find a way to obtain them, but I don't have a problem with raising the bar to obtaining them. I also don't necessarily have a problem with people owning military-grade weaponry, as long as they have the appropriate training and certification to own them.
There is, of course, the "slippery slope" argument that the government can use such regulations to erode the right to the point where tyrannical ends stand a better chance of prevailing.
It should be noted in this case that none of these kinds of gun control laws would have mattered in this case, because the shooter obtained the guns used in the massacre from his mother, who obtained them legally, and would likely still have obtained them legally under stringent gun control laws.
|
|
|
Post by tantalyr on Dec 22, 2012 23:59:05 GMT
I believe that in the wake of this latest tragedy our country's collective time, energy and money should be spent not on coming up with new ways to restrict the ownership of guns, but in finally researching why it is that SOME folks snap AND decide to murder not only the immediate object of their anger, but as many other people as they can, most if not all of whom are unrelated to the incident which triggered the snap.
I can understand (not condone, mind you) why some folks snap violently. In Lanza's case, his mother had decided to institutionalize him. In Holmes' case, he flunked out of grad school. In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter, a female student spurned his advances. Not rational, mind you, but comprehensible that their anger turned to violence.
What I cannot understand--and from my extensive reading in the past ten days, neither can the psychiatric community due to very limited research in the area--is why these troubled souls decide to expand their violence to others. In Lanza's case, he shot his mother while she slept in their home, then loaded up her car with her guns and drove to the school where she worked apparently for the express purpose of killing as many teachers and childeren as he could. None of those poor souls--as far as is known--had anything to do with his mother's decision to institutionalize him.
In the Virginia Tech shooter's case, he first went to the dorm room of the object of his affection and shot her, as well as a Resident Assistant who happened to be on the floor. But then he went back to his room, loaded up on guns and ammo, and shot dozens of students completely unknown to him. And, of course, none of the theater-goers in Holmes' case had anything at all to do with his flunking out of grad school.
So what causes folks to decide to take the rest of the world with them, not just the immediate object of their rage? And relatedly, why has the incidence of mass murder dramatically spiked since 1980? Those are the essential questions which must be addressed and answered. Enacting more gun restrictions would simply be putting a bandaid on cancer--treating the symptom and not searching for a cure. Mentally unstable individuals deprived of guns would simply find another means of executing others--like driving their pickup truck onto a crowded playground. Or throwing Molotov Cocktails into a crowded theater. (Note: the most famous serial killer in history, Jack the Ripper, used knives and surgical instruments to murder his victims.)
Frith--since psychology is your field I would love to hear your comments, as well as everyone else's.
|
|
|
Post by Pharcellus on Dec 23, 2012 0:33:07 GMT
Yeah, I think that is what I am meandering towards by talking about "training and evaluation". That "evaluation" part would have to be based on the outcome of the kind of research you are talking about. A curious thought experiment: if Jack the Ripper had lived modern society, would he have still chosen knives and surgical instruments as his murder weapon(s) of choice? While it is possible that the "style" of his crimes was more important to him than simply the deeds themselves, I wonder how much convenience and accessibility factored into that choice. It has been long speculated that he was a physician/surgeon, given the way some of the victims were mutilated. We're probably also talking apples and oranges with respect to the Ripper; the pathologies of serial killers versus mass murderers are often quite different. Yes, definitely would love to hear Frith's comments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 1:28:17 GMT
I still have to question why people feel they need access to military-grade weaponry. Handguns or shotguns for self-defense, I have no problem with. Rifles for hunting, again no problem. Machine guns and high capacity clips, don't see the purpose whatsoever.
|
|
xaeris
Apprentice of Rant
Posts: 462
|
Post by xaeris on Dec 23, 2012 2:25:13 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwAo8lcAC4I know I posted this in the other thread already, but it also has relevance here. The guy doesn't outright talk about gun control, the only thing he says is something about "keeping pyschos away from firearms" or something like that. He DOES, however, address the absurdity that video games have anything to do with violent crime and uses some good hard evidence to back it up. If someone breaks into YOUR house with an AK-47, do you want to try to stop them with a 9mm peashooter, or do you want an AK of your own? Tightening gun control laws will NOT stop criminals from getting guns. That's what the drug cartels and black markets are for. They will, however, stop citizens from being able to defend themselves with similar firepower.
|
|
|
Post by kirinir on Dec 23, 2012 8:20:34 GMT
So based on that logic everyone should run out and obtain a mini nuke or at the very least a bazooka....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 11:28:21 GMT
Ah, the classic strawman argument rears its head: the quote you are responding to was about military grade weapons, it had nothing to do with criminals, drug cartels or the black market getting guns.
You are right, tightening gun control laws won't stop people that really want a gun from getting guns or wackos like the guy in Connecticut.
But, then, I wasn't talking about them was I? I simply said I didn't see the logic of having a military grade weapon in the house. If you aren't trained in proper use and firing of an AK-47 (or M-16, or AR-15, or any other machine gun) and you use one for home defense, you are very likely to hurt your family or neighbors since 7.62mm bullets pierce drywall.
A shotgun, however, does not pierce drywall if you use buckshot or something that spreads. And its more than adequate to defend yourself from someone wielding any sort of weapon. Add to that you could always get a large dog and you've got a recipe for great home defense.
|
|
xaeris
Apprentice of Rant
Posts: 462
|
Post by xaeris on Dec 23, 2012 15:28:55 GMT
Except it had everything to do with it -- people want to feel safe. People know that criminals can have access to these weapons, so they want similar weapons themselves to even the odds.
That is why people want military-grade weapons, which is the question you asked in the first place: Why do people want them? That's why they want them. Also, some people enjoy going to the shooting range with these types of weapons as a hobby. There are people who don't mind spending $500 for a minute or two of fun with a minigun, even. True, but crazy to spend that kind of money on ammo for 60 seconds of joy, but whatever.
As for training, there are places to get that sort of training. There are people that offer home defense classes, there are people who have shooting ranges where you go into some close-quarters maze with pop-up cardboard targets that you're supposed to shoot, movement training (ducking behind things for cover, etc), blah blah blah.
And some people don't HAVE nearby neighbors, such as our family. Our closest neighbors live 400-500 yards away. I doubt I'd be too worried about bullets piercing the drywall; even if they did, the worst that would happen is some collateral damage is done to furniture in another room.
As for large dogs, well. Not everyone likes dogs.
But anyways, I did in fact answer your question.
|
|
|
Post by FrithRae on Dec 24, 2012 19:56:56 GMT
As someone who has..at last count..5 guns in my home ("Ol'Granpappy' Shotgun included) I am clearly a gun rights supporter. I grew up hunting with my father, I had my own .22 rifle by the time I was 7. Said father also, legally owns, a fully automatic assault rifle he bought for himself as a xmas present last year after filing all necessary permits and fees. As a hunter, and gun enthusiast, I think I grew up with no less than half a dozen or more guns around the house - during hunting season - all out in the open on the pool table. I knew better than to touch them . And like you Phar, I agree in that I have no problem stiffening up gun control laws in the country - requiring TRAINING absoultely to own any one of them at all; psych evaluation being more touchy as they are costly and insurance already refuses to pay for most of them - so thereby limiting legal gun ownership to the "rich". I also would fear that simply a tag of "depression' (as evaluations are very sensitive to clinical issues and most don't work as well in the non-clinical populations as they tend to over-estimate dysfunction. There are only a small number of psych tests normed on..well.."Normies" lol) would mean someone couldn't have protection for their home. And we'd run into more of an issue with "only the criminals have guns" where evaluation rules could run so strict hardly anyone would qualify. As for WHY people go crazy... and choose to mass murder. Quite frankly I think its an almost impossible answer; as I feel its tied up in our very human nature and the direction we're evolving. I would imagine studies would show the entire society change in American starting with the industrial revolution would be at "fault" if you reallyu wanted to get into it. Video games by themselves? No of course not. Access to guns by themselves? No of course not. But the ever more desensitization to violence overall, across all spectrums of our society (from cartoons to news media), as well as the "entitled" generations we seem hell bent and determined to raise at this point (Hey everyone's a winner and you don't ever have to deal with disappointment!) - all of it - feeds into this. But then you look at countries like Israel (war not counting...of course) where every male is required to be military trained and spends 2 years in the military. Or what is it..Sweden or Norway or one of those Finnish countries where every single citizen iin the country is armed. And you don't have these issues. So you can narrow that study to the evolution of American Culture since the turn of the century... There is something, specific to Americans, that for whatever reason - is leading the Loonies of THIS country - to choose mass murder. Of course, perhaps its not just America..perhaps it just seems that way because American Media isn't covering the mass murder incidences in other countries. As for the psychological reasons people go crazy - As Tant said, yes, some snap. But It also holds true that every one of those examples you mentioned Tant, had myriad of other psychological issues. The "last straw" so to speak did not make a sane man crazy. The crazy man was already predisposed to be crazy; it was simply what drove them over the edge to be "done with this world and take as many out with them as possible." As you said Tant, it makes no sense that the kid would take out the Kindergarten class as they seem to have no direct relevance to him being put into an institution. (I do seem to remember hearing somewhere, wether its right or not, that he felt his mother loved the Kindergarteners more than him). And that's the problem with crazy. It makes no sense - it makes "crazy" sense...in that if you speak to the crazy person and understnad THEIR logic...it makes sense. But on the outside, and "in reality" no..it makes no sense. Trying ot MAKE sense of it will never answer your questions. Because you can't control for crazy. You can limit as much as possible, but as you said Tant - in the end they WILL find a means and a measure to take out their craziness if that's how they choose to go out. Which would appear to lend credence to the "limit the guns" argument; but there again - the internet is rife with bomb making instructions and anyone can access them. It blows my mind we've not seen more of this actually. There are billions of opportunities for terrirists to freely wreak havoc all across the country, much less your random looney - I'm amazed it hasn't happened already. In any case I digress - Mental Health care in this country is embarassingly in shambles. An article was put out by the APA recently that talks about how we've got the worst coverage and care of the mentally ill since PRE 1900! The philosophy of "get them out of the instutions and into the community" DOES NOT WORK when the government then follows that up with "cutting funding to mental health care in the community." It DOES NOT WORK when private health insurance won't cover mental health in parity with medical health. Obamacare is attempting to fix it; but insurance companies are already finding the loop holes allowing them to STILL not give parity to mental health care. Most people's insurance covers maybe 50% of a mental health session cost. In Alabama, 20 minutes with your psychiatrist is 220 bucks - with me for an hour 140. Most people are responsible for HALF of that as their "copay", if you're lucky and have a high-falootin' insurance policy it covers 80%. And Medicaid/Medicare - while they cover "100%" - they also limit on how much the doctor gets paid. My charge is 140 an hour, medicare will give me 80...and that's it...can't charge the client, can't make up the difference - I'm not allowed. Thereby doctors of course don't want to take those clients, leaving those clients - usually the worst of the worst - the already MOST mentally ill - without quality of care. It does not work when there continues to be a stigma to seeking treatment, being on medications (I've seen people here posting about how medications are unnecessary - its bullshit), and having therapy. Study after study shows that medication + therapy is by far the most effective treatment of ALL Mental disorders (80% effective by most studies; as opposed to less than half of one or the other alone at best...); but in the "fix me now" society - people want their pills, but don't want to bother to actually WORK. From what I understand the kid (and yea to me he's a kid) who shot up the school was known to have mental health issues - I've heard all TYPES of diagnosis - who knows what's right; none of them would explain what he did anyway. Yet his mother would leave him at home for days alone, meals prepared because he coudlnt be trusted to use the stove...but guns unlocked? Was he even in treatment? I have no idea... The state of Alabama has closed FOUR public mental health institutions this year. Where did those people go? The communities. Where is the care in the communities? There isn't any. Because the state cut THAT funding (as the entire united states did) every year since the 1970s when it was decided it was more humane to dump mentally ill people back home than to keep them in institutions. Until people stop hiding their problems in their collective attics - and get them addressed, we can't begin to study much less truly address WTF is going on now. Until people collectively understand that they ARE PAYING for public health and mental health care - wether its in raised taxes up front or in their own insurance bill being higher up front - or on the back end when these people end up in your emergency rooms and your shelters and your prisons - we won't get the funding in this country to address the matter. If the money was put up front, if attitudes were changed, then perhaps we could get real quality of care improvements - and reach more people - by properly funding public AND PRIVATE mental health care. By true mental health parity; instead of judging mental health treatment as medical treatment's red-headed stepchild. Instead of dumping these people out on their families who are illequipped and uneducated in how to deal with them properly - in communities that are struggling just to provide basic, outpatient, mental health treatment. In a society that still judges those who seek treatment at "fault" for not "just dealing with it themselves." Well..we are seeing again and again the result of what happens when you leave people to deal with it themselves. Maybe one day people will look at the bigger picture. (Btw, if you wanted me to expound on actual diagnosis and dynamics of someone who has no problem killing large numbers of people (i.e serial killers and mass murders) - I can do that too. I wasn't sure which way you wanted me to go LOL. And this is long enough. Just let me know.)
|
|
xaeris
Apprentice of Rant
Posts: 462
|
Post by xaeris on Dec 24, 2012 21:40:34 GMT
I'll applaud Frith on this one -- Instead of attacking inanimate tools, instead of blaming something completely unrelated (video games), Frith here has brought up a good point that I agree really does need looked at.
But sadly, such words are going to fall on deaf ears, except for "preaching to the choir".
Maybe another 50 school shootings from now, they might get the idea that every stinking one of them was caused by someone who was completely mentally ill and they might finally get the idea that it isn't the guns, it isn't the games, its the mental illnesses that are being left untreated.
Or, maybe not. Maybe 50 school shootings from now, it'll be almost impossible to buy a gun and video games will be heavily watered down or something. Meh. And guess what? The shootings will continue to occur.
Also, Frith... there was one thing I think you left out -- School Environments. Bullying. I'm surprised you didn't address that in your post, and I think it is one of the deciding factors in many school shooting cases. Perps usually go back to schools they personally attended, instead of just random schools. Why? Probably because they were that quiet/weird kid that got bullied and grew up hating the school, the kids, and the world around him so he grabs a gun and decides to end it all and take a bunch of people with him.
I should know -- I was a bullied kid myself when I went through school. I used to have many dreams when I was a kid where I'd take my frustrations out on the school and/or the kids I went I to school with. My parents taught me good discipline so I never acted out on those dreams, and now that I am almost 33, such dreams don't happen anymore and I've calmed down. Right after I got out of school though, I was depressed, I didn't like to be around people (I still feel uncomfortable in a crowd, but I don't inherently dislike people for no reason anymore), and I _hated_ school.
Also, bad parenting. Good parenting is probably one of the things that saved me from such a fate. What if my parents had been horrible parents like a lot of parents I see IRL? Would I have wound up in a newspaper when I was 20, 22, 24, whatever?
|
|
|
Post by Darkwater on Dec 25, 2012 6:17:06 GMT
Might it have something to do with American's obsession with fame and popularity?
Regarding guns, guns don't kill people, people kill people. That said, its alot EASIER to kill someone with a gun than a knife, and certainly alot easier to mass murder with a gun than a knife. Its also easier to kill people with weapons you don't have to reload very often. Etc.
Less guns, and less deadlier guns make communities safer overall. Sure you can try to get an illegal weapon, but that requires more hoops to jump through to get them. Putting harsher penalties on illegal gun possession and cracking down on it, also makes it harder to get one that way. All of these things would decrease the murder rate and decrease the number of gun deaths in your country.
Would it stop it completely? No, but that's not the goal. The goal is to lower the murder rate in the US, which is pretty pathetically high for a developed country.
|
|
xaeris
Apprentice of Rant
Posts: 462
|
Post by xaeris on Dec 25, 2012 12:34:52 GMT
Might it have something to do with American's obsession with fame and popularity? I will agree that is a part of it too. And as Totalbiscuit said in the video I linked above, we have the News Media (not just the US news media, but pretty much all major news media, even UK) to blame for that. There wouldn't be any fame/infamy and popularity if the news media would just say "The guy killed 26 people with assault rifles" and leave it go at that. But no, they gotta mull over every detail, flash his face on the screen every few seconds, and go over every aspect of his life so that other people can imitate it. Until we solve why people want to kill people, we are not going to really do much about the murder rate. Murders with assault weapons are actually a fairly low % of all gun-related murders in the US last time I checked. Most murders are committed with your average semi-auto pistol, and that's not counting the stabbings that you see everywhere, either. The point is, assault weapon and other higher military grade weapon related deaths are a fairly small %. Again, we need to solve why people want to kill people in the first place... 1). Economy. Depressed/angry people creates lots of rage, frustration, and other negative emotions which cause people to either commit suicide, or go murder that person (or people) that have been angering them their whole lives, or what-not. 2). Fame obsession, which you mentioned. Everyone wants to be (in)famous. What's the easiest way to get that status? Why, go grab a gun and do something so ridiculous, the news media will be hounding over it for months. 3). Which leads us to... the News Media making the problem worse. 4). Bullying in schools and/or a poor school environment. This creates some of the most mean and nastiest kids that grow up into being the same type of adults. THESE are the people who are more likely to go out shooting people, IMO. And the kids _doing_ the bullying are also likely to be those who end up with a life of crime too. They're used to behaving like that as a kid, so when they grow up, they end up doing that kinda stuff in their adult lives too. 5). Bad Parenting / Lack of Discipline in children. A kid that is able to do whatever he/she wants will end up doing God-Knows-What when they reach adulthood. Too many parents are either not taking an active enough role in their kids' upbringing, or they are having too many kids (infighting between the siblings, and/or each sibling not getting enough attention), or they do not have the necessary resources to support their children (women on welfare who go out and have children for fatter welfare checks). This creates an environment where the kids are not happy because the family cannot afford to buy them the basic things like toys, etc that keep them happy AND they get picked on in school for coming from a low-income household (see #4). And I bet there are even MORE causes/reasons why people do this kind of thing in the US. This is only scratching the surface.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2012 19:08:44 GMT
So, here's an interesting twist... How did the convicted felon in New York acquire a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle?
Regarding the list of "reasons":
#1 - I'm sorry, but wouldn't this only hold up as a legitimate reason if mass killings were occurring in countries with far worse poverty and/or economy situations than here in the US. They aren't from what I can see. I've found no evidence of mass killings in Greece or Spain or Italy. Demonstrations and even riots, yes, but not mass killings.
Note, I'm referring to mass killings not gang or drug violence as that is most certainly related to poverty and economic issues that the US as a whole can't seem to address (head stuck in the sand syndrome).
#2 - If that were true, wouldn't you would expect to see it far more often across the world. Yes, you do have a few such as that crackpot in Sweden. But, there has to be something else at work for this. Afterall, what good is fame if you are dead? The guy in Sweden is still alive to see his name in print, but the joker in Newtown isn't.
#4 - I won't disagree that bullying is a problem, but I just don't buy this as an explanation because your reasoning would indicate that bullying has gotten worse in the last 2 decades. Is there any evidence to support that?
|
|
|
Post by sheral on Dec 26, 2012 19:20:47 GMT
Guns have one purpose and one only. Killing. That's what they're made for, especially ones like that used in the massacre. They're for killing as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible. And people act shocked when someone uses them in that way.
I have to say, I don't like guns. At all. I have no desire to harm anyone or anything, so I see no need to own one. If someone wants to shoot at me, then me having a gun isn't going to stop them. It doesn't throw up a magic shield and make me invincible. If I'm lucky, and I'm trained, I might get a shot in. Or I might just get shot anyway.
Having a gun makes me more of a target, because if the criminals know I have one, they're more likely to try to shoot me to make sure I don't shoot them. It's called escalation, and that's what the NRA is advocating now by putting guns in schools.
That's why British police don't carry guns, and why most criminals in the UK don't either. Because armed robbery carries a ridiculously high sentence compared to straight up robbery, or even robbery with violence. It's just not worth it.
Put guns in easy access of loonies, and you have loonies with guns. It's a massacre waiting to happen. And then it happens and everybody goes 'why?' It would be laughable if it wasn't so fucking tragic.
People use excuses like 'cars cause more deaths than guns'. And yeah, they do. But you have to have a licence to drive a car, and pass a test. And people rarely use cars to massacre groups of other people. Most car deaths are accidental. And a car has other uses. Guns have only one. Killing people.
But, I don't think anything much will come of this. People will keep making excuses and putting their rights to own weapons capable of killing people above keeping their kids safe.
|
|
xaeris
Apprentice of Rant
Posts: 462
|
Post by xaeris on Dec 27, 2012 0:23:41 GMT
My family saves a good $2,000 per year by using guns to kill Turkey, Deer, and other animals.
Now, I will admit we don't do it with assault rifles, but meh.
If you start banning assault rifles and semi-auto weapons, people will find out how to make legitimate hunting rifles semi-auto and then what do we do? Ban hunting rifles after that?
@amon:
It is most likely a combination of those reasons, not any one of those reasons alone. Greece, Spain, Italy, etc have riots and demonstrations, poverty, etc, but very few mass-killings. Why? Well, what is the school system like over there? How well are their children parented? What is their justice system like?
I've not done much research into what goes on in those countries, but from living here in the US...
1). So many parents I see IRL are _horrible_ parents -- their main concern is trying to just get the kids to 18 years old so them can kick em out of the house ASAP. They'll do anything to make the kid shut up so they don't have to deal with it. Not every parent is like this, but I see lots that are. They don't teach their kids anything.
2). The school system in the US blows, and blows hard. I think I've already spoken enough on this.
3). Frith already mentioned the mental health support issue above.
4). Our "Justice" system? Pfft. People either get a slap on the wrist and released, or they sit on death row until they're too old to remember exactly why they're on death row after who knows how many appeals and court battles.
And I notice you didn't respond to my points about the News Media turning these idiots into depraved cultural icons, nor did you respond to my comments about horrible parenting....
Edit:
Again, combination of reasons: Parents are progressively getting worse (bad parent raises bad kid, who goes onto be a bad parent who raises more bad children, and the cycle continues to grow), guns are getting easier to get (how many people were able to get assault rifles in the 1950s?), mental healthcare is getting worse (as Frith mentioned), and the economy during the last 20 years has gotten progressively worse as well.
Add all of these together, and you come up with something that just gets worse as time goes on. And Bullying? I've no proof that it is worse, but is it better? Probably not. Given that more parents are bad with each generation means more kids are going to be bad, which means there's going to be more infighting and bullying amongst the school's population, or at least that's a logical theory.
Also, the Internet is getting more widespread these last 10+ years -- back in the 1980s, you didn't have easy access to hate propaganda, you didn't have these forums and messageboards where whackos post their ridiculous conspiracy theories, you didn't have these mentally screwed up people gathering and plotting these kinds of heinous crimes, you didn't have how-to cookbooks on how to do some of these things, etc.
|
|