To answer the OP's question. I am fine with banning gun owners. That's what the shooter and his mother were, and this is one of those instance where more guns did not equal less violence.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
|
|
To answer the OP's question. I am fine with banning gun owners. That's what the shooter and his mother were, and this is one of those instance where more guns did not equal less violence.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
He was shooting fish in a barrel...
Trying to ban weapons today would be futile...there are far too many guns on the street to actually think a ban on ownership will do one bit of good...
Last year 323 people were murdered by a person using a rifle...banning all rifles will do little or nothing to diminish the 12000 murders we had last year...
Limiting magazine size will do little or nothing to limit the number of murders by rifle each year...
Before we can implement possible solutions we need to know the root cause...
What is the root cause?
There weren't more guns. CT has tight gun laws. It's a less guns state.Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma
Narcissism. Instant fame. Celebrating average or below average. It's Oswald on a national scale, and we are raising a generation of kids like that. They're entitled. They deserve what they want, instantly. When they don't get it, it causes trouble. If they are unstable, it causes bigger problems. They've been taught their whole lives that they should have whatever they want, instantly. Now they can't. And they get depressed. Tragically so to the point of suicide. And since many times the depression stems from others not recognizing their own sense of greatness (we are raising a bunch of narcissistic brats remember) they want to be famous. What better way to be famous than shooting up Batman or a school? Instant celebrity. You're on every news channel. You're trending on twitter. Survivor and the Jersey Shore are as much if not more to blame as guns.
The following users like this post: URNotserious
Let's say you are 100% correct...what action should be implemented to resolve the problem?
Red ball, problem solved. This is only 42 years away.
The following users like this post: chewyhux
As long as there are guns, this will happen. You cant predict how humans will act. So, you want your right to bear arms, you got it, but youre going to have to accept that this is going to happen from time to time, like plane crashes, like auto accidents, like shark attacks and a host of other things. So, why complain? Youre not going to be able to have it both ways.
The following users like this post: DHF
I'm with you on a lot of points, but I'm not sure fame is the driving force. Perhaps in the Aurora shooting, but at Sandy Hook, I'm not sure fame will come out as the motive. I think you had someone who fits your description but was violently angry and suffering from mental issues rather than seeking headlines. Difference in fame and infamy.
Better parenting would be a great start. And some teeth in punishment. We need punishments that adequately match up to crimes, and I mean literally.
To you. Ya. To someone ill enough to kill a building full of kids? Probably not.
Need my computer for this. Will respond later this morning.
Another possible explanation in this particular case is rooted in the opposite.
Perhaps this kid was angry (albeit in a narcissistic way) after seeing many less intelligent than himself receive the bounties of society's gifts.
It's like he was acting as a soldier of vengeance against the things you see wrong with society, kind of like Al Quaeda wanting to make America change fundamentally...perhaps this kid advanced the argument?
I am talking about this in a rather cold, clinical way. Obviously, I think there is no reason to condone the shooter's actions. In fact, I find them deplorable. Rather, it is just an attempt to illustrate the nearly infinite complexity of the deranged mind, and that trying to understand his actions or what led to it is largely a futile endeavor.
Socializing your children should be a parent's greatest responsibility, occupation, reward, and measure of success.
2 users like SpankyNek's post: SoonerAmongThePack, URNotserious
I think you are overlooking some important demographic issues.
Homerun, brother! I couldn't agree with you more.
Great post, cub! This sums up much of what I feel/see.
How many deaths by handguns?
If he was poor or a 35 year old failure, perhaps. By all appearances, he was neither.
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Bounties of society's gifts?
I'm just saying that the kid was probably equally ostracized as he was a loner.
Bounties in this case being acceptance, perhaps even the educational system as a whole...
Got it. Thanks.
I'm operating from the position that I don't think the trigger for the shooting was anything directly related to his actions--more that there is a butterfly effect happening in the country as a whole.
When I look at an individual, you can ****ess their functioning using Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You can somewhat do the same thing with a society. The level of self-actualization's equivalent in society would be our art if you will. Where is our art today? It's disintegrated. Television? It's reality garbage. Where are the iconic shows of our youth? They have been replaced by a bunch of narcissistic self-promoters. Film? Torture and ****. Music? Gaga and Bieber and Lil Wayne? Books? Are there any iconic novelists today? Maya Angelou? I had a HS English teacher tell me yesterday that she won't use her stuff b/c there's too much ****. We've lost who we are as a people, and are focusing on our divisions rather than our American-ness.
How do we fix it? We start calling ****, ****. http://weburbanist.com/2010/12/19/po...excrement-art/ This isn't art--it's garbage. It's also not art to stick a crucifix in a vial of urine. Do we defend their right to do so? Certainly--but we don't call it art. We call it trash. The intent of that is nothing but to offend. Survivor sucks. Honey Boo Boo? Antichrist? Why are we watching this again? It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion every week. And then when something like this happens, we sensationalize it. Someone said the other day that we now live in a world where they won't show streakers at sporting events b/c they don't want others to try to mimic the behavior, but if someone shoots up a school or a movie theater, they get wall to wall coverage for weeks. We have to fix the soul of who we are--stop propping up the worst among us. The NEA is as guilty of this as anyone--and it's pissing (pun somewhat intended) our culture away. It's not just the NEA or Hollywood or video game developers though--the problem is the m**** consumption of it, and I believe that as we've consumed more we're losing things of substance at a faster and faster rate. Look at how quick television shows are cancelled now--they're almost requiring shock value in the first 2 episodes to have a chance to survive.
How do we fix it? We call a spade a spade, we quit celebrating mediocrity, we quit hating success, we quit calling things art that are clearly able to be replicated by a 5 year old on Red Bull, and we start celebrating greatness again. It's okay to be American first--you don't have to be a Dem or a Rep or an African or a Native or an Asian or White--let's focus on how we're alike, rather than what keeps us different. The good news is, I think the culture is changing. I think Oren Peli helped nudge us back. His horror stuff has no ****--it has no torture. It's just spooky. Adele is another good sign for me. Her music could fit in any time period. Our film is going back to the super hero genre--America wants to see the good in people again perhaps? Bond is going back to his roots. The Hobbit is shattering records worldwide. Stop giving your money and your time to things that clearly don't deserve it, and teach our kids that while people have a right to market garbage, we have a responsibility to not celebrate garbage. Stop making people that are bad celebrities and we might see a change in our culture--and that has the potential to stop the sprees we're seeing.
TLDR version? Fix our communities. Fix our homes. Show kids what good is and quit excusing or lauding garbage and filth.
i disagree with this....
but i also wonder if society has a responsibility of "socializing" our children....
how you teach your child to respond to mine.....makes my job of "socializing" my child a whole lot easier.....especially if mine is one of those that society labels "different"...
Society has no responsibility, it is a product of the individuals within it. Society has degraded because many individuals do not properly instill the concept of selflessness to their own children. It is certainly not the job of government to determine societal rules, rather, it's role is to protect individual from individual...something that would not be needed if everyone operated from a purely moral foundation.
Alas personal morals are declining.
society is not govt.....not sure why you bring govt into this...
society is as you say...the product of individuals ....
and currently....the product is garbage because individuals fail to teach their children to treat EVERYONE with respect...
changed to fix what I see the problem as
So you don't really "wonder" if society has a responsibility to socialize our children...
Got it.
Government protects society.
it tries...
but govt = the majority....and the majority is the problem
So govt does = society?
Your last few comments are puzzling to say the least.
govt does not = society...
Then govt does not equal majority either.
Yep, McVeigh and Nichols. They hated guns.
This pretty ironic of you to say considering your intolerance of other people's beliefs...or, does it only apply to school-age kids or everyone but you?
Look, if you TRY to be different, then you're setting yourself up. If you simply ARE different, that's quite another story. I think MOST kids today CHOOSE to be different. It's encouraged by people like you, but then you **** when another kid points out the obvious.
I'm not advocating kids be mean/bully one another at all, but I also understand kids are brutally honest at times. Doesn't necessarily make it right, but I, as a parent, better help my child as much as I can to "fit in" with society as long as it doesn't compromise my core beliefs, or I'm just as much to blame as the parent who doesn't care at all about their kids.
That's not the discussion. The discussion was about limiting the types of guns we can guy to keep m**** murders from happening. It's OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain that the weapon is NOT the root issue.
What difference does it make how McVeigh and Nichols might have felt about guns?
i can disagree with someone's beliefs and still treat them with respect...
but i was talking more about superficial stuff that school kids focus on to isolate those who are different
Admittedly playing devils advocate a bit here...
Correct, a murderer intent on committing their crime will find a way. I totally see that. Check out the school stabbing in China. No guns necessary, same type of attack.
The difference here is accessibility and readiness. As oucub points out, part of today's culture problem is NOW NOW NOW. Perhaps the hesitation caused by the requirement to plan or work harder to commit the crime might deter SOME (not all) from carrying it out.
The China knife attack resulted in no fatailities. Had he took an ****ult rifle, results would have been different.
The following users like this post: boomermagic
I'll answer that if I may ? Nobody !
Ban violent movies
Sterilize dumb people. Set a minimum IQ to breed.
ok.....then you wouldn't be here....but the newtown shooter would
**** that would suck! I love his avatar!!!
2 users like jdmt37's post: Big Red One, URNotserious
I think its a bit dissappointing that every argument seems to be one side or the other. The head of the NRA refuses to agree that any type of added restrictions or control is needed, and argues that better mental health programs, etc. are to blame as well as video games, television, etc. This makes it seem that any argument against guns is an argument only against guns.
Likewise, there are some talking heads who want to ban guns, etc. and won't hear anything about why arming the right people could help these situations.
Hopefully the president and people in charge of making these decisions will come to a conclusion that benefits all parties while not taking away the freedoms of our people.
For those that argue against limitations of certain weapons or making certain weapons very difficult to obtain, consider the difficulty in obtaining drugs that are helpful and necessary for many people. There are stringent checks and balances in place that are there because there are some people that abuse these drugs, just like there are checks and balances in place for guns because there are some who abuse their use. Certainly everyone has the right to drugs for medical use, and its not their rights that are taken away when it is difficult to obtain them, rather the privelege of easily obtaining them. This seems to me similar to guns and gun control... limiting the availability due to the actions of some doesn't take away the right to bear arms, and surely the decision made in lieu of the Connecticut shootings won't take that right away, although it probably will make some acquisitions of certain arms a bit more difficult, which makes complete sense to me.
Seems to be always the opposite of the correct approach in DC and the NE/Cali in general...that is why we will/must never compromise with them...
They were part of the extreme aspect of the gun culture. They were motivated by the Branch Davidian raid that was precipitated by the government's attempt to confiscate the Davidian's guns. That's the difference it makes.
Ironically we have fertilizer control now because of those two. Are you against fertilizer control?
This is interesting because I distinctly remember in the 1970s and 1980s that the NRA wouldn't even budge on movies and television. They publically stated that violence on television and movies had no bearing on people's behavior concerning firearms. This position was advocated by the gun control /liberal side of this controversy. It was actually a big argument at the time. Now of course conservatives had no problem with advocating that **** in television and movies caused people to **** but they couldn't make the rational leap to the violence connection between movies/television and real life.
Obviously even the NRA has seen enough to change their positon concerning this issue. It is obvious that the NRA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the gun and ammo industry however, back then the thinking was that little Johny watching Chuck Conners on rifleman might help them land another gun customer. The fact that they have now moved to the liberal side of this particular aspect of the controversy is quite frankly pretty damning.
The "everything but the gun" argument has evolved.
I thought evolution was supposed to be a good thing....just look at our president.
Not according to this...http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire....-not-regulated
You're NEVER going to legislate this type of morality - and that's what this is ALL about. This freak and others like him are STILL going to kill loads of people if/when they "snap". If you ban ****ault rifles (BTW, I don't have one, nor do I want one), the next massacre will be a guy using a bomb or multiple handguns. This REALLY isn't hard to understand. It's ABSOLUTELY not a gun issue...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
