0
Skyrad

How do you stop massacres by mentally unstable people using guns?

Recommended Posts

LOL, funny guy.

I can generally tell when someone around me is having problems. I think most people give off some signs when things are going really wrong for them. If not, we might as well just stop this whole discussion now.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Curious that you would mock the role of "environment", then suggest that part of the solution is to change the "environment".

It's libertarian claptrap to pretend that "free individuals" exist somehow completely independently of the context of the environment (i.e. society) in which they find themselves.
.
.
.

Which is why I agree with your "setting expectations..." statement.



Now I see the common ground. this issue here (and I like your post) is the libertarian believes we set those new expectations (i.e., societal norms) from the ground up - (it starts with the individuals and the families, not the government). Seems you agree with that.

What you may or may not agree with is as follows: It won't be legislated, or at least that won't work. You can't legislate culture or thought control. Though it seems many feel they can.

So you can belittle the concept of that libertarian, but if you get away from the partisan stereotype you're holding, you might find it's more in line with your thoughts than you think.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

LOL, funny guy.

I can generally tell when someone around me is having problems. I think most people give off some signs when things are going really wrong for them. If not, we might as well just stop this whole discussion now.



Though true with those very close to us, I'd disagree with that in general. I suspect your point is in the first context.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

our laws and justice system protect people like this kid. were too lenient. In what other countries do you see massacres from unstable children/young adults like this, happening at the frequency that it does? only in america....



Sole-nutter massacres certainly do happen in other countries, but it does seem that the frequency is more particular to the US. Now if you think that the reason for that is lenient criminal justice laws, you're kidding yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Background checks did jack shit for the recent incident.



So, you're admitting there is something wrong with the background check process and it should be more thorough. I agree.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>So, you're admitting there is something wrong with the background check process
>and it should be more thorough.
What would a more thorough background check have found in this case?



Hard to know. The background checks the military uses to grant top secret clearances might be overboard, but the ones used for buying weapons is clearly insufficient though. Somewhere between the two extremes is probably appropriate.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should actually go in the other direction. Everyone should be able to carry a weapon. When everyone is armed, someone might think twice about walking into a theatre knowing he will get return fire. Also, it would clear up the court dockets pretty quickly. ;)

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We should actually go in the other direction. Everyone should be able to carry a weapon. When everyone is armed, someone might think twice about walking into a theatre knowing he will get return fire. Also, it would clear up the court dockets pretty quickly. ;)



Holy fuck how many times do we have to go over this?

In this case it would make zero difference if people had a weapon with which to "defend" themselves. The attack still would have happened precisely the way it did and was enabled because of the ease of access the perp had to the weapons he specifically chose for the task at hand.

Giving an extra gun or two to yet a few more kooks who couldn't pass a current background check? Really? You think that would have fixed things in this instance?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Personally I would not lie to my children nor use fear to intimidate others to pass laws restricting people's rights.
Maybe it's just me.



Specifically, which part of my post do you think is a lie?
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the NRA won't allow screening to purchase a firearm, so this is the way it is. Lunatics can buy guns because a lot of people who aren't lunatics, but also aren't very smart, are afraid of who might not qualify for purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Now I see the common ground. this issue here (and I like your post) is the libertarian believes we set those new expectations (i.e., societal norms) from the ground up - (it starts with the individuals and the families, not the government). Seems you agree with that.

What you may or may not agree with is as follows: It won't be legislated, or at least that won't work. You can't legislate culture or thought control. Though it seems many feel they can.

So you can belittle the concept of that libertarian, but if you get away from the partisan stereotype you're holding, you might find it's more in line with your thoughts than you think.

I do agree that the expectations need to be set from the ground up. I further agree that there is no way to legislate those expectations. And I certainly agree with the notion that one fundamental expectation is that everyone should do their utmost to provide for themselves (in a manner that doesn't involve a criminal enterprise). Once again, we find ourselves in about 95% agreement.

My only complain was (and is) the notion that free individuals are not influenced by their environment. We see this notion in the current bogus argument about whether or not "self-made businesspeople" have had any help from the social context and infrastructure in which they operate. Also in the thread about Penn State, where you argued that individuals should account for their unlawful action/inaction (no disagreement from me on that), and also that the environment in which those decisions were made (the "football is God" atmosphere) is irrelevant (I respectfully disagree). Ideally, people of strong moral character would "do the right thing" regardless of the personal cost to them. Unfortunately real life is often more complicated, such as when standing up for your morals means losing the career you've spent decades building, the ability to support yourself and your family, your friendships and "status" in the community, etc.

So, I think we agree that the culture of "living on the dole" has got to be replaced by a culture of "take care of yourself", an environment where those who are truly down on their luck can be grateful for assistance as a temporary measure so they can get back on their feet, not as an entitlement. Similarly, the idea (in some cultures) that fathers need not stick around to raise their children is immensely destructive. So too is the culture of resorting to force or the threat of force (including guns) to solve problems. In some segments of American society, incarceration is seen as "normal", a rite of passage even; it would be good to restore some sense of shame and loss of status with screwing up badly enough to be sent to jail. None of those are things that can be changed by legislation, they have to change in the values that people prefer to live by. Still, I think, the process could be helped by some changes in the environment. Large public housing projects just create communities where almost everyone is on government assistance, so it seems normal to live that way. Many families are there because families consist of single women raising several children on their own (highly correlated with poverty), but there again in such a community fatherless families (because Dad is in jail or just moved on) look "normal", and kids grow up with the idea that fathers don't take care of their families. Such housing projects are just little incubators that perpetuate the very social problems they are supposed to be fixing. There will always be some families that need help, but at least integrate them into communities where the kids look around and see families where people work, take care of themselves, and where Dad is around.

The problem with the idea that people are self-made and environment has no/little role, is that then there is no incentive to modify environments that surround kids with unproductive or destructive models (such as housing projects for the very poor).

Back to our Colorado situation, social values that discourage people with mental health problems from seeking help are part of the problem. Social values where infamy and notoriety are just another aspect of being "famous", where there is no such thing as "bad publicity" or public shame, is part of the problem. Celebration of violence, as a problem-solving strategy (e.g. Dirty Harry) or in folk culture (Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid), also contributes. I like the idea of not naming the killer in most news stories, of reducing him to a pathology specimen, of regarding him as one would regard a biopsy slide of a malignant tumor. Of course, it will sometimes be necessary to name the person, but maybe if that doesn't lead to instant fame (everybody knows my name now!), that course of action won't be as attractive to the unstable who feel unappreciated or overlooked (which includes many of the perpetrators of mass killings). Not legislation, just a consensus on how we'll respond to such actions.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

the NRA won't allow screening to purchase a firearm, so this is the way it is. Lunatics can buy guns because a lot of people who aren't lunatics, but also aren't very smart, are afraid of who might not qualify for purchase.



But it is true. What part of the background check currently performed has anything at all to do with intelligence?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the key!
People that know everything.

Quote

In this case it would make zero difference if people had a weapon with which to "defend" themselves. The attack still would have happened precisely the way it did and was enabled because of the ease of access the perp had to the weapons he specifically chose for the task at hand.



We simply cannot claim this at all. There is no way of knowing this. By this reasoning, President Kennedy is still alive. NO WAY anybody could ever make those shots!!!

:S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Are you saying you can tell if someone is guilty by looking at them?



I would say any shrink worth their weight in salt could've easily identified serious problems with every mass shooting perpetrator I've ever seen or heard of. But of course identifying loonies before they are allowed to buy guns is not acceptable to the NRA. They'd rather just see the dead buried as quietly as possible and blame placed elsewhere if that is what it takes to preserve the status quo.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Here's the key!
People that know everything.

Quote

In this case it would make zero difference if people had a weapon with which to "defend" themselves. The attack still would have happened precisely the way it did and was enabled because of the ease of access the perp had to the weapons he specifically chose for the task at hand.


We simply cannot claim this at all. There is no way of knowing this. By this reasoning, President Kennedy is still alive. NO WAY anybody could ever make those shots!!!



No. What I'm saying is, firing back would change nothing because the shots would have already been fired.

In the case of Kennedy, this is especially true.

Or do you disagree?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My only complain was (and is) the notion that free individuals are not influenced by their environment.



Yet, you can likely take another male, super hi IQ medical PhD from the same school and upbringing and he'll CHOOSE not to shoot up a movie theator...

yet, I do agree with you comment, anyway.

It's just that environment is not an 'excuse' for bad behavior and that mitigating our responses based on that does less than nothing to effect the change. We can 'understand' and 'sympathize' with the 'whys' someone breaks a law, but that is not license to lessen our corrective responses to their actions. Yet we see all the time, people that are willing to give one guy a free pass due to their upbringing and another guy not even if they do the exact same action. Inconsistency is a crappy way to mature a child - why on earth would it be a good way to mature a society?

When someone flips out and commits a crime, I think the cause is lost the second someone cries out "but how would I FEEL if I was in his position?"

Also, those that cry out that it's the 'environment' don't necessarily mean what you and I are talking about, they are saying it to justify social manipulation by the government. Which is usually just code word for transferring from one group to another and doesn't actually help anyone.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NRA is not the governing body to allow nor disallow background checks. Specifically the ones currently required to purchase a weapon.

I'm still trying to make sense of the last sentence though.

Not sure what sort of intelligence test you're after here, I thought we were talking about "loonies". Had this criminal had to take an intelligence test, my guess is he would have performed rather well.

I personally have never objected to gun education and have in fact insisted on that in advice given some people I know. It led to a number of them NOT buying weapons.
Which in those cases, I felt was the right result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>We simply cannot claim this at all.

True. About the only thing we can claim with certainty is that if the perpetrator did not have access to guns, this would not have occurred.




sure, 'access to guns' made him crazy (I'm having a hard time keeping up, did the guns make him crazy, or was it his environment, or was it his life experiences, or was something just not wired right? so many options).

and furthermore, as a very stupid individual, he'd have NEVER figured out a way to hurt a bunch of people in a confined building

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

the NRA won't allow screening to purchase a firearm, so this is the way it is. Lunatics can buy guns because a lot of people who aren't lunatics, but also aren't very smart, are afraid of who might not qualify for purchase.



OK, so clarification. The NRA is staunchly opposed to the level of screeening needed to keep loonies from buying guns. Yes, they will get flagged if they have a record. Not good enough (and they of course know that, but are afraid of what real screening would do to sales). Screening should not be a matter of "have you killed anyone yet" but more of "what's your state of mental health."

So, I'll give you that the NRA is OK with very limited screening, but it stands that the NRA will not allow MEANINGFUL (preventive) screening.

Loonies are buying guns. No way that is a lie. This guy is a case in point.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The NRA is not the governing body to allow nor disallow background checks.



While technically correct, that's probably the most disingenuous comment I've heard for a long time.

The NRA has politicians nuts in a vice when it comes to tightening up background check and you certainly know that.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying simply, we have no way of ever knowing if having a gun to shoot back with could have or would have made any difference whatsoever.

I think it could have. To me the possibility existed, no matter how remote.

It would suck to lay there bleeding out knowing you had a clear shot wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0