Mass shooting thread

[AONO.]

I wasn't that agressive as you were towards me right now, but ok, I don't mind. I'll bite.

 

I'll keep it simple. My solution as I've said in the past is to regulate the age for starters. 18 is too low, and you probably can remember why and understand why 18 is too low. You've dismissed that. Fine. Your opininion. Would it help but not solve the problem of school and other mass shootings? Yeah it would.

 

The other is banning of AR-15. OK yeah sure, it's not automatic by definition. Can it be modified? It can. Is it already illegal? It is I think to a degree. Woukd the ban at least lower the number of dead people? It would.

 

What's your solution? Besides attacking mental health issuses because that's worldwide problem in general with multiple factors. It's a deep problem in society in general. To fix the damage it was done to people is gonna take decades.

 

What's your proof that my solutions which you can see in many debates actually is not gonna work? It works both ways.

 

As you've said, people dismissed your "arguments" like they weren't good enough. Did you ever think that maybe... they really weren't? There is literraly nothing wrong in changing your stance or opinion. And you've said it numerous times that will change it, weather it's a discussion on guns, healthcare, or even so called "socialism".

You also don't like people acting "high and mighty" but you constantly say how people don't know anything about guns. Well maybe they actually do?

 

You've also again had the stance in the last post like it's you against the world. Why? Wheather you like it or not, you live in a society, and you have reaponsibility. I'm sure you don't want other people in society to get killed. And that kind of arguing makes it really counterproductive. Like M3J also, we may share similliar views, but mosr of the times I can't stand his posts.

 

And yeah I can realky say the same. Let'see if you are gonna turn it around yet again.

 

Am I asking you to do away with your 2nd ammendment righ completely? No. Am I asking you to try and help to do with the undeniable problem that USA has? I am.

[nWo_Kevin]

'll keep it simple. My solution as I've said in the past is to regulate the age for starters. 18 is too low, and you probably can remember why and understand why 18 is too low. You've dismissed that. Fine. Your opininion. Would it help but not solve the problem of school and other mass shootings? Yeah it would.

 

The other is banning of AR-15. OK yeah sure, it's not automatic by definition. Can it be modified? It can. Is it already illegal? It is I think to a degree. Woukd the ban at least lower the number of dead people? It would.

 

What's your solution? Besides attacking mental health issuses because that's worldwide problem in general with multiple factors. It's a deep problem in society in general. To fix the damage it was done to people is gonna take decades.

 

Hope you don't mind me responding since your post was at Bdon. But I just wanted to touch on a couple of things and either address them or ask you about them.

 

For example, if you believe 18 is too low, what age do you believe would be an OK age to own a gun? Also I'm sure the most common argument that you've probably already heard is that at 18 you can join the army and use a gun. But as a citizen you shouldn't be allowed to use a gun?

 

AR-15 subject we've talked about endlessly here, so I'll skip it for now. But I wanted to touch on mental health because I suppose you can say that fixing the damage, as you put it, would take a long time. But you can also look back 60 years ago.

 

where JFK decided to make the federal government more involved in mental health as opposed to letting the individual states deal with things. One could argue by letting the government get involved they made things worse (a very common theme in history)and in the 70's this resulted in a large release of people who were mentally ill and basically became homeless. Instead of staying in off the streets like they probably should of been. More recently you can probably look at a culture where any kid who acts up is given drugs, instead of parents actually doing their job.

 

On a different note I also think you can help fix things by fixing the media. There is no reason why we need to be showing the face of these shooters on every channel for the next 3 days when an event happens. It not only creates copy-cat killers, but for shooters who only do this for the publicity it gives them exactly what they want. That's why I agree with people like Ben Shapiro and Philip Defranco who have taken a stand against this.

[M3J]

 

 

 

And? What's your point? So it makes it a bit easier to kill things and is specifically for killing things most of the time. What's your point?

You just answered your own question. Because of what guns are, we obviously need to do something about them. What, exactly? I don't know.

 

I wish you had an answer because I'd be curious to hear it.But in regards to your reply to WNX where you asked "What were the other problems". I'd argue that mental illness is a bigger problem than guns themselves.

 

How about the fact that despite the number of guns increasing in this country, the number of gun deaths are actually decreasing? Or the fact that 50 something % of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, and the fact that suicides continue to increase in this country. Showing that for some reason we as a society seem more and more willing to kill ourselves or each other. And until we address that problem, whatever we do about guns is going to mean very little IMO.

 

I haven't caught up with the responses on this page but I didn't wanna be like a certain someone, who has been ignoring my question for like 5 pages back but will not be named because I'm tired of waiting and not respond (wrong thread, they're so interchangable sometimes). but yes, nWo Kevin I agree with. Yes, mental illness is hard to attack but what's the alternative? You remove the guns from the equation entirely. What does this do?

 

You get rid of the possibility of a disruptive individual from shooting up an establishment at least through gun acquired by legal means. You alienate a large group of individuals who 1)Don't have any want to shoot up a large group of people or any people period. 2)Take away a key aspect of many households' security, people who actually feel helpless without it. 3)People who actually use them to get food, because that's still very much a thing. People also want what they cannot have. You remove the guns, it becomes a commodity, and when people feel that they need something or know that people need it, no matter how material they may be, the lengths they could and will go to get it leads to a whole other problem.

 

If you put a gun in my hand, I'm not gonna go shoot 20 people. I have no interest in that. It doesn't benefit me. Guns have been around since any of us were born. they've always been there. It's the people that change, the environment that we live in change,our way of life changes. Every day this world breaks a little more and a little more, but it's not because guns break it. Regardless of what they were designed to do, guns can kill but they don't kill by themselves. You need PEOPLE for that. The PEOPLE are the issue. You remove the PEOPLE willing to use the guns to kill PEOPLE, the PEOPLE who use guns but don't are what's left. It's impossible to fix, it truly is, but you can't send a gun to jail. Guns don't feel pain. Guns don't feel remorse. They can give a shit who lives or dies and if they spend their entire life locked in a cabinet they can care less.

 

People are the issue. Guns are an issue when broken people aren't dealt with

 

So, what if people who go on a shooting spree or shoot someone aren't broken? Pinning these tragedies on mental health or person being broken doesn't solve anything. It'd likely help, but we'd still have cases of people who seem fine going on shooting sprees.

 

 

 

 

I haven't even proposed a solution, so why are you assuming that whatever conceptual change that someone comes up with would be something that feels like punishment? As if there's nothing remotely amicable that we could come up with?

Do you have a solution though? Feel free to share it if you do. The main problem is that a lot of solutions get shot down, even from logical gun owners, because of politicians and gun-loving maniacs.

[AONO.]

I wouldn't be so sure at what age, would it be acceptable, but 21 at least.

 

Subjectivly, maybe 18 for the army isn't that good of an idea also? I wouldn't get into that, but let's say 18 is ok for the army. There is a nig difference where in the army you get proper training to ude a gun, and where as a civilian you don't need to have it. Of course it's in your best interest to know what you are doing. But you are not required to have proper training like you would get in the army. That's the main difference for starters. However I don't really get the point of that comparison? And there should be some obvious differences between the army and civilians? I'm not sure what are we taling about here.

 

And yeah, it's not that the goverment trying to care for mental health of their citizens per se is the problem, it's how it's done. That's why I have problem with arguments that want have to do with 0 goverement involvement in some matter. Again, we've discussed that in another thread on another issuess, so I wouldn't go into that that much.

It's also not just the case of good or bad parenting. Mainly I'm against medication. Can it help in some cases? I guess it can. But why are the parents struggling with parenting? What kind of societal issuses are we dealing with? Or economical? Like, it's a whole pallet of social and cultural issues. And that can't be fixed with just some simple regulations for a few years.

 

And sure, I'm against about constantly showing the face of killer and everything. Not only about potential copycats or whatever, I agee it is counterproductive on many levels. But what about the shooetrs who are not doing it just for publicity? There are more cases where it's not "just for publicity".

 

Again, that's why I am saying, guns and specific guns are not the sole problem, that much is obvious. And it would be cool from the other side to acknowledge that not all people who have a problem with guns are acting like it's like that.

Both sides hae the tendency to not really look at the problem and it's roots, but to just see the opposition, if no from the mainstream media, then on the internet communities or wherever. And majority of the people is just fighting for heir own opinions and not for the actual solution. And I have a problem with that.

[WNX]

M3j I can't quote your post, but it's like this. Dick Cheney shot a guy, it was an accident. You walk into a gun owner's house at 1am and get shot, that is defending house and home. You go to the mall and riddle thru place with bullets, I don't think there's a single person that isn't broken themselves that would say that individual wasn't broken. It goes way back to what Gen was talking about as far as ill minded and insanity goes. No sane person acts on a thought like that and honestly no age restriction is gonna stop something like that. If a person wants to cause pain , they will cause it, doesn't matter if you're 15 or 50. They'll find a way. There are plenty of guns that do what the AR15 can do and do it better and faster. So you ban everything. Like I said, that comes with its own issues.

 

So yes, make it "harder" for someone to obtain these weapons. Make all sellers follow the rules, that's fine, it will help undoubtedly... Or just delay the inevitable. Every minute counts, people around the broken individual might start seeing signs that they couldn't before, but that's still not "the" solution because guns still aren't "the" problem.

 

This is a no.win, man. We just can't. Thus is too ingrained in our culture to fix, not in a way that pleases everyone or anything close

[maskedmaniac]

America has poisoned itself by allowing so many guns to flow into peoples hands that it is now too late to do anything about it. Just yesterday a guy a few miles from where I live got busted and 300 different types of guns were found in his house. How does one person get away with buying all those weapons?

[M3J]

I wouldn't be so sure at what age, would it be acceptable, but 21 at least.

 

Subjectivly, maybe 18 for the army isn't that good of an idea also? I wouldn't get into that, but let's say 18 is ok for the army. There is a nig difference where in the army you get proper training to ude a gun, and where as a civilian you don't need to have it. Of course it's in your best interest to know what you are doing. But you are not required to have proper training like you would get in the army. That's the main difference for starters. However I don't really get the point of that comparison? And there should be some obvious differences between the army and civilians? I'm not sure what are we taling about here.

 

And yeah, it's not that the goverment trying to care for mental health of their citizens per se is the problem, it's how it's done. That's why I have problem with arguments that want have to do with 0 goverement involvement in some matter. Again, we've discussed that in another thread on another issuess, so I wouldn't go into that that much.

It's also not just the case of good or bad parenting. Mainly I'm against medication. Can it help in some cases? I guess it can. But why are the parents struggling with parenting? What kind of societal issuses are we dealing with? Or economical? Like, it's a whole pallet of social and cultural issues. And that can't be fixed with just some simple regulations for a few years.

 

And sure, I'm against about constantly showing the face of killer and everything. Not only about potential copycats or whatever, I agee it is counterproductive on many levels. But what about the shooetrs who are not doing it just for publicity? There are more cases where it's not "just for publicity".

 

Again, that's why I am saying, guns and specific guns are not the sole problem, that much is obvious. And it would be cool from the other side to acknowledge that not all people who have a problem with guns are acting like it's like that.

Both sides hae the tendency to not really look at the problem and it's roots, but to just see the opposition, if no from the mainstream media, then on the internet communities or wherever. And majority of the people is just fighting for heir own opinions and not for the actual solution. And I have a problem with that.

Ease of getting guns is a major problem. Isn't it possible to buy guns almost immediately at a gun show without any background check?

 

M3j I can't quote your post, but it's like this. Dick Cheney shot a guy, it was an accident. You walk into a gun owner's house at 1am and get shot, that is defending house and home. You go to the mall and riddle thru place with bullets, I don't think there's a single person that isn't broken themselves that would say that individual wasn't broken. It goes way back to what Gen was talking about as far as ill minded and insanity goes. No sane person acts on a thought like that and honestly no age restriction is gonna stop something like that. If a person wants to cause pain , they will cause it, doesn't matter if you're 15 or 50. They'll find a way. There are plenty of guns that do what the AR15 can do and do it better and faster. So you ban everything. Like I said, that comes with its own issues.

 

So yes, make it "harder" for someone to obtain these weapons. Make all sellers follow the rules, that's fine, it will help undoubtedly... Or just delay the inevitable. Every minute counts, people around the broken individual might start seeing signs that they couldn't before, but that's still not "the" solution because guns still aren't "the" problem.

 

This is a no.win, man. We just can't. Thus is too ingrained in our culture to fix, not in a way that pleases everyone or anything close

And I still disagree with what Gen said about mentally ill and broken people causing violence. And yeah, a sane person can think something like that, they could snap because they got fired for what they think is an unfair reason or something else. Out of curiosity, have you done any research on this?

 

I mean, we gotta find out why the person went on a shooting spree in a mall, not just blame mental illness right off the bat.

 

 

Making it harder for people, or at least incompetent people, to buy guns legally will definitely help, whether by preventing them from getting guns or forcing them to find different ways and increasing their chances of getting caught.

[WNX]

And I still disagree with what Gen said about mentally ill and broken people causing violence. And yeah, a sane person can think something like that, they could snap because they got fired for what they think is an unfair reason or something else. Out of curiosity, have you done any research on this?

 

I had not actually. You got me curious though so I just pulled up 12 tabs, kinda at random. It's a hot topic, far beyond here, and everybody is all over the place but this is basically what I got from what I read here.

 

This is mostly talking about the "legal" version of insanity, which is not at all what I was after. It's basically saying that in order to get an insanity plea there are a few guidelines that must be met (in UK's system anyways, not sure how much of that is US code because like I said, don't care about the legal aspects) including the criminal not understanding the severity of the murder(s) and not being aware that the crime was wrongful

 

The way this came off to me was, there is this test that's basically saying it's not so much about the fact that you did it even if you're in sound mind (aka, "snapping", even though I don't think they use that term here), it's more about the remorse you feel for doing it and to whom you're doing it (the difference between military soldiers and criminals). Snapping to me is a buildup of a bunch of negative emotions until it erupts in one momentous explosion. This is only a moment. You get the rage out then and there and that's the end of it, you regain composure. They only way I see somebody snapping and killing a crowd of people is if you're already there with or near a gun and this snap occurs. If you're planning for days or weeks to go shoot up a concert, that's not just a snap, you're broken. Not at all what this article is saying, mind you.

 

This was the first of what I was really looking for. "You see, I truly believe that murderers are mentally ill. Their brains don't work like the rest of ours do. To deliberately kill someone requires crossing a profound boundary. Most of us couldn't do it. We couldn't even think about it. But they can. They do. Why? Because they're mentally ill. And fundamentally, as a society, I believe it is barbaric to kill people who are ill." Barbaric in response to a Justice wanting to uphold the death penalty in some of his cases.

 

"Indeed, most psychologists would say that all of us sit somewhere on the spectrum of traits included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). A person who is classified as "mentally ill" simply sits at a much more extreme point along that spectrum. So, in many ways, or until a crisis precipitates a dysfunctional episode, a mentally ill person can appear perfectly rational and "normal." And yet, their internal world is very different. What is irrational or unreasonable to most of us can seem very reasonable to them."

 

Here's your "snap" article. It suggests that "most" snapping cases that lead to violence have psychological buildup and apparent signs.

 

Article on cognitive control and anger management. Revisiting the Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt 7 years ago. "What happens in these individuals is that their cognitive control mechanisms are deranged. Mind you, these individuals are not out-of-control, enraged people. They just use their cognitive control mechanisms in the service of a disturbed goal. There are probably a multitude of factors at play here. The subject is exposed to influences that lead him or her to violent acts—including, unfortunately, not only the violent political rhetoric but also the media coverage of similar acts, as we are doing here. A variety of issues, especially mental health problems that lead to social isolation, lead the subject to a mental state that alters his or her ability to exercise cognitive control in a healthy manner. The cognitive control capacities of the subject get somewhat redirected—we don't quite understand how—toward goals and activities that are violent in a very specific way. Not the violent outburst of somebody who has "lost it" in a bar, punching people right and left. The violence is channeled in a very specific plan, with a very specific target—generally fed by the media through some sort of rhetoric, political or otherwise—with very specific tools, in the Giffords case, a 9-millimeter Glock"

 

And while we're there, hey, there's an ambiguous usage of the word "tool" for ya

 

Moving on, glossed over an article on psychology of killing. Not really relevant to me. Mostly about soldiers and how low the percentages were of soldiers in particular battles actually trying to fire at the enemy... wait... wait wait, this is really leaning into trying to fit a narrative fo sho.

 

"To Kill or not to Kill. This is a very hard decision for a soldier to make and a great many factors can influence the soldiers ability to kill his fellow man. Before combat soldiers may talk a lot and seem like a blood thirsty, fear inspiring bunch. Veterans are likely to be more subdued unless they are ‘psyching themselves up’. It should be noted that although a soldier may shoot, he may not try to kill. He may be ordered to fire but it is very hard to determine if he is trying to hit as can be noted by the 52,000 rounds fired for one hit ration in Vietnam. People were willing to fire but not always willing to hit the target. This can also be evident in earlier times when muskets were used when soldiers would get in a line, shoulder to shoulder, shoot each other and not hit anything. Even then some would not shoot. Most sane humans, if given the choice, will not kill their fellow man and are extremely reluctant to do so, despite what holly wood would like you to believe. When they are forced to do so, many can experience a great deal of psychological trauma."

 

I don't know how closely that matches what's in "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society"

 

Quora thread(?) where some share thoughts and stories about hurting others. All of it was negative buildup from life events: bullying, rape, absentee parents, cheating.break ups, etc. Nothing official. Another Quora on rational people committing murder. Most of them, people who seem to be more in the fields of those able to respond to such a question, but still mostly based on legal and psychiatric definitions of sanity. Depending on how an individual defines madness determines whether or not one is mad, which is prolly why narrowing this down is so tough to begin with. It's like with right and wrong. What you believe is wrong may be right to someone else, but is it wrong because they're the minority? What's truly "wrong"?

 

Skipped over an article about cruel intent, Skipped over a wordpress about sane or normal people more likely to commit murder because the article they were responding to doesn't exist. That lead to an outspoken post referring back to the aforementioned assassination attempt about not labeling a shooter as mentality ill, saying in so many words that makes the actual mentally ill look bad

 

And lastly, good gawd >_<, this one talks about the difficulty of pinning these "signs" of potential festering violence directly to an individual who will realistic respond violently and stigmatizing mental illness. Is next to impossible to predict the next mass shooting unless they come straight out and say "I'm gonna kill people" or something of the sort. That's the clear cut red flag that shouldn't be ignored. Everything else is a crapshoot. It's also said that the more mental illness is stigmatized, the less likely people will be to go out and get help. I definitely get that. You prolly can't say you have a mental illness without somebody jumping right to the thought of you shooting up something. I'm certain that happens.

 

tl;dr

 

Depending on what definition you use, you're right. A "sane" person can commit a mass murder, based on their values, their constitutions of right and wrong, Insanity sounds like it's just a "legal term" and not many fit that bill. I'll stray away from mentally ill and strictly use the term "broken" from now on, because even if you're living it up, have everything that you can possibly want in your life, money, cars, hoes, cribs, and you still wanna shoot up a club or school, seek that thrill because you're "bored", you're broken. You're unfulfilled despite everything you have and you can't be happy unless you're causing others pain

 

You act out on other because something is wrong with you. It may not be legally or clinically defined, the emotional scarring might not be apparent and you might not even know it's there, but it is. There is something within you that makes it okay for you to kill people, something within you that breaks you. That something may be right there on the surface screaming at you, the signs people choose to ignore, and sometimes finding that is a needle in a haystack

[Purple Rayne]

Do you have a solution though? Feel free to share it if you do.

 

I've honestly given it zero thought. It's not a subject that I care about. The only reason I popped into this thread is because it's pretty much the only debate going on in General Chat, aside from politics, which I'm even less interested in.

[M3J]

 

And I still disagree with what Gen said about mentally ill and broken people causing violence. And yeah, a sane person can think something like that, they could snap because they got fired for what they think is an unfair reason or something else. Out of curiosity, have you done any research on this?

 

I had not actually. You got me curious though so I just pulled up 12 tabs, kinda at random. It's a hot topic, far beyond here, and everybody is all over the place but this is basically what I got from what I read here.

 

This is mostly talking about the "legal" version of insanity, which is not at all what I was after. It's basically saying that in order to get an insanity plea there are a few guidelines that must be met (in UK's system anyways, not sure how much of that is US code because like I said, don't care about the legal aspects) including the criminal not understanding the severity of the murder(s) and not being aware that the crime was wrongful

 

The way this came off to me was, there is this test that's basically saying it's not so much about the fact that you did it even if you're in sound mind (aka, "snapping", even though I don't think they use that term here), it's more about the remorse you feel for doing it and to whom you're doing it (the difference between military soldiers and criminals). Snapping to me is a buildup of a bunch of negative emotions until it erupts in one momentous explosion. This is only a moment. You get the rage out then and there and that's the end of it, you regain composure. They only way I see somebody snapping and killing a crowd of people is if you're already there with or near a gun and this snap occurs. If you're planning for days or weeks to go shoot up a concert, that's not just a snap, you're broken. Not at all what this article is saying, mind you.

 

This was the first of what I was really looking for. "You see, I truly believe that murderers are mentally ill. Their brains don't work like the rest of ours do. To deliberately kill someone requires crossing a profound boundary. Most of us couldn't do it. We couldn't even think about it. But they can. They do. Why? Because they're mentally ill. And fundamentally, as a society, I believe it is barbaric to kill people who are ill." Barbaric in response to a Justice wanting to uphold the death penalty in some of his cases.

 

"Indeed, most psychologists would say that all of us sit somewhere on the spectrum of traits included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). A person who is classified as "mentally ill" simply sits at a much more extreme point along that spectrum. So, in many ways, or until a crisis precipitates a dysfunctional episode, a mentally ill person can appear perfectly rational and "normal." And yet, their internal world is very different. What is irrational or unreasonable to most of us can seem very reasonable to them."

 

Here's your "snap" article. It suggests that "most" snapping cases that lead to violence have psychological buildup and apparent signs.

 

Article on cognitive control and anger management. Revisiting the Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt 7 years ago. "What happens in these individuals is that their cognitive control mechanisms are deranged. Mind you, these individuals are not out-of-control, enraged people. They just use their cognitive control mechanisms in the service of a disturbed goal. There are probably a multitude of factors at play here. The subject is exposed to influences that lead him or her to violent acts—including, unfortunately, not only the violent political rhetoric but also the media coverage of similar acts, as we are doing here. A variety of issues, especially mental health problems that lead to social isolation, lead the subject to a mental state that alters his or her ability to exercise cognitive control in a healthy manner. The cognitive control capacities of the subject get somewhat redirected—we don't quite understand how—toward goals and activities that are violent in a very specific way. Not the violent outburst of somebody who has "lost it" in a bar, punching people right and left. The violence is channeled in a very specific plan, with a very specific target—generally fed by the media through some sort of rhetoric, political or otherwise—with very specific tools, in the Giffords case, a 9-millimeter Glock"

 

And while we're there, hey, there's an ambiguous usage of the word "tool" for ya

 

Moving on, glossed over an article on psychology of killing. Not really relevant to me. Mostly about soldiers and how low the percentages were of soldiers in particular battles actually trying to fire at the enemy... wait... wait wait, this is really leaning into trying to fit a narrative fo sho.

 

"To Kill or not to Kill. This is a very hard decision for a soldier to make and a great many factors can influence the soldiers ability to kill his fellow man. Before combat soldiers may talk a lot and seem like a blood thirsty, fear inspiring bunch. Veterans are likely to be more subdued unless they are ‘psyching themselves up’. It should be noted that although a soldier may shoot, he may not try to kill. He may be ordered to fire but it is very hard to determine if he is trying to hit as can be noted by the 52,000 rounds fired for one hit ration in Vietnam. People were willing to fire but not always willing to hit the target. This can also be evident in earlier times when muskets were used when soldiers would get in a line, shoulder to shoulder, shoot each other and not hit anything. Even then some would not shoot. Most sane humans, if given the choice, will not kill their fellow man and are extremely reluctant to do so, despite what holly wood would like you to believe. When they are forced to do so, many can experience a great deal of psychological trauma."

 

I don't know how closely that matches what's in "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society"

 

Quora thread(?) where some share thoughts and stories about hurting others. All of it was negative buildup from life events: bullying, rape, absentee parents, cheating.break ups, etc. Nothing official. Another Quora on rational people committing murder. Most of them, people who seem to be more in the fields of those able to respond to such a question, but still mostly based on legal and psychiatric definitions of sanity. Depending on how an individual defines madness determines whether or not one is mad, which is prolly why narrowing this down is so tough to begin with. It's like with right and wrong. What you believe is wrong may be right to someone else, but is it wrong because they're the minority? What's truly "wrong"?

 

Skipped over an article about cruel intent, Skipped over a wordpress about sane or normal people more likely to commit murder because the article they were responding to doesn't exist. That lead to an outspoken post referring back to the aforementioned assassination attempt about not labeling a shooter as mentality ill, saying in so many words that makes the actual mentally ill look bad

 

And lastly, good gawd >_<, this one talks about the difficulty of pinning these "signs" of potential festering violence directly to an individual who will realistic respond violently and stigmatizing mental illness. Is next to impossible to predict the next mass shooting unless they come straight out and say "I'm gonna kill people" or something of the sort. That's the clear cut red flag that shouldn't be ignored. Everything else is a crapshoot. It's also said that the more mental illness is stigmatized, the less likely people will be to go out and get help. I definitely get that. You prolly can't say you have a mental illness without somebody jumping right to the thought of you shooting up something. I'm certain that happens.

 

tl;dr

 

Depending on what definition you use, you're right. A "sane" person can commit a mass murder, based on their values, their constitutions of right and wrong, Insanity sounds like it's just a "legal term" and not many fit that bill. I'll stray away from mentally ill and strictly use the term "broken" from now on, because even if you're living it up, have everything that you can possibly want in your life, money, cars, hoes, cribs, and you still wanna shoot up a club or school, seek that thrill because you're "bored", you're broken. You're unfulfilled despite everything you have and you can't be happy unless you're causing others pain

 

You act out on other because something is wrong with you. It may not be legally or clinically defined, the emotional scarring might not be apparent and you might not even know it's there, but it is. There is something within you that makes it okay for you to kill people, something within you that breaks you. That something may be right there on the surface screaming at you, the signs people choose to ignore, and sometimes finding that is a needle in a haystack

 

how many people who have everything they want have ever committed mass murder? You're more right with saying a broken person is more likely to commit mass murder, and we've seen some broken people do that.

 

Let's say we agree broken/mentally ill people are the problem. How do we go on about trying to solve this or fix the supposedly violent tendencies they have? Do we round up any mentally ill or possibly mentally ill people and chuck them in an asylum or a jail? Do we isolate them from the population? Pretty sure a very tiny percentage of the mentally ill population actually carry out mass shootings, so we'd be ostracizing most others and making things even worse for them.

 

 

Do you have a solution though? Feel free to share it if you do.

 

I've honestly given it zero thought. It's not a subject that I care about. The only reason I popped into this thread is because it's pretty much the only debate going on in General Chat, aside from politics, which I'm even less interested in.

 

How dull. Would have been interesting to get your point of view.

 

We do have the religious thread as well, if you wanna bump that.

[WNX]

We can only fix what we can see. People need to be far more vigilant when it comes to signs, people that are around the questionable primarily family. It should be everyone's responsibility to make "valid" claims about odd behavior, especially if there is a noticeable increase. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube comments, etc. Open and continuous remarks about wanting to kill someone should not be ignored. Nobody yells bomb in an airport and nobody should say"I'm gonna be the next schoolshooter" on social media without some brows quirking.

 

If reports are made as they should, there should be a nice hearty file built up on potential threats.Licensed Sellers should all follow the process accordingly, full background checks, the whole nine, and have a way of tracking the buyer history that ties right into that healthy file so if any red flags pop up, you can take it from there. I know people change but anyone with a history of violence depending on the details and how long they've been without incident, need to be jumping through some serious hoops to even get to look at a firearm. Like, lion at the circus flaming rings type of sheeit

 

And then if they're not, people need to be punished if one of their weapons is used in one of these mass shootings, be it owner or seller. If you weren't robbed, it's your responsibility to follow protocol, whether it be to self or knowing who close to you to trust with access to your weapon.

 

Everything else, we can't do anything about. Private selling really should be treated like selling a used car. Even if the new owner doesnt register the weapon, the seller really should report that they did to at least lesson the responsibility they have over the weapon so the guns peeps can say "oh sheeit. You know you sold a crazy a weapon" and the seller can be like "Word? Oh sheeit" and they be like "yeah, shoulda done your research bitch. If he shoots someone that's all you" and the seller be like "damn v_v" and they be like "if he's killed you gotta serve his sentence" and the seller be like "O_O;;" and I betchu he won't sell no mo guns to no mo crazies

 

And you can't do much if there aren't any signs,but what we miss or don't acknowledge can cost someone (or several) their lives. Oh and I know it's kinda cold, but like Kev and many others missing, we gotta stop treating these shooters like celebs. Stop giving them so much credit. Stop making the "famous". If you take away the star power if all of it, alot of these cats will opt out, mainly the young ones. Everybody treats these shooting like the Olympics, everyone is watching and they run it for days at a time. Every new detail they overtake normal news "Update on the shooting in Welcome to Hell, USA, the shooter was wearing Mickey Mouse slippers during the attack" then you cut to all these people crying saying how they use to love Disney but can't now, all while the next shooter is watching like "I can *Censored* up a person's entire fandom. I'm gonna shoot up the desert in Bob Fett cosplay!" it becomes a game of one up at that point. We gotta stop, somehow, while still honoring the falling and telling the story of the survivors.

 

Tall order

[Bdon]

I wasn't that agressive as you were towards me right now, but ok, I don't mind. I'll bite.

 

I'll keep it simple. My solution as I've said in the past is to regulate the age for starters. 18 is too low, and you probably can remember why and understand why 18 is too low. You've dismissed that. Fine. Your opininion. Would it help but not solve the problem of school and other mass shootings? Yeah it would.

 

The other is banning of AR-15. OK yeah sure, it's not automatic by definition. Can it be modified? It can. Is it already illegal? It is I think to a degree. Woukd the ban at least lower the number of dead people? It would.

 

What's your solution? Besides attacking mental health issuses because that's worldwide problem in general with multiple factors. It's a deep problem in society in general. To fix the damage it was done to people is gonna take decades.

 

What's your proof that my solutions which you can see in many debates actually is not gonna work? It works both ways.

 

As you've said, people dismissed your "arguments" like they weren't good enough. Did you ever think that maybe... they really weren't? There is literraly nothing wrong in changing your stance or opinion. And you've said it numerous times that will change it, weather it's a discussion on guns, healthcare, or even so called "socialism".

You also don't like people acting "high and mighty" but you constantly say how people don't know anything about guns. Well maybe they actually do?

 

You've also again had the stance in the last post like it's you against the world. Why? Wheather you like it or not, you live in a society, and you have reaponsibility. I'm sure you don't want other people in society to get killed. And that kind of arguing makes it really counterproductive. Like M3J also, we may share similliar views, but mosr of the times I can't stand his posts.

 

And yeah I can realky say the same. Let'see if you are gonna turn it around yet again.

 

Am I asking you to do away with your 2nd ammendment righ completely? No. Am I asking you to try and help to do with the undeniable problem that USA has? I am.

Ok now that I have a little time. I'm going to try and answer this.

 

First I would like to know why you think 18 is too low exactly? Because I don't agree and don't really understand where you are coming from. And when you ask if it would at least help with the problem and answer yes, I would like to know how? You are saying yes like it's a fact which it in fact is not. You can believe that to be the answer but it doesn't make it so. So how do you really believe that would help? Kids usually get their relatives guns when doing bad shit anyway. You won't deter kids from making bad decisions through the change of law. If that were the case then you wouldn't have problems with minors in possession.

 

Again on AR-15's you're doing the same thing. Now it can be modified but it is already illegal to do so. There has only been one case that I'm aware of where it was reported that someone used modified AR-15's and that was the Vegas shooter who wasn't a kid. Also a lot of false reporting there as well because depending on who you listen to he was using modified weapons or the bump stock attachment. Which yes is modifying but a much different way, currently a legal way. I seriously doubt he was actually using bump stocks but that's not the point here. The point is, it wouldn't necessarily cut down on lives lost. The Virginia Tech shooter used a .22 pistol and a 9mm pistol and killed over 20 people. The AR-15 has been demonized with no actual evidence of it being more deadly or with out knowledge of the firearm itself.

If people knew firearms and were experienced with them then they wouldn't be regurgitating rhetoric like that. So you believe that will help but you can't say that it actually will which you and so many do.

 

Yes it will take many years so we probably better get started. Parenting or lack thereof is a factor, mental health that goes unchecked. The wrong kind of drugs we're giving our kids for anxiety and depression, ect. can play a factor, Bullying, poverty, culture. It all can play a hand in the human condition. Fighting and killing come natural to us. You won't change that. It's a shitty thing that we have to live with. All you can do is be as kind as you can to the people around you and teach your kids the value of life and others. As far as school shootings and others like it, You need to look at the above. Guns don't make people kill people. There's something else that drives them. Cause and effect. If we can't focus on the cause then all we'll do is continue to fight and bitch about the effect. You're looking for quick and temporary solutions that won't work so you can feel better. Because if we're left trying to turn the human condition around from where it is, it looks pretty bleak. This leads to irrational thinking and emotional responses that will make things worse, not better.

 

Also we're not holding the media accountable enough for all the shit they pull. They sell us lies to get to watch, to make us angry, to make things seem worse than they are, and to glorify mass killings. They aren't the sole issue here just to be clear but they are a major problem. And my proof about banning certain guns or creating more laws are not only in knowledge of firearms but in statistics themselves. Overall violent crimes including gun deaths are still decreasing and have been for years. Mass shooting or school shootings, ect are still statistically very low in percentile. Other mass shootings are categorized under the blanket term of mass shootings where 3 or more are shot. This includes all types of incidents where 3 or more are involved. Gang violence, domestics. Most shootings are also still gang or drug related. If guns were actually the problem or even A problem you would be seeing much different numbers than that. So why are our kids hurting and killing each other. Why are certain threats or warning signs of a deranged person go unreported. This is stuff we need to look at. This whole idea of "we need to do anything now just to be sure" can have severe consequences to those of us that are law abiding citizens. We see other problems that lead to these kind of incidents and want to help rationally instead of putting regulation in place now we don't believe will work. Cause that regulation effects us directly and immediately and there isn't a good chance at reversing something like that once it's gone. Besides it's hard to wanna give more liberties away to those that have no knowledge of guns nor do they have any intention on upholding real liberty.

 

My arguments are fine really, but they aren't what people want to hear. And that's on them. Everyone can have their opinion. It's not ok to throw around nonsense that isn't true however. And no most don't have knowledge or experience with firearms in situations like this. Not even our politicians do. I can spot bullshit a mile away. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here either. I've been around all kinds of weapons and firearms my whole life. I even worked in the field for some time. For example the ones that get on nightly news and talks about how they own many weapons and say that the AR-15 is deadlier than other weapons is an automatic red flag. That's completely a lie. All guns can be deadly for one, but the AR-15 is no more deadly or scarier than any other hunting rifle. So no man, most don't actually know anything about them.

 

I'm sure you're not asking me to get rid of my 2nd amendment completely but you're asking that we change it a bit. And not only will that not happen, it's not how the constitution or any document for that matter works. Many interpret it in their own way to fit their agenda or want to change the interpretation of the amendment to fit with times. That's not what a document is. It was created for a reason and that's how it is. I don't think you said this but I know many have said it's outdated because we don't have to worry about government tyranny anymore, lol. Yeah that mindset is exactly how bad shit happens and history repeats itself. Some are just a little more ok with it now. I understand you're trying to get others to change their stance and amend it further but that's just not going to happen. And trying to make people feel like shit about not "caring" about lives is not going to help the cause either. Because it's simply not true.

I wouldn't be so sure at what age, would it be acceptable, but 21 at least.

 

Subjectivly, maybe 18 for the army isn't that good of an idea also? I wouldn't get into that, but let's say 18 is ok for the army. There is a nig difference where in the army you get proper training to ude a gun, and where as a civilian you don't need to have it. Of course it's in your best interest to know what you are doing. But you are not required to have proper training like you would get in the army. That's the main difference for starters. However I don't really get the point of that comparison? And there should be some obvious differences between the army and civilians? I'm not sure what are we taling about here.

 

And yeah, it's not that the goverment trying to care for mental health of their citizens per se is the problem, it's how it's done. That's why I have problem with arguments that want have to do with 0 goverement involvement in some matter. Again, we've discussed that in another thread on another issuess, so I wouldn't go into that that much.

It's also not just the case of good or bad parenting. Mainly I'm against medication. Can it help in some cases? I guess it can. But why are the parents struggling with parenting? What kind of societal issuses are we dealing with? Or economical? Like, it's a whole pallet of social and cultural issues. And that can't be fixed with just some simple regulations for a few years.

 

And sure, I'm against about constantly showing the face of killer and everything. Not only about potential copycats or whatever, I agee it is counterproductive on many levels. But what about the shooetrs who are not doing it just for publicity? There are more cases where it's not "just for publicity".

 

Again, that's why I am saying, guns and specific guns are not the sole problem, that much is obvious. And it would be cool from the other side to acknowledge that not all people who have a problem with guns are acting like it's like that.

Both sides hae the tendency to not really look at the problem and it's roots, but to just see the opposition, if no from the mainstream media, then on the internet communities or wherever. And majority of the people is just fighting for heir own opinions and not for the actual solution. And I have a problem with that.

I don't agree with not needing one nor the age thing. Main reason is I don't see the army age changing. I personally think if you can go be a red shirt somewhere for the military industrial complex then you should be able to do everything else at 18. Drink, carry, buy a gun, gamble, all of it. We need to decide when it's perfectly acceptable to allow adults to be adults. If the left thinks the world should admire and listen to people like David Hogg about gun control but that he's too young to own one or make decisions like that for himself then it's kind of hard to take it seriously. If he's willingly open to waiving his rights and decision making to his parents or big daddy government then he's really gonna have a bad time. He's a spoiled white kid with a shit attitude so it really doesn't surprise me. To be honest we really shouldn't be voting until we're about 25 or so but I would never pass the law myself because there are plenty of 18 year olds with better heads on their shoulders than some 25 year olds. It wouldn't be right despite my belief.

 

And yes the government getting involved in most things is usually a disaster. I'm handling your two posts here one at a time so I repeated some things Kevin said above that you touched on here a bit. I'm with you on medication for the most part. It's usually not a good thing to be pumping kids full of shit. And I'm glad you recognize that there is a multitude of cultural and economical issues that cause these issues. There are many cases where parents aren't struggling to parent, they're just not good at it or refuse to be consistent. Consistency is most of it. Now society and others around them will make it difficult for those that are trying and struggling but that's always been a thing. There are a number of issues that you can consider for the reason why we are regressing in a certain ways. It's been happening and changing for years. We're just now seeing the consequences of it. We work more than we should because living is too expensive. We have all the technology that you can just about imagine and we aren't as fulfilled. We've made things so convenient that we've become complacent and entitled. I'm guilty of it. We all are. Think about it. We have it so good right now, we are fighting with each other about nonsense. We've been living like kings compared to the generations before us for so long that we are creating more infighting for something to do. Social media is the best example. We know far too much about each other now and it is absolute brain cancer.

 

How do you know most aren't about some publicity or that that isn't a factor in some way? Most lack a true motive. We don't hang on to that anyway for very long before we start talking gun control anyway.

 

Look my biggest thing is rhetoric tossed around without any real knowledge or proof. I'm ok with people not liking guns. I'm ok with people saying they don't need them or want them. The minuted they vote for regulation or tell me I don't need them or shouldn't have them is the problem as far as gun control goes. I don't give a shit about definitions of need and what not. It's not for anyone else to say. It's not their business. It may not seem like I care or it may seem like I'm here to just push my agenda and it seems that way for others here too. But I can tell you that while I have my bias I can listen to reasonable logic. I just haven't personally seen any.

[maskedmaniac]

New shooting just happened in Maryland newspaper. It had been a while since the last one.

[M3J]

http://fortune.com/2018/06/26/milo-yiannopoulos-jokes-of-death-squads-murdering-journalists/

 

Milo must be happy.

[Mango kid]

Not shooting but someone went on a stabbing spree at 3 year old birthday party

[M3J]

Source? And how many were killed? And where?

[maskedmaniac]

I think 13 were stabbed including 5 little kids. They were refugees I think. Its been on the news the last couple of days.

[M3J]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/stabbing-spree-idaho-apartment-complex-results-injuries-life/story?id=56292105

 

Now, if a gun was used instead of knives, there'd be more deaths.

[Bdon]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/stabbing-spree-idaho-apartment-complex-results-injuries-life/story?id=56292105

 

Now, if a gun was used instead of knives, there'd be more deaths.

And?

[M3J]

Oh right, you're okay with people being killed by guns as long as you can own them.

[Bdon]

When did I say that?

 

You have anything to add to your first comment or just want to make an obvious statement and be done?

 

[Generations]

I legit want to know how so many people were stabbed though.

 

At a three year old's birthday party, there should be at least one adult per child (probably more than that). If I'm at that birthday party, I'm disarming a dude with a knife in as many seconds as it takes me to recognize that there's a dude with a knife. How do 9 people manage to get stabbed by a single guy with a knife? Kick his ass. Don't want to get close to him? Throw a *censored*ing lamp at his head...I mean, shit. That is a crazy number of people to be affected by a single guy with a knife. It says 6 children among 9 injured. That means that 3 adults were also inured, which I'm hoping is the point at which three rational adults realized they could just overpower this guy.

[Bdon]

If they had a gun they could've stopped him quicker.

[Generations]

If they had a gun they could've stopped him quicker.

 

And also risked shooting children.

 

Cool story though.

[Bdon]

 

If they had a gun they could've stopped him quicker.

 

And also risked shooting children.

 

Cool story though.

 

Not necessarily. Besides it's not any dumber than your idea of throwing a lamp at him, lol. Or any other ridiculous shit you said in the last post.

 

The fact is, it happened so fast they probably did the best they could've. You getting shitty over them not being able to stop it quicker is retarded. You weren't there and I doubt you would've reacted as well as you think you would've. If you want to continue posturing, people on social media usually eat that sort of thing up.