He was one of the first to respond and has two kids - a 10 year old son and 9 year old daughter. I'm in town from Chicago to see my CT family and staying with my young family of five at my folks just down the street from the school. I really can't wrap my head around any of this.
I want to go to these families and just tell them that we love them and their children and let them cry. It's truly awful.
On top of that I don't know what my uncle is going to have to deal with given what he's seen and had to do today. Just unbelievably tragic.
which is where the shooter lived. I don't know what the parents did to this kid but it really made him angry. The basic fact is that the guy was nuts and there is no logical explanations for what a nut job can/will do. We try to superimpose logic and reasonable thinking onto an illogical unreasonable person. It doesn't work.
Or that his parents did anything.
including your mother as well as a handful of school faculty and 20 children under the age of 10 isn't "insanity" then what is?
For the record, there is no "definition" of insanity in the DSM.
and I'm not sure how I feel.
I certainly sympathize with the idea that one "must have to be insane" to do something like this. By the same token, statements and letters made by these folks, while they seem dramatically misguided and evil, don't seem to be lacking thought, rational faculty, or consideration. Was the guy aware of what he was doing? Did he consciously make the decision to do it? Did he know that it would result in death? Was he aware it was wrong? If all of those are true, I don't think he was insane. I think sometimes people choose, with their full faculties, to perform evil. And evil does exist in the world. I suppose it's easier to think they just went batty.
You are relying on the legal definition of insanity, or a more visceral description?
Perhaps the fact that we move too often
Posts about this tragedy
"The basic fact is that the guy was nuts and there is no logical explanations for what a nut job can/will do. We try to superimpose logic and reasonable thinking onto an illogical unreasonable person. It doesn't work."
It is hard to deny, though, that the shooter had to have harbored a lot of anger at his parents. Whether it was justified anger is a different question; regardless, nothing can excuse the way he expressed that anger.
it really made him angry."
Sorry, it just sounded that way I guess.
Because, as BAC69 said, the guy was nuts, and crazy people do things that aren't logical. You took that first sentence and responded as if it were the whole post.
(On the other hand, I know it's easy to lose focus in horrible, mind-numbing, emotional situations like this, so I'll lay off and quick my nit-picking. Cheers.)
by this event?
won't nitpick anymore... and you decide to nitpick my adjectives? But sure, I think I've definitely lost some focus and the ability to concentrate this afternoon, and I'm not sure how to process all the news yet, so I feel a little numb in my mind. And emotional, too. Will that suffice? Would you like to come administer a psychological exam?
Or perhaps you'd prefer to imply that this horror isn't a big deal and we should all just go back to our business and forget about it?
One would think that an event like this would make people want to come together, to find support from one another, but instead we're all turning into jerks today.
I'm out. I hope you have a peaceful evening.
blamed them since he went out of his way to kill them both before killing himself. Who knows what motivates the crazy, but he was angry at them, right or wrong. Is that assuming too much?
and friend are missing
it's a bogus name. The real Ryan Lanza did live in Hoboken and did go to that grammar school but just posted on Twitter and Facebook that the shooter isn't him.
We probably won't know the real info for another day or two.
One is dead, and the other is being held for questioning.
Now it's being reported that his Mom was teaching. He went to the school, shot up the principal's office, then went to his Mom's class and shot up the class.
How did that rumor start?
this scares me on so many levels. I have had my share of angry adult encounters and push my staff to be alert and stop anyone that looks like they do not belong. After today I am slowly realizing that my school can do everything right but if some nut job has intent to do harm there may be nothing we can do short of locking a school down like an embassy base.
You're going to die, especially if you're not expecting it. I don't mean to be creepy, it's just the reality of it. My father has always said that about political assassinations - pretty sure he got it from somewhere else, but I don't know where. This type of person is in some sort of homicidal rage and has no grasp on reality, which even if he's not consciously willing to die is essentially the same thing. Lock down the school, and he'll break a window and shoot people. Lock down the school grounds, and he'll be on the rooftop across the street with a rifle.
We're too worried about stopping the result. We need to figure out how to stop the cause - and I don't mean a gun ban, I mean whatever the fuck is making people want to go out and murder a couple dozen strangers. This is not any kind of shot at you, mind you, just my commentary on the situation. Something is very, very broken in society - if I had to guess, the Generation Me effect that's seemingly spread to everyone regardless of actual generation, and has far too many of us not noticing our brothers. I have twin toddler boys and another one due at the end of January, and I can't even complete the thought of imagining if it was them. This is just so unimaginably sad.
publish the names of suspected shooters as policy. Makes a lot of sense, but I don't know if such a change is possible in our society.
I think every parent of small children must have imagined their own child dying in fear today. It's heartbreaking.
I think that is premised on the assumption that (a) the shooter is looking for "fame" or (b) copycat killers are less likely to idolize a 'faceless' shooter than a named entity they can focus on.
I don't know if all those factors are present in these shootings. Instead, there could be upside in exposing the shooter, his situation, and his family (which may or may not be fair to them) in order to figure out what happened, what signs (if any) were missed, and possibly raise awareness so someone in the future heads off a future tragedy.
I don't know the answer. It's f'd up. But too often reasonable ideas might not stop wholly-unreasonable people from doing what they are going to do.
Bu as a general principle, yes. There's no doubt many of these crimes are committed at least in a significant part by damaged individuals looking to wrest attention and significance from a cold universe and a public too hungry to give it to them.
It's a school building.
Kids should come there to feel safe.
It's the only place some of them will ever go to have that feeling.
As educators we should not be in the business of arming ourselves to protect our children. We are in the business of learning and helping kids to grow. While today's events are not the norm, the potential is always there for it.
Hug and kiss your kids at home. If you're a teacher, make sure your students know you care about them even if no one else does.
They will happen, and it is horrible when they do, but you and your students probably have a much, mich higher risk of dying in a traffic accident driving to school than being gunned down by a mass murderer on school property.
Reasonable efforts should be made to keep weapons out of schools, of course, (just as reasonable efforts should be made to, for example, get small children in child safety seats) but you can't live in fear of these types of events.
I could walk into my grade school, high school, and college with almost no restrictions in the '80's and '90's, when these incidents didn't occur as often. Now, with all the enhanced security they seem to happen more often.
Regardless, you're right, you're more likely to die in a car wreck.
Security is a million miles tighter than it was 20 years ago. When I was in high school, I had different days off than the local public school, so I used to drop by and have lunch in their cafeteria with my public school friends from time to time. No one ever took the slightest bit of notice.
There is no way that I could do that now. None at all. (And not just because I'm 40.)
At my kids' schools, there are electronic locks and funneled traffic. How do these folks still get in, and what -- besides armed guards and barbed wire and machine gun nests -- can we do to stop them?
In suburban schools, surrounded by nice neighborhoods and middle or upper middle class demographics, I suspect that the security protocols are not followed. I know they are not at my kids' schools. Sure, the door is locked and you have to be buzzed in, but they always do. Anybody can walk up, speak into the intercom, and state that they are a parent bringing in lunch money or forgotten homework, and the door opens right away.
Two months ago, my 8-year-old niece realized in the middle of class that she left her homework at home. She got up, left the school, went home, got her homework, came back, and walked right into an unlocked side door back in to the building. She was gone 45 minutes, and nobody noticed. Because nobody cared to.
Cover up the last leak. People that want to find the next leak. Add in complacence both from thinking everything is covered and also from time passing after an event.
Are we going to stop letting kids outside for recess? If people want to do crazy shit, there's little you can do to stop them.
Of a teacher at that school
for the protection of the class. I'd train him/her myself, if need be.
... children had, the answer is "no".
Schools are places where employees get disgruntled. I would feel much less secure if teachers were armed as a rule and also if teachers were armed selectively by choice.
I understand the sentiment, but its just not the right solution.
I know that there probably isn't a right solution. Is there nothing to do but hope it never happens to your kid? Maybe there is not; I wish I knew.
who get emotionally confrontational with bratty students every day. I think your politics are coloring your views here.
Not a time for hyperbole.
My grandparents used to tell me what a violent world we live in compared to when they were growing up in the 1930s and 40s.
I would respond that there has always been violence, drugs, scandals, etc. but they didn't have TV news media reporting it 24/7 back in the day.
Now I wonder if they were onto something.
NBC aired that VT shooter's entire taped message. It was a horrifying abuse of the freedom of the press. How many million people watched it without turning the channel? No one should be able to go out in a blaze of attention. If you kill another person and won't stick around to face justice, you should be fed to the fishes without anyone knowing your name.
We indulge monsters and crazy people and allow too much in the name of freedom. And we don't use all of this freedom to care about our families enough. I don't need to be left alone nearly as much as I need to outlive my children. And people should learn to hunt with crossbows. If you're worried about intruders, buy a mean-ass dog and a ka-bar and learn how to fight. You get a gun when you get a pair of boots and a buzz cut.
We cannot share a society with even one person who would shoot a child. The Japanese don't deal with this. They don't coddle lazy-eyed freaks like Jared Loughner, and they don't wring their hands about the right to own automatic weapons. They eat dinner together and slave over their kids' homework with them and nag and push and nag and push. They might not hug enough, but they care. They're crammed into that island like sardines, yet their murder rate is nearly nine times lower than ours.
We're self-centered, self-indulgent, mean-spirited. We're too arrogant to fear God and too cowardly to embrace Him.
This is about the third national news story I've ever even cared about -- Columbine and 9/11 being the other two. How many times have crazy people killed people minding their own business and I never gave more than a "that sucks." I don't think we were meant to care so little about each other. We're awful.
Did Timothy McVeigh use a gun to kill so many? Did the 9/11 terrorists use guns? An old man with no criminal intent accidentally killed a number of people some years ago in Santa Monica at a farmers market when he hit the gas pedal instead of the brake. Imagine what a deranged person in a large heavy pick up truck could do if he had a plan. The truck and the gun are just tools. The madness is in the human.
If I was a nut case intent on taking out as many people as I could for whatever reason, I could fill up my car with propane tanks rigged with a fairly simple detonator and drive my car into any number of crowded venues like the ND parking lot before a home game.
I have no problem with limiting the type of guns people can own and the capacity of the magazines. I have no problem with background checks and waiting periods. But there are millions of law abiding gun owners in this country that will never do something like this. To take away their 2nd amendment rights because someone goes crazy is wrong. And while it is treated as a cliche by the gun control crowd, it is absolute truth that if owning guns is made illegal, then only criminals will have guns.
There are too many of them today and too many sources of them to be obtained illegally. It's a little easier when you're an island nation. I think we need to revisit sensationalizing assholes and consider making their families legally liable for their actions.
While I am not interested in guns, I disagree with your suggestion that people shouldn't be permitted to own them. I do agree that there should be some pretty tight restrictions on ownership however.
More importantly, I believe that the "little things" that you reference cannot be overemphasized. Families who spend time together, parents who care about their children and take time with them on their school work or other activities seem to be the exception rather than the rule. People don't spend time interacting, in person, with others. Texting or tweeting are now the norm. Perhaps most important is the lack of any recognition of God. I could not help but thinking, upon reading about this incident, that we used to pray in schools, now you send your children to school each morning hoping they'll be safe.
but that doesn't justify why the most grounded, well-meaning, religious people I know should be forced to give up their firearms. I believe ownership restrictions can be justified, but your plan goes way too far.
The rest of this I can support.
a lot of people die in the name of religion.
embrace Him. Many gun-owners I know do that, and they're not a threat to anyone except someone breaking into their house in the middle of the night.
I assume that covers 95% of gun owners in the US actually. That's the reason I own guns.
I received my first BB gun at age 5 and a shotgun on my 12th birthday. I shot competively in 4H growing up. Most of the kids in my rural community grew up in a similar household. We were taught respect and discipline through shooting at an early age.
I don't want to get into the politics of the issue today, but suffice it to say, I believe blaming the tools of the crazy instead of the root causes of the crazy is wrong.
and wouldn't home defense be less necessary if there were strict gun control laws? IMO the "freedoms" that are protected are far outweighed by the devastation that can be done by psychotic (angry/drunk/etc) people with guns. How many examples do we need? The gun laws are a disgrace
The ship on gun control has sailed. There are already hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in the US. They're not going anywhere, unless law enforcement forcibly collects them.
That no criminals would possess firearms if guns were hightly restricted, then I might consider supporting your position. As it is, my wife and I will keep the loaded 870 in our bedroom. We prefer not to be victims.
criminals from getting guns and using them in their crimes. I live in the country, where a call to the sherriff might get them here in half an hour if I'm lucky. A firearm is my and my family's best protection.
criminals would still find a way to obtain guns. Then they would feel very safe breaking into your house knowing that you do not have a gun with which to defend yourself.
Sure, it would take a while to see an impact and a black market would exist, but it would decrease gun violence among kids.
Yeah, some would, but there would be a lot fewer guns out there and a lot fewer people killed by guns. Also the current gun laws protect guns that no one outside of the military or SWAT teams should have IMO - in the name of a protecting some "freedom"
off the street?
Do you honestly want a country where the government forcibly removes guns from it's law abiding citizens? Really?
Right to bear arms.
...is a result of black markets, and has been for a very long time.
There is already a large black market for weapons. Making guns illegal will not remedy that problem, it might very well increase the problem. Nor will it remedy the problem of the other black markets that contribute to the problem. People are willing to kill and be killed to protect these markets.
I think fixing this problem is very complicated.
out there already. Unless there was to be a forceful outlawing of the possession of weapons and a collection of them by law enforcement, the weapons already exist in the general population. Even if all new sales were prohibited, there'd still be PLENTY of guns available for folks who want them to get them. The same way that there's plenty of drugs available for those who want them.
In fact, a time is coming in the very near future when regulating the sale of guns is going to be irrelevent anyway, as you'll be able to easily manufacture one in your own home.
They've already used a 3D printer to make a working rifle, so nut jobs aren't even dependent on manufacturers, markets, or laws anymore. Or at least they won't be in the near future, when 3D printers are widely commercially available.
to be an incredibly revolutionary technology that fundamentally alters the balance of power between the government and the individual.
And it's also why I think that there are some grave dangers to our freedom and privacy coming. Once we can download CAD plans to construct anything we want, the only effective way to actually prevent that is going to be monitoring and eavesdropping of internet and computer communications. I fear that a fearful society is going to grant our governments the ability and authority to monitor all such communications, and that the exchange of information is going to be restricted.
The ability of individuals to learn what they want and create what they want is going to make regulation the types of which we currently experience a very difficult proposition. Creation and distribution will be too decrentralized to do so effectively without tyranny. And that is my biggest fear for the creation of a tyrannical state.
People who live in some very restrictive societies - like China in the extreme and, to a lesser extent, those involved in the Arab Spring - have managed to disseminate officially unacceptable material online. I think the authorities still just can't grasp that the nature of this beast of online communication necessarily means they will never be able to fully control it. They're pissing in the wind with their attempts to regulate the internet. To take piracy as an example, they might get one thousandth of one percent of the people engaging it and have absolutely no deterrent effect on potential future acts. It's a sea change compare to the way information was shared even 15 years ago, and governments are ill-equipped to handle it unless they make fundamental changes in the way they view information sharing.
to get an automatic or burst fire rifle, I'd be interested to know exactly what other types of guns you think we shouldn't be able to have?
What guns are we as civilians allowed to have that we should not? What are the characteristics of those guns that make them suitable only for the military or SWAT teams and unsuitable for a civilian to own?
I think you have to get special permission from the ATF or Treasury Department to own a machine gun.
I believe I also read that some are fighting to get that law overturned.
My question would be why? Why does Joe Blow Citizen need a M4 Carbine?
between an M4 and many hunting rifles.
The real difference is in magazine capacity, but it's pretty easy to make homemade high-capacity mags.
trying to overturn the law.
If there is no functional difference than be happy with your civilian issued hunting rifle.
AR-15's are perfectly legal (the civilian model of an M4). So are single-shot AK-47's. Not sure what you're talking about.
I don't think there has ever been any serious push for burst or automatic weapons to be legalized.
That's something of an oversimplification, but that's the basic rule. I don't really get why anyone would need a semi-automatic weapon either, though, and I'm a former Boy Scout who proudly holds the Rifle Shooting and Shotgun Shooting merit badges. Hunting or home defense, I don't understand why you'd need an automatic weapon of any kind. It doesn't take me that long to pump a shotgun.
weapon and your pump shotgun or a revolver (i.e., something that requires manual effort to load the next round). As you note, it does not take long to pump a shotgun. Why ban one but not the other?
Maybe we should all go back to muskets.
Why allow the dangers inherent to the one when the other will suit any reasonable purpose? I'm originally from Long Island, exemplar of suburbia, but I spent a significant portion of my youth living in upstate New York, where hunting is a way of life. I've done a lot of target shooting with a wide variety of single-shot weapons; my brother is an avid hunter of deer and turkey. I don't have a problem with people owning a Browning .308 (which my brother owns and I've shot) because it's a reasonable weapon for hunting deer, although it can be used for more nefarious purposes. I don't have a problem with people owning a Remington 870 (which, believe it or not, I shot at summer camp as a 13-year-old) because it's a reasonable weapon for hunting bird, although it too can be used for more nefarious purposes. I do however have a problem with someone owning a Bushmaster .223 or an AR-15, because they're primarily designed for one purpose and it's not hunting rabbits.
Out of curiosity, I just Googled "Bushmaster .223" and the link below is the second result that came up. You can mail-order an entire freaking armory. If you browse around the site, you'll find the seller's Conditions page, where he essentially offloads all responsibility for the purchase being legal to the buyer. He even provides a "cash discount" for purchasing with something other than a credit card. I won't fault him too much, as it's not his fault all that stuff is allowed. But isn't that at least a little concerning? I don't mean to focus in on this one guy too much - the point is more that if I can find this site as the second result in a Google search for a particular weapon, how hard could it really be for someone to stock up on weapons that no civilian would ever need unless Red Dawn actually comes to pass?
It's frighteningly easy to get weapons of mass murder that have no business being available on the open market. And that's not even getting into strawman purchases, gun show purchases, the ridiculously wide chasm between strictness of different states' gun laws, etc.
rifles? That would mean banning probably the vast majority of the firearms in existence, including many that are used for hunting.
To me, it is silly to ban one particular type of weapon. Any gun can be as deadly as the person holding it wants it to be.
A baseball bat could be as deadly as the person holding it wants it to be. So could a kitchen knife. So could a car. So could a shoelace. Obviously it's not practical to ban ownership of certain objects just because they could potentially be deadly. But there's a question of efficiency - we can't legislate out the risk of mass murder from our society, but shouldn't we at least take measures to make it more difficult to achieve? To extend the analogy, why are explosives illegal to own? So it's OK to be able to mail-order the necessary equipment to kill 30 people, but not 50?
And yes, I would advocate limiting civilian non-handguns to single-shot rifles and shotguns. If you're worried about not having enough time to load if you didn't kill the bear on the first shot, you can either learn how to be a better shot, take measures to avoid the risk of being eaten, or accept the risk. I would strongly consider limiting handgun ownership to two per household or one per adult. Why does anyone need to amass an armory in his basement? What purpose does it serve? We don't need a militia anymore - times have changed. We're probably not going to see eye-to-eye on this, because this is one of those rare times that I can make a blanket statement that I'm positive I will never reconsider - nobody will ever be able to give me a compelling reason why a civilian would need an automatic rifle.
Your questioning in this thread is odd.
firearms, but has strong opinions about what should or should not be banned. THAT'S the problem with most gun regulation in this country.
understand. No one needs a handgun for hunting or protecting one's home. They can be useful in such situations, but they are not required to achieve either end with firearms.
If the Supreme Court allowed it, and gun fetishizers were pushed into the corner where they belonged, then banning handguns would make a whole hell of a lot of sense. Granted as noted in this subthread, it wouldn't change much in the immediate. There are too many out there, too many methods of procurement, and too many interests. But twenty years down the line, we would be much better off as a country, provided we don't find other ways to decay into dissolution.
Or of course, we can follow the logic of the gun apologists, and just arm all of our citizens, teachers and kids included. Then everyone will be safe.
their homestead. Carrying around a shotgun at the grocery store is impractical.
I had forgotten that some of tender citizens just cannot feel secure without a few inches of additional metal strapped on, and the polity should privilege their self-esteem over other competing goods.
I tend to forget that part. There's always some small detail to scuttle my plans for tyranny.
gives me the right to protect myself not only in my home, but wherever I may roam.
Hand guns make that safer/more comfortable for all parties. I don't want people calling for stricter gun laws/ban on handguns to force everyone looking to defend themselves and their families outside their home to strap shotguns to their backs.
I doubt it, but it is at least arguable. How will it change anything? Mad men will just use shotguns or rifles which are very good at killing things.
It doesn't address the root causes of violence in our society. In fact, it may do harm in the sense we'd be so busy slapping ourselves on the back for accomplishing some good, we'd merrily continue the work of avoiding root causes.
But if we got the handguns down to the amount floating around in the rest of the civilized world, it would be a lot harder to walk into a public place and unload a shitload of rounds before anyone had time to respond.
Shotguns and rifles can still kill people, but they don't serve that mass shooting purpose nearly as well. Semiautomatic rifles are more difficult to conceal. Shotguns won't shoot as many rounds so quickly, and they are less likely to kill as many people.
Same with gang gun violence, but again, that's a different problem, with a different set of causes.
work better than banning cocaine or meth?
And hippies can't grow them.
you probably need access to the metal shop.
with decent care, most of those weapons will last a long time and there's plenty of ammunition out there also. It would be very, very easy for crimials to acquire guns once they're banned as you propose, whether you're 'buying it' or not.
Not arguing one way or another, but I don't think the argument that "the transition will be difficult" should justify doing nothing.
Slavery was a status. Legally, they were freed, and there were no longer any slaves in America.
Unfortunately, if Congress were to legally change the status of "guns" to anything else, it wouldn't make a whit of difference. Saying "you're not a slave anymore" is a profound statement. Saying "that's not a gun anymore" is not. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
I am saying that just because something is difficult to do does not make it unworthy of doing.
God, why is this so hard to phrase eloquently. I have been playing double-triple negative hopscotch in this entire thread.
The argument is that it will be impossible to prevent unauthorized sales of guns in a country where guns are readily available, where demand is high, and where we are on the brink of being able to undetectably manufacture weapons in the privacy of our own homes.
It took 20 years of military occupation to root out slavery, and the vestiges of it remained well after that. Unless you're suggesting a military occupation and search and seizure of every home and individual to root out gun ownership, then your point is without merit.
I think it will be incredibly difficult, but if it is determined (by what means, I don't know) that stricter gun control laws are better than where we are now, then we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to take those growing pains upon ourselves.
FWIW, I am not for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. I am still trying to figure out where I stand on this since it was never really important to me before.
There are 270 Million firearms out there now (I had previously heard over 300 million, but I'll go with the low number for its own sake). That's a helluva lot of inventory.
Let's suppose that tomorrow, all new gun sales and manufacture was banned. What about our government's history in banning "things" makes you think that we'd have any success in actually banning the possession of firearms? They can be kept up and used, and resold, and absent invasive searches, would be pretty difficult for the government to find and detect. It really would take a tyrannical government to effect the prevention.
And again, even if all new sales and manufacture were banned, the law would be especially helpless in preventing home manufacturing of the type enabled by 3D printing. In the end, our choices are going to be "learn to live with weapon ownership" or "accept an invasive and tyrannical government."
I really can't see another way around it. Ridding the country of guns isn't worth tyranny to me. Let me be even more blunt. 30,000 lives per year isn't worth tyranny to me.
At least in my mind. I think that is what this all boils down to, and I don't think it occurred to me until you said it.
I genuinely appreciate the fact that I have the right to purchase a gun, even though I don't own one or really have much of an interest in the prospect of it. Consequently, due to my lack of interest the restriction or elimination of that right isn't that big of a deal to me, so 30,000 lives seems worth it. I absolutely understand there is another side to the coin, though.
This is purely theoretical, but if there were a way where it wouldn't be "tyranny", what would your opinion be then?
I think there's two questions:
1) Would I view it as tyranny simply if all guns magically disappeared and we were able to preclude future private ownership of such weapons without invasive searches?
2) Given the reality we live in where guns are overwhelmingly available, and the only possible way to prevent their distribution would be a police state, would I be in favor of such measures if it meant 30,000 fewer people died each year?
My answer to the second question is clearly no. I don't think that measures less than tyrannical ones would have any impact on preventing criminals and crazies from launching attacks like this, so they are to my mind a price of freedom.
As to the first question, I'd have qualms about giving the government such a complete and unfettered force superiority over the people, but would have to think long and hard about the trade-offs. In the current situation, I'm simply dismissive of legislative responses as unworthy of consideration. In the hypothetical laid out in number one, I certainly wouldn't be.
I was saying that I don't consider a difficult transition to be an argument against something.
Like the Jefferson quote: "we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go." I would like to see a reasonable national debate about gun laws, but making the argument that there are already too many guns is not valid to me.
You compared transitioning out 4 million slaves to transition out 250 million guns.
Of course, a single pen stroke can instantly make 4 million slaves free. You don't have to go door-to-door, fight their owners, and collect them.
I was trying to distinguish my point from the "GUNS=SLAVERY!!!" interpretation which didn't occur to me as a potential interpretation initially.
Maybe it's an old stereotype, but I tend to think that would be another reason to own guns in your line of work.
and wild dogs from time to time. In Arizona, you actually have to have a valid hunting license to shoot any wild animal, even varmints and agressors like coyotes. The only exception is domesticated animals, so putting a cow or horse that you own down with a firearm does not require a hunting license.
It's a rant. The gun part's not very well thought-out, I'm sure.
Nonetheless, I would agree that there is something in how we humans live (and how we in this culture live) that some among us act so evilly so often.
Lord, have mercy.
to stop this insanity?
I agree with Obama's press secretary - save this discussion for another day.
I don't think anything should be done. People need to realize that the odds of this happening to their kids are fantastically tiny, and attempts to prevent it will be burdensome and probably futile.
The headline story on Drudge quotes a local woman who says “Newtown is a quiet town. I’d never expect this to happen here. It’s so scary. Your kids are not safe anywhere.”
Her reaction is obviously understandable, but what she said is totally false. Kids in the U.S. today have better overall life outcomes than almost any kids, anywhere, ever in the history of the world.
The posters in this thread are scattered around the country, and yet we all heard about this almost in real time. Television and the internet are so scaleable now that hundreds of millions of people hear about isolated, extreme events instantly. The emotion that comes from the traumatic images totally overwhelms any effort to see things statistically.
I don't know any kids who have been abducted or killed in a school shooting, but I do know plenty of people who drive their kids 500 feet to the bus stop and then make them wait in the car until the bus arrives, because anything less secure would just be too frightening. I doubt the long term effects of that kind of mentality will be healthy.
in some respects. Along the same lines that we would have been better off had with had the courage to think through what we were doing after 9/11. But we're a nation of pussies. We knee-jerked and apparently will be living with the consequences forever--because the government can't be stopped.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say its applicable to coordinated terrorist attacks as well.
If someone really, really, really wants to do something like this, there isn't a whole hell of a lot that can be done to stop it.
Address the core issues (culture of violence, social isolation), not the technical solutions.
...the fact that U.S. kids are better off (i.e., relatively superior in this respect) does not mean that the statement, "your kids are not safe anywhere," is "totally false." Those are two unrelated issues. It is not "totally false." Our youngest is now in high school. As far as I'm concerned, the existence of a large number of alienated nuts plus the easy access for such people to high-powered weapons means that this can happen anywhere, at any time. You don't have to be a sky-is-falling type to be concerned about this.
You're right that an event like this could happen to your kids "anywhere, at any time." So could a meteorite strike. I wouldn't bet on it, though. And worrying and trying to prevent a meteorite strike would be stressful and expensive. That kind of worry is a net negative for society.
I think that, relative to the circumstances of most people at most times, American kids today can certainly be considered "safe".
relatively "safer"? There is a threat out there that seems like it was avoidable. Because it's so statistically improbable should we not worry about it?
As Thomas Sowell would say, "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs." It's possible to make schools somewhat safer than they are now, but that option has at least some costs, financial and otherwise. You seem to be saying that this event was avoidable, but I wonder what it would have taken to avoid it. Schools already have security nowadays, and you'd probably have to impose prison-like security nationwide to have a serious impact on safety. I, for one, don't think that would be worth it.
Look at it another way: Swimming pools kill many people every year. I'm friends with a couple whose child died in a freak pool accident. Pools don't serve any essential purpose in our society, and it is certain that banning them would save many lives. Yet they are legal, and I'd bet that a national referendum to ban them would be voted down.
I can only conclude that Americans think the benefit pools provide(fun) outweighs the costs (many serious injuries and deaths). In this case at least, people don't want to make "safe" into "relatively safer".
But I would counter that swimming pools require the user to assume a voluntary risk (made by the parents in this case). As does driving a car or going skydiving. These kids today were in school. Did they assume the risk of being murdered in their classroom by being raised in a country where the rights of others (to own a gun, not to do what he did) allow this to happen? It's definitely not voluntary.
Nothing can ever be done to guarantee things like this won't happen. I don't believe in psychological profiling - there is too much gray area in that.
Our idea is that from the very beginning of schooling, meaning either kindergarten or 1st grade, until formal schooling ends (after college or graduate school), "Anger Management" is taught as a school subject just like math, reading, or science would be. Every single child, every single day, sits in a class to discuss the proper ways to deal with emotions, anger, and frustration. They are taught how to address their feelings in a healthy, safe way. At every school, there is a license, trained psychologist that they are encouraged to talk to if they are feeling distressed, sad, angry or otherwise unable to deal with emotions they are having. This would help demystify the idea of seeing a psychologist and hopefully help encourage people to talk about issues they might be having.
It certainly not a solution, and I don't think anything is, but I truly and honestly believe this would be a very powerful step to lessening these types of crimes. As it is, a student goes through 20+ years of education without ever having any sort of instruction on how to deal with their own emotions. This is insane.
What does a lady who killed two people 33 years ago have to do with implementing some sort of mental health program in modern day schools? I'm confused.
is crazy does what crazy does - miss spencer wasn't mad about anything - she was just nuts
when asked why she did it - she simply said "I don't like Monday's"
similar to the profile emerging about the aurora shooter - the kid was just totally batshit
so - while people think that we can prevent or stop these events through gun control, or stuff like you suggest - i kind of doubt it (which is depressing)
bad stuff and bad people just happen to the rest of us sometimes.
That's very Brave New World-esque, no?
I do realize you don't mean it that way, but I have a fundamental issue with the implications of what you suggest.
I also don't have a better solution to offer, so take this for what it's worth.
It's just an idea.
to address it.
I don't mean to sound like I'm disparaging...like I said, I can't offer up my own solution. There's something wrong with the status quo.
There really isn't any such thing, or at least, any way to "manage" anger. Read up.
OTM versus HTown Smackdown?
I submit that it would be the ultimate thread.
(I love you both, gentlemen).
Read up on what?
It's like telling an alcoholic to take "drink management" classes
They get to the root cause of why you are an alcoholic. That's why it works for some people. They don't tell you how to just have two drinks. An alcoholic cant control themselves, just like someone with anger issues.
as alcoholics do often attend classes and learn methods to deal with their addiction.
They learn the root cause(s) and go from there. Same with anger. You don't "manage" anything. That implies a certain level of control that is beyond the capability of someone who has an actual drinking or anger problem.
Is this an issue of semantics? Maybe they should take "Root Cause of Anger" classes. Is your assertion that people who have issues with controlling anger/emotions are a lost cause and there's no class/method/course of action that could help them? Or is your issue that I used the phrase "Anger Management?"
Who have actual anger problems that create harm to those around them, which is what you were suggesting in your initial post. So assume that the shooter today was so angry, it caused him to do what he did. He most likely had a physiological problem that no class could solve. He would require a level of treatment beyond what you described in your initial post. So when you say "anger management", that's really a misnomer, because it's beyond his control.
It was a damn suggestion.
Since psychological issues are hardly an exact science, forgive me if I don't subscribe that it's impossible some basic level of psychological counseling could have helped this guy. Maybe not, but maybe so. Maybe attending said classes and having access to a psychologist would have encouraged him to seek deeper counseling and help. Maybe not. You don't know and either do I.
I'm done with this conversation.
Your proposal isn't based in reality. Ask any psychologist.
That is what parents are for.
That's what parents are for. But if they're not doing it, and until these people stop harming society, the burden falls on society to protect themselves. If the parents won't do it, someone has to.
Anger management in the schools? Dear Lord, what an awful idea.
Or are you just here to be an asshole?
It's becoming and more obvious to me that young people today do not properly know how to handle their anger and emotions. Blame it on moral decay, poor parenting, violent video gamer, etc - whatever the cause, it needs to be addressed. The world is a vastly different place than it was when you were a kid. Things are different. Talk about your feelings and how to deal with them doesn't make you a "wuss."
What is your solution, oh wise one? Or is everything fine?
told him to man up and stop being a pussy.
Since when did learning how to manage anger equate to being weak? Guys like you and I may know how to do it intuitively. Others don't.
This is not your best post.
He could also simply be some sort of sociopath who has been to psychiatrists and therapists his whole life, raised by loving and compassionate parents, and he decided to stop taking his meds, in which case, if we are talking solutions, we should probably be talking about involuntary institutionalization standards rather than classes directed at broad audiences and gun control.
Some of them have enough problems teaching the subject they're supposed to know properly. Schools aren't exactly swimming in money to pay for somebody that does know what they're talking about.
And your last lines are spot on. It is absolute insanity that as we continue to blur lines of privacy, live in increasingly crowded societies, and have growing contingencies of disgruntled and marginalized, that people aren't taught from an early age how to deal with their problems productively.
Mental health screenings before purchases maybe? I dunno. I just don't understand how Switzerland can have a rifle in every house, and not see an ounce of the horror we have.
...by ignoring incidents like this for gun policy setting purposes (regardless of whether you fall on the "we need fewer guns available" or "teachers should be armed" side of the debate).
Something like this happens and everyone zeros in like a laser on gun control, which is unfortunate, because the focus and debate should be the effect of guns on gang violence and domestic violence and other pervasive instances of gun violence in society, not responding to once in a decade horrors like this. It's sort of like discussing national traffic and vehicular safety standards in the context of a suicide who decides to drive in the left hand lane at high speed until he rams an oncoming car.
I doubt that the Swiss have a gang problem like we do. That is the driver of our gun problem.
... screenings. One is the fucking gun lobby likely won't support it. Here in Washington state a mental health issue won't keep you from getting a permit.
Another is that a person who passes such a screening can go off the rails in the future.
We have a conflict between safety and the Second Amendment, and I don't think that there is sufficient support to change that. We also have a culture of violence to address issues.
Although this is a fairly recent change.
There are also further mental health requirements for CCPs.
But you are right about your second line, so how good are the requirements?
... festival a few years ago had a gun, a permit, and diagnosed mental illness. Was the law changed after that event? I didn't track the change.
This year's Cafe Racer shooter snuck in under the letter of the law but clearly violated the spirit of the law
feed that culture of violence?
... respect to mass killings.
While in my view many fetishize the Second Amendment, it seems to be more an obsession with owning and using guns itself than the Constitutional provision.
define "glorification" and "feed" and "culture of violence"?
The US has a crazy love of war and all things gun related. Civil War re-enactments, gun shows, the plethora of magazines devoted to them, and the images we put in front of our kids glorifying them. Think GI Joe. From early on, kids see acceptable images of gratuitous violence, and there's a numbing towards it.
Then, as we go through school, and learn our nations laws, we're taught that the rights contained in the original amendments are inalienable, and normal, and the ideal to which should be aspired. Imagine my surprise when I found out the rest of the world didn't have guns the way Americans have guns.
So do we glorify the 2nd amendment? Absolutely. Gun ownership makes you a MAN dammit, and that right exists to protect my right to go buy a gun and use it? On what? Why, surely if I grabbed a pistol by the barrel and left the mag in, it makes for a handy hammer. But it doesn't work so well as a screwdriver. You see, the 2nd Amendment, in the 21st century, exists for one reason, and one reason only: To protect the right of a non-felon to legally purchase an implement of death. Guns do one thing. Kill. We devoted 1/10th of our Bill of Rights (blessed by God, as it says in the text) to protect the right of our citizens to break 1/10th of the basic rule set that predates it (ironically, the ones God actually wrote).
The 2nd amendment, in the 21st century, exists to combat the government's monopoly on violence.
Keep the gumint honest?
Your first paragraph--I don't see a connection b/w Civil War re-enactments and school shootings. If you can show a link between a mass shooting and a family trip to Gettysburg, or a screening of Tora! Tora! Tora!, or a magazine or gun exposition, please do so.
Second: I don't think civics class (to the extent it's even taught anymore) plays a role either. I think the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are normal and pretty close to ideal in most cases. Teaching the 2nd Amendment is far different from teaching a person that murder is okay.
Third: Most of your last paragraph is just nutty, and I think even you would admit it's a bit over the top. I don't own guns, and don't plan to; but I think it's plain that the right to own a gun goes beyond some perceived right to kill people.
I can't deny your perspective (2nd paragraph) but it bothers me that it is so prevalent.
In the boy scouts, you take 3 levels of Citizenship merit badges. You learn that Duties have just as much importance as rights. You learn you have a responsibility to act in the interest of the community, nation, and world in order to maintain what is inalienably yours.
Further, every potentially dangerous skill you learn comes in tandem with the highest levels of responsibility and safety. For guns, that means safe handling, proper maintenance, and good marksmanship. If you can't pass all of the pieces, you don't get your gun.
most of the top movies by box office revenue are violent.
The video games are a newer phenomenon, to be sure. I just don't know what he means by "glorification of the Second Amendment" and how it "feeds" a culture of violence.
Don't ever play first-person shooter games. Right...
Sometimes, crazy cannot be explained by logic.
what he means (or doesn't mean).
Don't ever play first-person shooter games.
Sometimes, crazy cannot be explained by logic.
If you look at a list of the best selling games in Japan you'll find very few, if any, shooters of any kind.
My hunch was completely off base. I have much to learn about both video games and guns and do not really like either.
as easy as walking into a wal-mart and picking up a gun.
My guess is most shootings are perpetrated with guns that weren't obtained legally.
And the vast majority of gun crime is perpetrated with pistols. And the vast majority is drug-related.
There are many ways to kill in this world both oneself and others. There are many people who are deranged enough to do either. Your fetish at controlling "guns," as though they are the only means of "killing," seems misplaced. Maybe I am wrong.
How would you reduce Japan's staggering suicide rate? Does homocide differ in your view from suicide for purposes of creating government-sponsored "controls"? If so, why?
I've already seen videos of a 3-D printer produced gun. It broke quickly after about 5 shots, but a decade from now gun control is a non-issue. You won't be able to limit anyone from having a gun.
Now you can have stiff jail penalties if caught with a gun, but there will be no way to prevent someone from getting a gun.
the other board.
... between the public's interest in stemming homicides, especially mass homicides, and the public's interest in preventing an individual from taking his or her own life.
But still, I wish that anyone who would ever consider doing something like this would just kill himself instead.
combined then in this attack today. I say let's do it.
Less likely to put up a fight and all, I guess.
We have more than 300 million people more than does Switzerland. That one of those people might be crazy enough to do this is not unthinkable, even if our gun laws were the same.
I would imagine many on this board would suggest that we've strayed from our Christian values which have resulted in the decay of society. In a 2007 study the US had over 44% weekly church attendance rate. Switzerland had 16%.
I know religion isn't all encompassing in the moral fiber of society, nor can we immediately attribute the decay of society to this senseless tragedy, but it wouldn't at first appear to have an impact here.
I think alienation causes these shootings. These things didn't happen when everyone knew their neighbors and generally lived and died within a few miles of where they grew up. Now we have a society where people live on little islands to themselves. Combine that with Americans' selfish sense of entitlement and need for celebrity, and when one snaps, he feels no self restriction in shooting up someone else's island.
These will happen more and more as we raise kids who don't interact in person, but rather live life vicariously, and alone, through violent video games and television.
Swiss society, for the most part, has many small towns and villages where everybody knows everybody.
I don't know about the video games and television bit, but Swiss society is definitely a lot more community based than our current society is.
My gf's parents know everyone around them, everyone has acres around them. The family has lived there for at least 80 years. In the past 10 years, their robbery, drug use stories are insane. I have known maybe 3 of my neighbors in the past 10 years and have not had a damn thing happen to me.
Her parents are scared to death of our neighborhood and people of any color. Yet, they were just talking about a guy who comes into their shed to steal tools so he can fund his meth habit. And down the road a guy shot his girlfriend in front of my gf's niece. Everyone knows each other, but the crazy meter is off the charts.
who slept in a jail cell? That guy was stealing tools during the day to get his alcohol.
Meth today is like alcohol back in the Griffith days. Except it is much more dangerous both for the person using it and people that might get in the way of that person. From what I've seen and read, meth addicts go to extremes faster, especially when trying to feed their habit. I don't think your gf's parents would feel as unsafe if there wasn't as much meth use in the area. Also, there seems to be more help for alcoholics now than back then. That isn't the case for meth yet.
in her own area. But when she comes to visit us in the "big city", she freaks out.
I guess it's always the unknown that is the scariest.
Maybe not much in your case---especially if they hate each other---but in general, I think it helps.
That's the only thing I think it helps. Identify the crazy and keep your distance.
in thinking that a lot of this would be avoided if Americans were more open and talkative about their problems? Your post seems to boil down to that to me.
I think people's loss of a structured society to identify themselves within, be it family, church, community, or preferably some combination of all, leaves people living in a world divorced from a common sense of fidelity with their fellow man. That lack of connection with others, that emptiness, is filled by some with possessions, or an obsession for celebrity or sports, or they direct their self hatred towards others.
I'm certainly not saying this condition never existed in the past. But our culture has changed, and continues to change, and we're less connected with our neighbor than we used to be. As a result, simply put, we as a people don't care about anyone other than ourselves and our own self interests.
It wasn't just any randomly-constituted "structured society." It was family and Church. The Boomers decided that family was too constricting for them, and we who've followed have decided that God is also too much of a bummer. The Boomers decided that it was OK to kill their kids before they were born, and we've decided that it's OK to kill kids afterwards, too. It's not "society." It's us. This what we've made of ourselves.
But there is value in society being a as a glue that binds families and individuals together. That society can manifest itself in a Church, such as when many people lived near their own parish and attended that parish with all of their neighbors. We've lose that with transiency.
Europe is less transient, also less religious, yet these mass shootings don't happen there. I think it's because, generally speaking, they still live within the context of a society with one another rather than as isolated, selfish, rugged individualist.
The Soviets tried to replace God with the Party and make their "society" work that way. It didn't work. The hippies tried to replace God with Gaia for their new "society." It didn't work. There is in fact just one sort of "society" that makes people better than this. And we're not that sort any more.
And I don't want to be Europe. Yes, we needed robust families and robust faith in order to be American. And yes, we all could sedate ourselves daily and thus achieve peace (at least for the moment, see, e.g., Anders Breivik). But in order to be human and American, we needed God and family. We've given up on God and family, and now being American and human are becoming passe too.
But at this time, I'm going home to hug my wife and boys and unplug for the weekend.
to do many different things. Some of those things include horrible/evil actions.
I think the problems surrounding shootings like this and others in the past are much more complex than "we don't have God anymore." Call it Oprah bullshit if you want, which you seem to say almost as an insult like calling someone "soft." That doesn't mean it is a wrong of bad train of thought.
"Oh, it's all much more complex than us just being worse people than we used to be. It's not black and white at all, it's so complex, so nuanced, and when you say things like that I feel marginalized. We should talk it out."
Turn the TV back on.
... too fond of said family.
that used to exist. So, yes, I think you could say that people should be more open and talk about their problems, but if they don't perceive that they have anyone to talk to about their problems, then that's just as bad.
I may catch hell for this, but I would also argue that as a society, as we turn more and more away from religion, these types of events will likely become more prevelent because of the loss of community that an organized church can provide, and simply turning over one's problems to God.
A lot of this would be avoided if we were an honest, hard-working, God-fearing people. But we're not.
you're kidding yourself. Not the time for this sort of argument.
This is a fact. And if you have a problem with it then this is precisely the time for you to consider why.
can also be mentally ill. That you ardently adhere to your opinion does not make that opinion fact.
All your values didn't keep you from being an ass in this thread.
There is absolutely no indication that the shooter in this case was insane, and we know that other shooters are very often entirely sane. They know what they're doing is wrong, and horrible, and that's why they want to do it. And we know that there were always genuinely crazy people and lots of guns in America, and we know that this happens much more often now -- at the hands of sane people -- than it used to. So if I haven't allowed to wallow you in your Oprahfied urge to explain this away as a problem of pop psychology or a failure of "society," you're welcome.
You sure do have a thing for her. I'm no fan of hers, but she seems to help people.
There are really only two things to do at a time like this:
2. Wonder why you're not the praying type.
What that guy had to say -- or rather, to avoid saying -- was the same as most everybody else. You bet I meant to hit that nerve, and it's easy. It's always easy. Here, I'll do it again: This isn't because of "society," and it isn't because of guns, and it isn't because we all don't share enough. It's because we're weaker, more craven people than Americans used to be, and the reason why we're weaker and worse than we used to be is because we decided we were too cool for family and God. If you don't like hearing that, I suggest you curl up with that bruised nerve and think about it.
marginalizing people that hold a different viewpoint is a big part of the problem in this country.
It isn't even that I really disagree with you that much, it's your blind certainty. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "They need Jesus!" is all you're really doing here.
Perhaps you should host a seminar, where you can complain some more about being marginalized.
(Yes, I know what you meant.)
red flag for me. It's surprisingly consistent with having an old testament personality. Which is surprisingly consistent with his John Wayne, "feelings are for girls" act.
If it turns out this shooter did all this because of "mommy issues," I'll be interested to hear the poster's continued denigration of all things emotional and psychological.
How about having a community wherein people give a shit about each other, so that my problem is your problem, and vice versa. How about building social networks of real interaction and a common sense of purpose?
"Honest, hard-working, and God-fearing" sounds like an ideological hobby horse you're riding, and the other side of the coin of the kind of individualism it takes to enforce a Protestant work ethic and a rugged individualism that strives for personal virtue is precisely one in which people find themselves alone in a sea of self-determining, self-actualizers.
Good > Right
Society > Me
Ok, end rant.
Who watches a lot of Oprah. For two centuries we were a nation of people imbued with the Protestant work ethic and rugged individualism -- and lots of guns -- and we didn't find ourselves "alone in a sea of self-determining, self-actualizers," and we didn't shoot up theaters and schools. (And even leaving aside the question of what's so wrong with 'self-actualizing,' that kind of prose would get a C from me if I were teaching a sophomore sociology class.)
The reason why we didn't do those things then wasn't that we had "social networks." It was because we had families and we had God. Now we regard both of those as disposable at best and just uncool at worst. But God is not an ideology, and you can't replace him with talk therapy. God is real, and when we forget Him we do things like this.
shootings. It was rugged individualism at its best.
... because they're different from the violence that people visit upon each other regularly. That's why we're asking why this happened and didn't ask the same question when a drug courier got shot on 58th Street yesterday. As individuals we hurt others all the time, and as tribes and nations we hurt other tribes and nations. But this actually is different, and I don't think we did have too many kindergarten massacres in the old west. We can be rugged individualists without being lone shooters, if we have family and God. Take those away and what makes us American does indeed start to make us something much worse.
by saying that Europe has slipped into Godlessness. Yet the number of violent outbursts, like one that happened today in the US, are not as frequent in Europe. I have no evidence backing that claim up with facts and figures but I think most here would agree.
Heck, the Middle East is a God-fearing area...
Looking at rampage shootings resulting in 10 or more deaths on Wikipedia, it appears they are not much less common in Europe than in the US. I count two such incidents in US schools since 1990, and 4 in Europe. 5 if you include Azerbaijan in Europe. And that doesn't include Anders Breivik, who killed school children, but at a camp, not a school.
Murders are certainly more common in the US, but I don't know that mass rampage murders are more common.
so perhaps their prose has rubbed off on me.
And as a theology professor, I'll be sure not to forget to mention God in my next class.
kick in when we systematically exterminated the native inhabitants of our country? What about when we filled our nation's coffers by forcing an entire race into chattel slavery? Refused the right to vote to females and non-whites? Toppled democratically-elected governors of foreign states because it served our interests? And yet we were ass cheek-to-ass cheek in the pews.
Spare us your pious sentimentalizing of the past. The solution to our massive social problems in this country doesn't lie simply in admonishing people to get a job and go to church.
... (not "God-consciousness," Professor, faith) cause us to start killing our kids? Because that's what we're assiduously doing now, right in front of your eyes.
All of those other crimes you listed are entirely beside the point. Yes, as a nation we've done all the sorts of horrible things that every nation has done. But now we're still doing those things -- addled Boomer divorcees didn't stop us from torturing people a few years ago, or from turning our backs on democratic movements now -- and now we're also killing ourselves and our kids from the inside out. You want to talk about what we did to the Native Americans 200 years ago so you won't have to talk about what you see us doing to ourselves here and now. That, after all, is the conversation you're trained to have -- the one about "social problems." And that conversation is absolutely useless in the face of the human desire to do things like what you're watching now. So no, I won't spare you.
I'm simply pointing out that in our God-fearing past, people's FAITH didn't stop them from committing rampant atrocities.
And I appreciate your subtle jab that I've been "trained" to be able to have only one conversation, as if I'm just a sad brainwashed liberal who can't think in terms of virtue because my hippie professors were too busy loving the one's they were with or whatever to regard that stuff as important.
Your go-to reaction at a time of national tragedy and mourning is anger, stubborness, and sniping condescension towards your fellow man. You've captured that quintessential Christian attitude I was exposed to growing up, although now I do my best not to paint all of you with that brush. For instance, Nitchske seems to walk the walk.
I posted about what's wrong with America. IrishGuard responded with what he himself called a "rant," and elterrible responded to tell me that I was kidding myself and it wasn't the time for me to speak about something as outre as God and family.
And now -- of course -- we have you, tiger, chiming in to tell us how I'm discrediting Christianity, which you've so coolly abandoned. And how you're doing your very best not to think of "all of you" Christians as meanies like me. How equanimous of you.
Turn on the TV. See that? That's your equanimity right there.
You can get as pissed off as you want. The count right now is (at least) 21 people praying for victims because of one post, and around 8 people arguing with you. I'm 99% sure you're a good man, and I only leave off 1% because we're internet strangers. But even if you think I'm a heathen going to Hell and Godlessness caused today's events, what good does your tone in this thread do? I assume that what you want is more people in the Church, right? Do you think you're helping that cause right now?
Trust me, I'm not worried about Christian meanies. As soon as I didn't have to go to Christmas with that side of the family, it ceased to be my problem. But if someone you like you ever wanted someone like me to one day convert, I'm here to tell you that posts like Nitchske's help. Posts like yours do not.
I've said one thing throughout: We do these things to ourselves and our kids now because we're worse people than we used to be, and we're worse because as a people we've given up on family and then God. And unsurprisingly -- really very unsurprisingly indeed -- that drew responses ranging from mealy rants about the wisdon of social relativism to scolds that this wasn't the time to talk about God and family to slurs like "dick" and "cocksucker." It's not my tone that has taken all of you 8 people in the direction you've gone. You did that. And the reason why you did that is that you really, really didn't want to hear what I have already chosen to say. I haven't called you a heathen going to Hell, or anything like it -- or a dick, or a cocksucker -- but that what's you chose to hear. Because you're were much readier to hear that than to hear what I said, and will continue to say.
So now, your choice is whether or not to hear it, and then whether or not to think about it. I'm not sorry that it's uncomfortable. It can't be otherwise. I'm not going to Oprahfy it or call it a social problem, because it deserves more respect than that. And it's your choice.
At least not entirely. But your instance on the issue being so black in white is, in my humble opinion.
And these mean people calling you names? You didn't do it. You had nothing to do with it. Must be tough being you.
Are you, or they? And it's obviously quite a bit tougher for folks like you and that boy just south to hear me than it is to be me.
Unless you knew this kid, you have absolutely no idea in the world as to what propmted him to massacre his family and 18 innocent kids. In fact, even people who knew him are very likely wondering at this very moment why he would ever do such a thing. So when discerning people are understandably skeptical as to your diagnosis of godlessness and the destruction of the American family, and you react with incredulity and derision, you become a cocksucker.
I said you were being a dick, and entertained the possibility that the problem could possibly, maybe, be more complicated than a lack of God or Christian family values.
I've learned that this makes me a liberal atheist pussy, so thanks.
... that you're so uncomfortable with. And now, yet again, just like with that snarky "came around" post up there, you want to get away from what's right in front of you. So now I'm a "dick," too. And this all shows how big a meanie I am, right?
I have no idea whether you're a liberal or an atheist or a pussy. You assiduously decline to say anything more than "well, it's complicated." But for one thing, that's a useless thing to say, and for another, maybe it's not all that complicated. Maybe it's simple. Maybe God is, you know, God.
and my last word on the subject because I'm upset with myself for continuing to indulge you, is that now is not the time for the tone you've struck up in this thread. It's a time for contemplation and/or prayer depending on your beliefs.
Ask yourself why not a single poster has backed you up here. You've embarrassed yourself.
I said that the reason why we do these things to each other is that we've abandonded family and God. I said nothing about anyone else or even to anyone else, and if you detected an uncomfortable "tone" in that, it was because you didn't like what I said. And so you responded, immediately, that I was kidding myself to think such a thing and that this was not the time to discuss God and family. That I was a fool and should shut up.
And now that you're being held to your words -- now that you have a choice -- you choose to deny that you wrote what you visibly wrote, and to get all huffy about my "tone" and walk away. And you wonder why I don't think we need to talk some more about how complicated it all is and how marginalized you feel. The problem isn't my "tone"; the problem is that for whatever reason you really don't like what I have to say.
proselytize in an angry, condescending way.
Hell, I agree that this world could use more faith in God. That we should be less selfish and more thoughtful of others. And I'll give Tim McCarthy a break as it's kind of an emotional thing. But he's not really winning over any people with his attitude.
But looking from your other posts, I doubt that would happen.
You're here to use your beliefs like a stick to see how many people you can hit. Poking me with said stick won't work.
Is it that once Columbine happened it gave others the idea to do this?
The decline of the middle class.
Not enough moolah for a good education system
Not everyone gets the medical attention (ie mental health) they need
(when you're poor you dont have medical insurance)
Higher poverty levels, while massively wealthy people live in decadence, just a neighborhood over.
The family unit is NOT as stable as it used to be IMO.
If the middle class wasn't shrinking, I dont think this shit would happen so much.
That's my guess and I'm sticking to it.
The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, four other adults and the bomber himself; at least 58 people were injured.
...according to Grant Duwe, author of Mass Murder in the United States.. A review of his book is here. A story summarizing some of his findings is linked below.
I still recall the 1966 incident when Charles Whitman shot 16 people dead from a bell tower at UT Austin.
More rural society = more weapons.
Is that much of an increase?
By 1910 there were already 100 million people in the country. There are only 3 times as more now. His post reflects perhaps 1 of these mass killings every 3 years or so until 1965. In the next 37 years it is more like 3 or 4 every single year. A much much higher rate.
to the decline in numbers of mentally ill/insane people committed to institutions.
I wonder if that plays a role.
I think Bailey's point is most salient; the breakdown of the organic community is isolating.
and they just leave him alone. "Crazy Pete" or whoever. Or crazy woman that scares the neighborhood kids. You know they are ticking time bombs, but nothing can be done about it.
be right. The only one I remember pre Columbine was the Texas college shooting and the Kent State shootings (which is sort of different since it was a military v. protesters shooting)
That predated Columbine, as did, I think, one at a technical high school in Germany.
full article, graph at link
The common definition of a mass public shooting is an incident in which four or more victims are killed publicly with guns within 24 hours -- in the workplace, high schools, college campuses, malls, gyms, restaurants and other public places -- excluding shootings in connection with crimes such as robbery, drug trafficking or gang-related activity. By that definition, there have been 140 mass public shootings in the United States during the last 100 years.
Although mass public shootings may seem to be on the rise, newly compiled data show that there were 24 such incidents in the past decade. While that's still significantly higher than the average of the first eight decades of the 20th century, it does mark a significant decline (nearly 50 percent) from the 43 cases in the 1990s (see chart below
Stops sensationalizing this shit, it just encourages copycats.
There could be other reasons as well, but I believe this is a prominent one. As a poster below mentioned, this occurs in suicides and has been rather conclusively proved in that area.
shooting in history due to the body count. Nothing let setting the bar for the next whackjob...
suicides as well.
I just turned it off.
with a Louisville Slugger. They're a primitive life form.
The perpetrators of these acts typically don't come up with the idea themselves.
If it bleeds and such.
too much....sensationalism, desensitization. It's making me sick to my stomach.
My aunt used to teach at the Catholic school in town. It's not that big of a town. This is so messed up.
This is so messed up. What the fuck is wrong with people?
Two are in the school system but not at Sandy Hook.