Printable View
The Link between the shootings and the mental health of the perpetrator is always noticed after the event. The gun lobby are turning the debate in that direction.
Americans want to "do something" but don't want to give up their guns, Mental Health could be just the patsy they need, as violent videos were in the past.
And yes, I'm an old cynic.
Actually, there are many who want tighter alcohol controls.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Two pertinent points to consider:
1. Most mass shooters, especially the more recent ones, wear bullet proof gear. The "if there were no gun-free zones we would be able to shoot psychos" argument should be seen in this context, for honesty's sake. I'm pretty sure the shooter in this instance was wearing a bullet proof vest, and that theater shooter who thought he was batman was practically wearing full body armor.
2. When assault rifles were banned by Clinton in 1994, it had no impact on gun crime.
Someone clever said this earlier today, until I hear a better argument I agree with him:
A net that covers 370 million people is a pretty big net, expecting eleven fish not to slip through is unreasonable. Other countries with high populations don't have as much of a problem, but I think the American gun obsession is cultural and you can't just apply a quick fix to culture.Quote:
I'm interested why people need something to blame at all.
Ban assault rifles. Fine. The gun's he used were 'Military Style' (in looks) but they weren't assault rifles. If you want to look at legislation for guns that actually impact people, look at handguns (he was carrying two) but lets not pretend like a ban on "assault rifles", which are already banned in most states, would have had any impact on this tragedy.
Improve mental health? Another ghost argument. The school noticed his behavior in 07 and brought it up with his mother and a psychologist. As a result his mother pulled him out of school and taught him from home. The alimony she received in child care from his father was over $250,000 a year -more than enough than would be needed to find proper care for someone who was mentally ill.
Its an unfortunate circumstance, but the reality is this was 1 person, out of a country of 370 million, who just lost it. On average in the US we have 1.25 people who go bat-**** crazy each year and go on a rampage. The slashing last Friday in China, the same day as the events in CT, outline how even if we completely regulate guns, people will find a way to exhibit their chaos on the world. When we talk of broad sweeping changes that will affect everyone in America, what we should stop and ask is "Of the 11 people who have gone off the deep-end in the last year. Will making this change actually help one of 'Them' ?"
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
I think this applies to the UK rather than the US where there seems to be a much more sensible approach to alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
If Americans have a fetish for guns, then alcohol is the British fetish. Hospital admissions, not least in Accident and Emergency, for alcohol related problems are a major cause for concern and criminal damage likewise.
The British have an infantile approach to drinking that has lead to ongoing calls for control but, as in the US where the gun lobby have political sway, in the UK the brewing industry keeps protesters at bay in much the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
Eh-hmm...Yeee haw, howdy Tony...oh, and you did get my persepctive. Please refer to post 14, 54 and 57
Hot damn, I luv my guns and wouldn't you know, this gun tot'n Texan is also a philatilist, numismaticist, enjoys shooting pictures, watercolor, sketching,woodworking, rock hound, enjoys reading, watching Star Trek (TOS), listening to Bob Wills and Dvorak, but contrary to what many of you outsiders have come to believe from watching Dallas, there's no oil well in my yard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Yup, yup, yup, howdy, howdy. That thar is Texas talk.
Anyway, I think, the problem with guns in this country is not so much the mass shootings as the onesies twosies. An unhinged person bent on mass murder will figure out a way, with or without a gun. But with so many guns laying around, it's just too easy for somebody to pick one up and instantly (and permanently) solve their problem: husbands and wives blowing each other away, taking care of the neighbor with the barky dog, or the pinhead who just cut you off in traffic - ready, fire, aim.
How many times have you read about a little kid getting into the family gun cabinet and then accidentally capping his little sister. Nobody evolved in that incident will ever feel good again, for the rest of their lives. Guns are just too easy, too quick, too deadly, and too unforgiving. And humans are too emotional.
Arming everybody (Ted Nugent excepted) has got to be about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Here's my example: the US Army is pretty good at guns. They know how to shoot and they're good at it. I have personally trusted my life to young soldiers with automatic weapons. But the idea of an entire brigade of soldiers walking around in garrison with concealed handguns is ludicrous. Even after the shooting at Fort Hood, the Commanding General never seriously considered letting everybody arm themselves on post as a deterrent for a kook with a gun and an attitude. He knew that a bunch of 18 and 20 year-olds, all packing, would be bloody. Guys would be blowing each other away for cutting the line at Burger King.
That reminds me of the rapper shootout scene from Scary Movie 3. I'd link to it but I don't want to stereotype blacks although it is quite funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sancho
I have a brother who lives in Texas and a cousin who used to. Neither of them are as nutty as my sister who hunts with a bow and arrow in Indiana. Based on what happened in Connecticut, my current stereotype of people to be cautious about are rich white kids from the pseudo-enlightened east coast, but I'm sure most of them are OK as well.
For a start, I've never even been on the bloody NRA website. Right now, bombs have killed less people. If you stop these killers accessing guns, they'll use bombs instead. Which will result in more death, don't you agree? Outright banning guns will do nothing but make the situation worse. What is needed is better checks on WHO can buy a gun, research to try and work out why these killers snap, and (in my opinion) a change in attitude towards childrens upbringing.
The problem with your theory lies in accessibility. Handguns are incredibly accessible... easier to obtain than a driver's license. The US is clearly far too ingrained in its obsession with guns to eliminate them completely... bot yet. many many more children will have to die before that ever happens. But the problem isn't the handgun kept for self defense or the hunting rifle... its the ability to easily purchase dozens of guns including semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons with an endless supply of ammo. These have absolutely no practical use except in killing people. Now unless there has been a rash of home invasions involving dozens of invaders I don't see the point.
We have the ability to track such things. I can't buy more than a couple bottles of certain over-the-counter medications in a given month because they are known to be used in the production of dangerous illegal drugs. The elements needed for the production of most bombs are also closely monitored and the purchase of such will likely lead to a visit from your friendly FBI agents.
Attempting to divert the focus to mental health services and parenting is absurdly ridiculous. How do you suppose we monitor, let alone enforce proper parenting? How do we recognize which mentally ill individual is likely to snap? What do we do... lock anyone up that we have a sneaking suspicion about? Most of the deaths by handgun that occur in homes are not homeowners killing intruders or unknown intruders killing homeowners, but rather the result of a dispute (often sexual... husband cheating on wife, etc..) between friends and family. The argument escalates and a person not known for any mental illness snaps... and uses the accessible gun. We repeatedly hear the same story with the shooter who snaps as a result of problems with co-workers or the loss of a job. Few of these mass-murders involve an individual who was identified as mentally ill. Who do you imagine will have the right to identify you or me... or that person who doesn't fit their concept of "normal" as a potential threat?
There are more alcohol related violence and deaths than gun related deaths. I've never heard of anyone wanting to ban alcohol or have stricter alcohol control measures.
Why is that?
Your point is moot. The purpose of alcohol is not solely to kill... unlike guns. And there are strict controls on things such as driving while intoxicated and there are indeed those who continue to push for stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws.
Actually we did break free in 1649 when the King was beheaded and Oliver Cromwell became the top man. He also closed parliament for the reasons stated in this speech. Possibly the greatest of all Englishmen, the bauble he refers to is that of the Mace which was supposed to symbolize the authority of parliament. Unfortunately, when he died, the Monarchy was restored. :brickwallQuote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Dissolution of the Long Parliament by Oliver Cromwell given to the House of Commons, 20 April 1653
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!
Plus ça change ......
You're really good at this.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
We have to keep the children safe, but we, now also, have to live in a police state as well. And even with heightened security measures, the schools may still not be safe. Obama is correct in his stance to not only address gun reform, but also mental health access. We need to reform our gun laws. The other issue the American population faces is easy access to affordable mental healthcare. The access in poorer areas can be limited, simple because there are not enough providers. I think Obama is very smart in leveraging this issue now to get some things started. People are still very upset, meaning that the issues have a lot of support from the general population.
As an elementary school teacher, I am feeling quite numb. I lost a student earlier this year to a tractor accident and another student of mine is currently receiving radiation treatment for a brain tumor. When you see some much loss of life of children, it has to be the most sickening thing you can think of. I am not going to idealize children, but they are innocent. Obama understand this at a very deep level, and I am glad he is our President.
Very thoughtful post, Buh4Bee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/op...it_th_20121220
The alarming part of this is the amount of homicides per year, compared to the other OECD countries.
I especially liked how that data was presented as rate per 100,000 population.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonywalt
That data doesn't really prove much. Of course if there are more guns there will be more gun homicides. What we should really look at is the total homicide rate for any weapon (which is probably still higher in America than in most).
To those who argue that the mental health issue is a patsy, yes, it certainly could be, in the hands of the NRA who are most assuredly adept at deflecting attention from their rather rabid views, but it should not be a case of one or the other. I do feel that we neglect mental health issues in our country. Getting access to good mental health care is really only possible for the very well off (is it ironic that Nancy Lanza falls into that category?). I've had much frustration and experience in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Obviously better gun control laws are important. But I think a determined push for both is equally important.