...also they have Swing, Bebop, Gospel, Punk, Rockabilly, Doo-wop, Salsa, Cajun, Grunge, Bluegrass, Baroque String Quartet...whoa, who let the long-hairs in the house?Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Printable View
...also they have Swing, Bebop, Gospel, Punk, Rockabilly, Doo-wop, Salsa, Cajun, Grunge, Bluegrass, Baroque String Quartet...whoa, who let the long-hairs in the house?Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
If America were a one party system or a monarchy sure no problem, but considering the other party has more than half of the lower house it is neig on impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Today the NRA told it how it is, and blamed :-
The Media,
Video Games,
President Obama,
Gun free school zones,
Hurricanes,
Sports stadiums,
Celebrities,
Foriegn aid,
Movies,
Music Videos,
But definitely not guns.
This is rather pertinent:
http://youtu.be/Ternps0JFwo
Even without guns, those who are determined to kill children and make schools as graveyards will have machetes to use. If that happens, it will be clearer to us that the problem is not about guns but the desire to kill children as a social statement that bothers and to create havoc at schools out of revenge on a society that "others" and does not listen.
Well I don't want to get into a discussion about guns (so you might say why bother reading and replying...) but really, I don't see the killing of children as a 'social statement' at all - go wear a different coloured T-shirt if you are into that. I just see it as some ****ed up individual with easy access to weapons. All I can say is that I'm glad the UK doesn't have a so called gun culture. This country also has its fair share of idiots but at least they can't pick up semi-automatic rifles (or whatever) down at the local supermarket.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
I have tried to think about this problem with a clear head and with an open attitude to both sides of the argument, and it seems clear to me that there are a few points we can make that summarize the issue rather well:
- There will always be crazy murderers in the world, and they will always murder people no matter what rules and regulations we put in place.
- Although guns are not the CAUSE of these murders, they do allow murderers to commit these atrocities more easily.
- If we ban guns or restrict the amount of guns available, this may reduce the amount of deaths but it will not solve the problem.
- Part of the problem lies in the loss of community values in western culture, and the 'glorification' (for want of a better term) of these massacres by the mainstream media.
Therefore the answer is not to act on our first impulse and ban guns, the tool seemingly responsible for the atrocities that have occurred recently. What is required is a change in the way people look at life. People need to realize that the most common reason for these events is the mental instability of the murderer. It would also appear that often in the past, these killers have been social outcasts at school or in life as a whole. For example in the most recent shooting at Sandy Hook, the killer was described as a loner. If somebody in his class had befriended him rather than shunning him, then the shooting may never have happened. I am unsure whether the murderer did it in the moment or he had had these feelings for a while now, but either way if somebody had been there for him to talk to him and realize when he was going to snap (for it seems the mother wasn't great at that), then those school children could be alive right now.
Now I'm not saying these killers are innocent, or merely victims of society. They are still the ones who 99% of the blame should be put on. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't blame ourselves as well.
Then the other part of the problem: the media. Each time a killing like this happens, it hits the front page of every big newspaper in the world. All this does is prove to other people out there that if they go out and do this, they will become famous too. This needs to change. There should be less focus on the killer and more focus on the innocent lives lost. What seems most appalling to me is that often newspapers will produce little time-lines and maps showing what the killer did and when. This is clearly only there to feed the sick curiosity that the average reader has, and if nothing else only serves to give future killers a guide to how to do it.
P.S
I have no comment on what level of regulations we should put on the sale of firearms since it seems to only fuel the fires and distracts from other issues that are at hand.
Maybe this incident in China will give you a hint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...-knife-attack/
Also, if not of literature on which I had clung to for solace and calm, I would have killed all my classmates in grade school for calling me a faggot (although I was a transsexual girl) and bullying me to the hilt all day long and all my teachers for not doing anything to stop them. An othered person who has been persecuted for so long will think of everyone and everything as his enemies and those include his family, his friends, God, the society, the world, the universe.
The press anticipated a conciliatory statement from the NRA, but they came out with pistols blazing, fighting like cornered rats. Uhh, do cornered rats fight with pistols blazing? Well, in this case - yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Anyway, that statement by the NRA tells me they're running scared.
12 pages of discussion and this seems to me to be the most intelligent post so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
I gather your point is that that people who want to make a 'social statement' will do so regardless of guns (though in the article all those who were attacked by the knife survived). However, the 'crime' that seemed to lead to the idiot on the bus going nuts was that his girlfriend left him or some such altercation. This has nothing to do with a society that does not listen. Such day-to-day things happen everywhere and in every culture and every culture there are always going to be a small minority of psychopaths. I'm just pleased that in my backyard these people can't pick up guns as easy as they can pick up a pack of sausages.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
I think the easy access to guns in the US is ridiculous, but it is not my culture or country so it's not really my problem or right to pass judgement. It is also rather like the alcohol Vs drugs debates though because guns, like alcohol, is already out there which makes it all the more difficult to contain or regulate.
In your particular case, I'm sorry for you - that you were surrounded by such small minded individuals, and had to put up with that. Personally I can't stand such pig ignorance or those who follow the crowd so much that they haven't got the brains to think for themselves. However, such a thing is not limited to one culture or another and happens everywhere over any sort of difference from that particular social group.
Certainly you had every right to bonk them on the nose or to take a more sophisticated Gandhi-like approach to dealing with the issue but most likely you wouldn't have done anything more than that because thankfully it is only a rare psychopath like the ones above that goes completely of the rails when faced with particular emotional stress.
Let me speak as a trained anthropologist.
In anthropology we see human as the center of anything--may it be media, economy, politics, sex, family, culture, society, or community.
Guns, violent computer games, internet, media glorifying murder, etc. are just peripheral or superficial elements. At the center of those elements are people with murderous desire. You can take those elements away, if that desire to murder remains among those people, nothing will change. So, the problem really is: why do they have murderous desire?
It's like a person having an infection that causes his wounds, rashes, boils, etc. You can treat his wounds, rashes, boils with cream and ointment, but if you don't treat the infection which is the center of it all, new wounds, rashes, and boils will manifest in other parts of the body.
It can be argued maybe his girlfriend left him because he was poor. Why was he poor? Because he had no education. Why did he not get an education? Because only the rich could afford college? Why is that so? Because that is the reality in his society. Man is a social animal; anything he does or does not do can be traced back to the society in which he belongs.
I'm sorry but that's just nonsensical.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
Double post.
That knife incident from China was brought up many times the day after as an argument that guns aren't the problem, as he would have just used a different weapon. What no one mentioned, is that although 22 children were injured in the attack, not one died, and he was detained. Whereas in Connecticut, 28 died. That is an enormous difference. Of course guns don't float along through the air and pull their own triggers at random, neither does any other weapon. Yet, comparatively speaking, it is less likely to a ridiculous degree that a knife or a sword or a crossbow could kill the same numbers as a gun, anywhere near as quickly. This is just logic. Guns make it easy for people who go crazy to do a lot of damage. The idea that if everyone had a weapon we would be much safer is so absurd its amusing. Look at the gun homicide rate in the United States. Of developed nations it is far and away higher than any other. The lack of gun control in the United States and the types of firearms available to the general populace, these things are terrifying. The right to bear arms is absurd and outdated, and is bred into America from its revolutionary beginnings. I, for one, am glad I live in Canada, though less so of late as we ideologically attempt to march our way into a better understanding with our neighbour to the south.
Yes, in that incident. But there were school attacks (in China) in the past that had many casualties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/wo...anted=all&_r=0
It's nonsensical because you don't see the issue as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Yes. I would never suggest a knife cannot be used to kill. And 5 or 6 dead is still awful. Yet all is relative. And the ability to kill dozens in minutes is much worse. Besides that. It is much easier to defend oneself against a knife than a gun. Or to try to stop the person. If, as an adult, you try to stop a knife wielder, you may get stabbed, cut, etc. or you may succeed. With a gun toter, you are best served to just run or hide.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
Of course, weapons aren't the root cause of the problem, yet at the same time, certain weapons just make it easy to kill. And they help to ingrain it within a culture that violence is how problems are dealt with. Handguns and assault rifles are for nothing else; they serve only human upon human violence. No one hunts with a handgun or an automatic weapon. So why are they so accessible? Who are these people defending against?
so, you mean guns should be banned because 6 deaths from a knife is better than 22 deaths from a gun?
Why not go further? Why not ask why those people kill and how they can be helped so there will be 0 death?
Don't get me wrong. I'm also for banning guns. I just think it's useless to ban them if the real problem is not taken care of. If those murderous people kill again with machetes, are we going to ask for the banning of machetes? Weapons are not the problem; those murderous people who use them are.
I'm sorry I did not provide more clarity. 6 deaths is less than 22 of course, but the act is still there, the tragedy is the same. So I agree with you entirely that without doing something about the root cause, which is of course the people behind these acts, the problem will not go away. Our society needs to take care of the downtrodden and the lost, those forced into corners from which they see no escape. We toss people into a world they are not prepared for and expect them to be okay. Often they are are. Sometimes they are not and they snap. There needs to be a safety net for such people, and for those who are the truly criminally insane, well, that is entirely another problem and not enough is being done to look after such people and keep them away from the opportunity to harm others. I, however, am unsure as to how this could be done.
Of course, there will always be murders, no matter how much is done to help these people, some will slip through the cracks but certainly many of these cracks could be sealed and these people helped in order to reduce the terrible frequency of such massacres.
Volya-the answer is not to act on our first impulse and ban guns, the tool seemingly responsible for the atrocities that have occurred recently.
"Seemingly?" It seems to me that too many wish to overlook the obvious. Every possible spin is put upon the statistics that show a clear correlation between the ease of access to weapons that have little practical use outside of killing in the US and the US murder rate by these same weapons. As the NRA would have us believe, its the Media, video games, the president, the gun free schools, society, the mentally ill, Hollywood, music videos, etc... anything but the ease of access to guns
What is required is a change in the way people look at life.
This is just an absurd avoidance of reality. Do you honestly believe we can change how people... how society as a whole thinks when we can't get a bunch of idiots to give up their right to own AK-47s regardless of how many innocent children get killed each year?
People need to realize that the most common reason for these events is the mental instability of the murderer.
So we all assume. Most of us cannot fathom snapping and going off and killing a bunch of innocent bystanders... and so we paint then all as madmen of a sort... because they surely cannot be like ourselves. We do the same with figures such as Stalin or Hitler. We assume they must have been exceptional, raving madmen. They clearly cannot have been "normal" in any way. And this is what makes such individuals dangerous... quite often they aren't some raving lunatics. They don't stand out from the rest of us.
It would also appear that often in the past, these killers have been social outcasts at school or in life as a whole. For example in the most recent shooting at Sandy Hook, the killer was described as a loner.
I suspect a great many members of this site might be described as "loners".
If somebody in his class had befriended him rather than shunning him, then the shooting may never have happened.
"If only..." "Might have"... can we really know what "might have been if only...?" And is "Lets all go out and make friends with a 'loner'" really a practical solution to a real problem... or just fantasy?
I am unsure whether the murderer did it in the moment or he had had these feelings for a while now, but either way if somebody had been there for him to talk to him and realize when he was going to snap (for it seems the mother wasn't great at that), then those school children could be alive right now.
This is all wishful thinking.
Then the other part of the problem: the media.
Now I fully agree with you here.
Each time a killing like this happens, it hits the front page of every big newspaper in the world. All this does is prove to other people out there that if they go out and do this, they will become famous too. This needs to change.
I not only agree with this... but I will take it further. You suggest that the glorification of such murderers may impact the actions of others. I agree that this cannot help but be true. We know that corporations spend billions on advertising every year because it works... because it affects public behavior and buying. We need to ask ourselves what the impact is of the extreme violence in films, video games, television, and video games. Now as an artist I am wholly against censorship... but perhaps those in the media need to begin to question their responsibilities to society as a whole... and perhaps we need to question the ease of access by impressionable younger minds to such material.
There should be less focus on the killer and more focus on the innocent lives lost. What seems most appalling to me is that often newspapers will produce little time-lines and maps showing what the killer did and when.
Indeed. A few short days after the killing, a local network here saw fit to air the story of the murder of John Lennon. It is indeed pathetic that we are all given the life story of the murders... we are all undoubtedly aware of the name of the killer in Newtown, Connecticut (and as such I won't even repeat his name). We've been bombarded with stories of his life and his relationship with his mother... as if he were a celebrity... or a hero... someone whose life is worth being known by us all. But how much will we be told about Victoria Soto...
http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...a-soto-300.jpg
... the first grade teacher who heroically hid her students from the shooter... and was murdered as a result? How much time has been spent on the life of this teacher who protected her children in spite of her age... in spite of the fact that she was employed in a profession that has been virtually demonized and denigrated by politicians who repeatedly call for "accountability" as if their demands for job security and decent pay are unreasonable and selfish?
What of Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy... the Teacher's Aides who died trying to protect their children? I have worked with any number of Teacher's Aides over the years and am well aware of their dedication to their students... in spite of the fact that they are grossly underpaid.
Why, indeed, do we continue to glamorize the killers... waste time analyzing their motivations, their lives, etc... while ignoring the victims... and the heroes?
If I left dangerous items all around my house where a young child lived and and consequently died from mishandling them, the reaction would not be to try and understand why the child behaved like that. I might be berated for not teaching my child to be more responsible around dangerous objects but first and foremost, I would be burnt on the cross for not employing basic common sense and limiting access to things which could pose a threat to himself and others.
I fail to see why society doesn't work on this same principle.
In that scenario, Delta, your child is the victim. Your behavior should be questioned.
You're missing the point Miyako.
why did lanzo (a victim in his own right - since everyone including you have banged on about isolation, bullying, the mental health system etc) act the way he did?
why wasn't he taught to be more responsible?
why did he have access to such dangerous weapons?
Whose behaviour should be in question here? I actually expect government to exercise the model of responsible parenting. What else do we have them for? You're ready to point the finger at the head of the household so why not expect the same from government? By all means address these questions but as I stated before, common sense prevails in reducing the likelihood of tragedy when access to dangerous weapons is restricted.
Yes. It is entirely reprehensible that no American government to date has taken a real stand against the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is absurd and outdated and created soon after a revolution that gave birth to the nation. To allow such weapons as automatic rifles and handguns to be accessible to the general populace is absurd and illogical. And until such time as these dangerous weapons are controlled and restricted this will continue to occur frequently which is a tragedy. It seems that in the US, with such a high homicide rate compared to most of the first world, there is this culture of violence and a prevalent notion that violence is an semi-acceptable way to deal with problems. The 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, surely reinforces this. Why does one need the right to bear arms? To defend oneself? But this is just answering violence with violence, an eye for an eye, solving one's problems through greater weaponry, an arms race in our own homes... The banning/strict regulation of firearms would at the very least promote a cultural shift away from the idea that violence is a solution to problems...
If we put Lanzo in the center of the circle that represents society, the kid had so many barriers in life:
1) Broken Family
2) Maybe a mother or a father who does not integrate him into the community/society out of shame
3) Disability that's related to behavioral and mental development
4) Being Bullied in school
5) Isolated himself due to self-esteem issue
6) Inability to lead a normal life like having a career, friends, girlfriend, etc.
These are enough for someone to hate the world. I've been there.
So what should the government do to take care of these people:
1) Part of divorce settlement should be an amount set aside for continuous counseling of kids until they reach 18
2) Government, church, school, private programs that integrate mentally disabled kids in their communities. A lot of programs exist for the normal kids where they have summer camp, volunteerism, skill development, etc. There should be programs like those for the mentally ill too. Government should give subsidies and tax breaks to institutions and private groups that have integrative programs for the mentally disabled.
3) Effective, hands-on, long-term, accessible Mental Health programs including health and emergency, housing and welfare, and academic and job services.
4) Making bullying a misdemeanor crime and abuse (physical/mental/verbal/sexual) of the mentally disabled a felony.
5) Parental or family assistance that will train parents how to deal with troubled and mentally ill kids. that's where the parents are advised to throw away or be careful with guns in the house or how to encourage their kids to be sociable. some parents don't even know what their children have. Some still consider depression as acting out or sulking. This should be the job of the health department.
6) social networks for the mentally ill. If the little people/midgets in the US can establish a strong network where they meet, share resources, establish friendships and relationships, why can't the mentally ill? Maybe the government can ask help from the experts how to do this.
School shooting by troubled, mentally ill teens or adults is a social problem first before it is an issue about guns and violent multimedia. Above is the sociological prescription for the said problem. banning guns and censoring violent multimedia are also important, and they will make the solution to the problem complete and totally meaningful.
I would have to say I am totally in agreement with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
I'm not sure the breakdown of society is at fault for Lanza, the deadliest attack on an American school remains a bombing of a Michigan elementary school in 1927, where 38 children were killed. When exactly did our Western society begin to collapse? These kind of things are hardly new. Most school shootings boil down to hormonal teens shooting 1-2 people because they lost their temper, and they never should have had a gun. These mass shootings by "disturbed loners" are a drop in the pond for the death of minors by gun violence.
Orphan, the bomber in the 1927 case had stress that was economic-related, again that was mental and social.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2...ok-in-context/
the signs of Great Depression were already apparent in 1927-- the economy was going down. The fact that psychology or psychiatry those days was still at its infancy, we could not really say that the bomber was not mentally ill. he killed his wife; he must be crazy. let's just use that as our proof. I don't think a husband who kills his wife is not mentally troubled.
My point was that there is nothing new about Lanza, was the media and the breakdown of social values the cause of the 1927 bombing? Unlikely.
Also, it had nothing to do with the Depression, the bomber was a member of the School Board and a farmer. From what I'm able to find on the internet, his motivation was probably anti-government politics and his failure to get re-elected. Of course, he could have been mentally ill, but mental illness is a cop-out explanation for any exceptional crime.
well according to the link I posted:
"Kehoe had financial problems and was upset about having to pay taxes. He had killed his own wife before blowing up his house."
With this personality in today's psychology? these are signs of mental illness.
From Wikipedia:
Kehoe was regarded by his neighbors as a highly intelligent man who grew impatient and angry with those who disagreed with him. Neighbors recalled that Kehoe was always neat, dressed meticulously, and was known to change his shirt at midday or whenever it became even slightly dirty. Neighbors also recounted how Kehoe was cruel to his farm animals, having once beaten a horse to death.[1]
At first the Kehoes belonged to the Catholic church in Bath, but he refused to pay the church's parish assessment of members, and prevented his wife from attending.[1]
Kehoe's neighbors thought he preferred mechanical tinkering to farming. His neighbor M.J. "Monty" Ellsworth wrote in his account of the disaster,
He never farmed it as other farmers do and he tried to do everything with his tractor. He was in the height of his glory when fixing machinery or tinkering. He was always trying new methods in his work, for instance, hitching two mowers behind his tractor. This method did not work at different times and he would just leave the hay standing. He also put four sections of drag and two rollers at once behind his tractor. He spent so much time tinkering that he didn't prosper.[1]
I don't disagree that a close sociological examination of the functions of society is in order. It should always be an evolving study anyway and a longitudinual one at that. As a parent raising a family, while I would hope to become better and wiser over time, improve the quality of my family through experience and knowledge, I would not risk the lives of my children through the absence of common sense at the outset. Society simply doesn't condone it.
We can lose ourselves in multiple variables in the hope of becoming a better society but we should never make excuses for negating the primary responsibility - making the environment safe.
I can cut fruit and bread with a knife. I don't think I'll be cutting my food by shooting it with a gun any time soon.
Some of you call guns tools. What are they tools for, other than destruction?
This. Simply put. Perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
"The Second Amendment you don't know"
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/a...icle-1.1223900
"On Guns, America Stands Out"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/op...tands-out.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfyman
To me this is a suprising thing. There is a lot of sensible and reasoned analysis on this issue coming out of America at the moment, I have been reading journalism of the highest quality and integrity. Does nobody read it over there? Or is a it out of step with popular thinking.
I would hardly call that second article 'journalism of the highest quality and integrity'. Those statistics are meaningless given that it is obvious that with less guns less gun homicides will follow. Now if the writer had shown statistics for TOTAL homicide and crime rates with any weapon used, then I would be able to call it high quality.
However I do fully agree with that first article linked. If gun-owners want to follow the 2nd Amendment, they should form a REAL militia, not a bunch of random gun owners who half the time might not be well-trained or safe (though that is not to say that all gun owners are like this).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
Wasn't the 4th column exactly that. - deaths due to assult per 100 000
How about protection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin