School shooting: In which N. America becomes a police state.

[Mimetic Hybrid]

I was afraid this was going to happen. It doesn't come down to party lines black and white on the issue - however, it isn't surprising that Republicans are afraid of talks coming about gun control, as the Republican Party knows very well the play book of the Democratic isle. Already talks about gun control are being pushed. Gun control limits law abiding citizens access - criminals don't follow laws and will obtain methods needed to carry our their agenda.

What we can read from this story was a person with a mental disorder obtaining a weapon. We've seen before that guns aren't the only thing used. I believe last month there was an individual going after people in a school with bow and arrow, killing his father in the process.

Instead of targeting the scapegoat and using gun control as a means to limit people's rights, instead Democrats and Republicans need to target the actual problem - a lack of supervision/detainment of mentally impaired. Normal, sane individuals do not contemplate not carry out plans of a mass shooting spree

[Heimdalr]

Mimetic Hybrid

Instead of targeting the scapegoat and using gun control as a means to limit people's rights, instead Democrats and Republicans need to target the actual problem - a lack of supervision/detainment of mentally impaired. Normal, sane individuals do not contemplate not carry out plans of a mass shooting spree

It's true, mental health is a serious issue in regard to violence in general. In the Clackamas case, however, no warning signs were present and the person did a good job concealing any eventual pathological symptoms. Mental health is kind of a taboo subject in everyday confrontations, and it is not much of a stretch to assume the afflicted who have the propensity to blame themselves for their situation are easier spotted than the ones who blame everyone else. Might be a cultural thing.

[Ban]

Mimetic Hybrid

What we can read from this story was a person with a mental disorder obtaining a weapon. We've seen before that guns aren't the only thing used. I believe last month there was an individual going after people in a school with bow and arrow, killing his father in the process.

Yes, the guy with the bow and arrow managed to kill two people. This guy killed 27.

Mimetic Hybrid

Instead of targeting the scapegoat and using gun control as a means to limit people's rights, instead Democrats and Republicans need to target the actual problem - a lack of supervision/detainment of mentally impaired.

Sorry, your plan for preventing gun death is to surveil and imprison mentally ill people who haven't committed any crimes? And this is your way of protecting people's rights?

Mimetic Hybrid

Normal, sane individuals do not contemplate not carry out plans of a mass shooting spree

That seems kind of dismissive. What about ideologically inspired killings? Nidal Malik Hasan, for example? Or spontaneous acts where otherwise "sane" people snap under some form of stress, such as Robert Bales? Or the fact that both these men were soldiers, and we have a large portion of the population that is kind of trained to kill other people?

Let me make this clear. Killing other people is not necessarily an act born out of mental illness. Your solution seems like a ridiculous attempt to reframe the problem, that the U.S. has a huge problem with gun violence, into something else entirely. Every country has mentally ill individuals. Not every country has tens of thousands of firearm related deaths every ******** year.

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

Dysia

Wendigo

Let me get this straight.

About twenty elementary school children were just murdered, and the first thing that came to mind for you was "oh no, now they'll want my guns"?

Never mind that we have had horrific mass shootings this year in July, August, and three days ago. Which seems to warrant a look-see.

Thousands of children are killed every day by violence. Is it justified to only pause when they are murdered in the convenience of a baker's dozen or more? Is one child's death some how insignificant unless they die in a mass shooting with others? These are obviously rhetorical questions, but the idea that we only mourn those bundled together when they die - that cheapens the deaths of others. Inevitably, in treating all these deaths equally, we come to the same conclusions that a teary eyed president fails to see: that no one really cares unless it's a child they know or feel connected to.

Which - once the deaths of kids around the world are factored in, only leaves policy changes that may affect tens of millions of people who have collectively spent billions of hours toiling to earn enough money to purchase goods that may be confiscated. Some of these people have ancestors who were victims of one of the many genocides that immediately followed virtually identical confiscations to the ones they fear in the present. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps they are crazy - who knows? Hind-sight is 20/20, but we still have history for an example of predictable patterns. Not all gun bans lead to genocide, but all genocide is preceded by gun bans. The TSA of the present is a reactionary response to an underwear bomber who managed to kill no one. Are we somehow justified in treating the paranoia of the government as more sacrosanct than the paranoia of Armenians, Jews, Chinese, Cambodians, and Russians whose ancestors were disarmed, lined up, and shot?

And how about those places where the government doesn't do anything about guns because there is no government? Say what you want about government oppression, but total anarchy will get you killed faster than any totalitarian regime.

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

Mimetic Hybrid

criminals don't follow laws and will obtain methods needed to carry our their agenda.

Then why were the last several killing sprees caused by legally obtained guns?

[Mimetic Hybrid]

Ban

Mimetic Hybrid

What we can read from this story was a person with a mental disorder obtaining a weapon. We've seen before that guns aren't the only thing used. I believe last month there was an individual going after people in a school with bow and arrow, killing his father in the process.

Yes, the guy with the bow and arrow managed to kill two people. This guy killed 27.

Mimetic Hybrid

Instead of targeting the scapegoat and using gun control as a means to limit people's rights, instead Democrats and Republicans need to target the actual problem - a lack of supervision/detainment of mentally impaired.

Sorry, your plan for preventing gun death is to surveil and imprison mentally ill people who haven't committed any crimes? And this is your way of protecting people's rights?

Mimetic Hybrid

Normal, sane individuals do not contemplate not carry out plans of a mass shooting spree

That seems kind of dismissive. What about ideologically inspired killings? Nidal Malik Hasan, for example? Or spontaneous acts where otherwise "sane" people snap under some form of stress, such as Robert Bales? Or the fact that both these men were soldiers, and we have a large portion of the population that is kind of trained to kill other people?

Let me make this clear. Killing other people is not necessarily an act born out of mental illness. Your solution seems like a ridiculous attempt to reframe the problem, that the U.S. has a huge problem with gun violence, into something else entirely. Every country has mentally ill individuals. Not every country has tens of thousands of firearm related deaths every ******** year.

Are you trying to make a point that fewer/tighter gun laws will prevent an individual - with an agenda to kill people - from committing that act?

[Mimetic Hybrid]

God Emperor Akhenaton

Mimetic Hybrid

criminals don't follow laws and will obtain methods needed to carry our their agenda.

Then why were the last several killing sprees caused by legally obtained guns?

The point is that illegal guns will be obtained to carry out acts of violence if that is their agenda. The current legally obtained guns being the culprite are deluted realities that escape a simple truth; this massacre, VTech, Aurora, etc wouldn't have occurred had more care towards the individuals mental stability been addressed. Left unchecked, illegal weapons would still have been obtained and used.

When these events occur it's easy to forgo the reality of the matter to target a scapegoat as to not appear insensative to the individuals mental disorder

[Noogie]

If only criminals have guns, it's going to be pretty ******** easy to find who the criminals are.

[Ban]

Mimetic Hybrid

Are you trying to make a point that fewer/tighter gun laws will prevent an individual - with an agenda to kill people - from committing that act?

No, my point is that you are twisting a conversation about gun violence into one about mental illness. The question isn't about mental illness. It's about gun violence, and specifically spree shootings. But, logically, yes, a high level of control over firearms, an absolute ban on civilian ownership, coupled with adequate border control to prevent illegal importation, would probably prevent the majority of these sort of shootings. Anyone who tries that "only outlaws will have guns" bit is just in ******** denial.

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

Mimetic Hybrid

VTech, Aurora, etc wouldn't have occurred had more care towards the individuals mental stability been addressed.

wouldn't disagree with that.

Mimetic Hybrid

Left unchecked, illegal weapons would still have been obtained and used.

Prove it.

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

Noogie

If only criminals have guns, it's going to be pretty ******** easy to find who the criminals are.

We all know the government is filled with crooks, that's nothing new.

[Dysia]

God Emperor Akhenaton

Dysia

Wendigo

Let me get this straight.

About twenty elementary school children were just murdered, and the first thing that came to mind for you was "oh no, now they'll want my guns"?

Never mind that we have had horrific mass shootings this year in July, August, and three days ago. Which seems to warrant a look-see.

Thousands of children are killed every day by violence. Is it justified to only pause when they are murdered in the convenience of a baker's dozen or more? Is one child's death some how insignificant unless they die in a mass shooting with others? These are obviously rhetorical questions, but the idea that we only mourn those bundled together when they die - that cheapens the deaths of others. Inevitably, in treating all these deaths equally, we come to the same conclusions that a teary eyed president fails to see: that no one really cares unless it's a child they know or feel connected to.

Which - once the deaths of kids around the world are factored in, only leaves policy changes that may affect tens of millions of people who have collectively spent billions of hours toiling to earn enough money to purchase goods that may be confiscated. Some of these people have ancestors who were victims of one of the many genocides that immediately followed virtually identical confiscations to the ones they fear in the present. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps they are crazy - who knows? Hind-sight is 20/20, but we still have history for an example of predictable patterns. Not all gun bans lead to genocide, but all genocide is preceded by gun bans. The TSA of the present is a reactionary response to an underwear bomber who managed to kill no one. Are we somehow justified in treating the paranoia of the government as more sacrosanct than the paranoia of Armenians, Jews, Chinese, Cambodians, and Russians whose ancestors were disarmed, lined up, and shot?

And how about those places where the government doesn't do anything about guns because there is no government? Say what you want about government oppression, but total anarchy will get you killed faster than any totalitarian regime.

That depends on your interpretation of who is "you". I have seen the reports on casualties due to democide, but I have not seen any statistics on fatalities as a result of anarchy. Do you have such statistics?

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

Dysia

God Emperor Akhenaton

Dysia

Wendigo

Let me get this straight.

About twenty elementary school children were just murdered, and the first thing that came to mind for you was "oh no, now they'll want my guns"?

Never mind that we have had horrific mass shootings this year in July, August, and three days ago. Which seems to warrant a look-see.

Thousands of children are killed every day by violence. Is it justified to only pause when they are murdered in the convenience of a baker's dozen or more? Is one child's death some how insignificant unless they die in a mass shooting with others? These are obviously rhetorical questions, but the idea that we only mourn those bundled together when they die - that cheapens the deaths of others. Inevitably, in treating all these deaths equally, we come to the same conclusions that a teary eyed president fails to see: that no one really cares unless it's a child they know or feel connected to.

Which - once the deaths of kids around the world are factored in, only leaves policy changes that may affect tens of millions of people who have collectively spent billions of hours toiling to earn enough money to purchase goods that may be confiscated. Some of these people have ancestors who were victims of one of the many genocides that immediately followed virtually identical confiscations to the ones they fear in the present. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps they are crazy - who knows? Hind-sight is 20/20, but we still have history for an example of predictable patterns. Not all gun bans lead to genocide, but all genocide is preceded by gun bans. The TSA of the present is a reactionary response to an underwear bomber who managed to kill no one. Are we somehow justified in treating the paranoia of the government as more sacrosanct than the paranoia of Armenians, Jews, Chinese, Cambodians, and Russians whose ancestors were disarmed, lined up, and shot?

And how about those places where the government doesn't do anything about guns because there is no government? Say what you want about government oppression, but total anarchy will get you killed faster than any totalitarian regime.

That depends on your interpretation of who is "you". I have seen the reports on casualties due to democide, but I have not seen any statistics on fatalities as a result of anarchy. Do you have such statistics?

There are statistics on it because it's too unsafe to conduct them. But if you want to know the effects of anarchy on society, I suggest a trip to mogashu. Aka, the most dangerous city in the world. Maybe if you don't get killed, you you could get sold as a fancy white sex slave.

[Wendigo]

Dysia

Thousands of children are killed every day by violence. Is it justified to only pause when they are murdered in the convenience of a baker's dozen or more?

In terms of institutional response, scale matters. A single murder is a different phenomenon from one murder from a serial killer's killing spree or one murder out of thirty people murdered in a day by a single shooter. The responses required to each are separate.

Spree killings are more comparable to serial killers' rampages, in that there are patterns of behavior to observed and preparations to be thwarted. (Cho was making a pathological video diary which he later mailed to the media, for example. Laughner was making online videos about how the government controls us through the structure of English grammar. Both were observed to be behaving erratically by classmates, but their universities were essentially passive in their response to the expressed safety concerns.) Single murders may or may not offer such opportunities to remedy the situation, as sometimes they are the result of a sudden flare of irrational anger.

[Wendigo]

God Emperor Akhenaton

I suggest a trip to mogashu. Aka, the most dangerous city in the world. Maybe if you don't get killed, you you could get sold as a fancy white sex slave.

If you can't get "Mogadishu," you could have gone with "Somalia."