Future of guns and mass killings in the US

[solosam]

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
So are you proposing some sort of parenting legislation? That’s more comfortable to you than gun legislation? I guess there’s no Constitutional right on raising your kids how you want…
[/quote]

Thank you for demonstrating my point. This is not a solution that can be legislated. There is no amendment or law that can force people to raise decent human beings. It is, instead, a basic human responsibility so obvious that it shouldn’t even need to be said out loud. Nobody ever woke up and said, “Hm, I think I’m going to raise my child to NOT commit mass murder, because that’s what the law says I have to do…” You don’t instill your child with a moral compass because that’s what the law says you should do, or even because that’s somehow in your own rational self interest - It’s a basic responsibility that comes with raising - or even being - a human on this Earth.

I shouldn’t have to ask people to NOT commit mass murder. And if they want to buy a gun, we shouldn’t have to ask them to NOT randomly kill people in a school. Why are we even having this discussion? Why is this even open for debate? The imperative that a person NOT commit mass murder is so fundamental that I can’t comprehend why it is even a possibility.

But yet, here we are.

@Czarcasm

Please tell us exactly what you know about how he was raised.

Nobody turns evil in a vacuum. Read literally any scientific literature on the psychology of evil or criminality (my favorite is Zimbardo), and the consensus is that nobody just wakes up one morning and decides to go on a shooting spree. This person was very obviously feeding his “evil dog” as the saying goes, and if you examine other mass killers (Timothy McVeigh, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc) you’ll find that they did everything short of hang a goddamn sign around their neck. Someone, or something, told them that this was acceptable. That might have been their parents, or the media, or 4chan, but the bottom line is that someone suggested this was an acceptable option and the shooter didn’t have the mental resilience or the moral fiber to resist.

To return to the point I made above, the imperative for a person to NOT commit mass murder appears so blatantly obvious and self-evident that I’m astonished it even needs to be said at all. And apparently the father failed to instill even this core value in his son. Instead of acknowledging that failure, he blames his son’s evil on an inanimate object.

And in doing so, he feeds the societal myth that we should be focusing on the guns instead of the fact that we are raising evil human beings with no concept of right and wrong. So we focus our debate on whether we should be allowed to have guns in the first place, instead of debating how it is possible that our society allows these morally diseased people to be created in the first place.

[Czarcasm]

So you know nothing about how this child was raised.
Edited to add: Have you anything to say about how the mother raised the child?

[solosam]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Empirical evidence (I know, we don’t really like that around here) illustrates that callous-unemotional traits are highly heritable. Somewhere around 75% of the variance is attributable to genetic factors, and almost none to shared environment. The remainder is due to environmental factors unique to the individual.

So, really your concern is about the genetic factors contributed by the dad and mom. Seems lke the logical step is to prevent these types of folks from having children in the first place.

At least, that makes more sense than reconsidering how easy it is for them to get firearms. THAT would unfairly infringe on their rights!

So your argument is that evil people are literally born evil? And that instead of trying to confront evil, raise decent human beings, and treat each other with dignity we should just accept that a certain portion of the population are sadists and surrender our freedoms en masse?

[solosam]

@Czarcasm

So you know nothing about how this child was raised.
Edited to add: Have you anything to say about how the mother raised the child?

I am criticizing the father because the father is the one who blames his child’s evil on an inanimate object. I would be interested in hearing the mother’s opinion.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@solosam

So your argument is that evil people are literally born evil? And that instead of trying to confront evil, raise decent human beings, and treat each other with dignity we should just accept that a certain portion of the population are sadists and surrender our freedoms en masse?

First, stop with the categorical thinking, if you can. It limits your ability to approach these issues rationally. Evil vs not evil is a cartoonish description of real people.

Secondly, we have evidence that callous-unemtional traits are a dimension of human experience - we all fall somewhere along this dimension. And we have evidence that variability along this dimension is strongly influenced by genetic factors.

My point remains the same - human functioning along a number of dimensions means that easy categorization and prediction from “mental health” are not realistic solutions. Also, giving everyone guns means that you’re simply increasing the intersection of human impairment and deadly force.

[Czarcasm]

@solosam

I am criticizing the father because the father is the one who blames his child’s evil on an inanimate object. I would be interested in hearing the mother’s opinion.

You were talking about how the kid was raised wrong, so shouldn’t you be interested in how the mother raised the kid?

[solosam]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

First, stop with the categorical thinking, if you can. It limits your ability to approach these issues rationally. Evil vs not evil is a cartoonish description of real people.

Secondly, we have evidence that callous-unemtional traits are a dimension of human experience - we all fall somewhere along this dimension. And we have evidence that variability along this dimension is strongly influenced by genetic factors.

My point remains the same - human functioning along a number of dimensions means that easy categorization and prediction from “mental health” are not realistic solutions. Also, giving everyone guns means that you’re simply increasing the intersection of human impairment and deadly force.

I’m not saying everyone should be given guns. I’ve never said that everyone should be given guns, and the very idea is ludicrous. FWIW, the gun lobby has turned into a cartoon parody of itself with its obstinate resistance to any kind of gun control, and the anti-gun side has happily taken advantage of this by perpetuating the myth that “opposing gun control laws” is the same thing as “guns for everybody.”

As for the question of evil vs. not evil as a the lens by which I perceive the world, I do not think it is too much of a stretch to say that walking into a building and randomly shooting as many people as possible puts one firmly in the category of “evil.” If this is not “evil” then I struggle to imagine what your definition of the word must be.

And to reiterate, I do not comprehend how NOT randomly shooting everyone you see is an unreasonable expectation.

[solosam]

@Czarcasm

You were talking about how the kid was raised wrong, so shouldn’t you be interested in how the mother raised the kid?

I already answered this. I am extremely interested in hearing the mother’s opinion, so if you have a link to where the mother offers this, please share.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@solosam

I’m not saying everyone should be given guns. I’ve never said that everyone should be given guns, and the very idea is ludicrous. FWIW, the gun lobby has turned into a cartoon parody of itself with its obstinate resistance to any kind of gun control, and the anti-gun side has happily taken advantage of this by perpetuating the myth that “opposing gun control laws” is the same thing as “guns for everybody.”

As for the question of evil vs. not evil as a the lens by which I perceive the world, I do not think it is too much of a stretch to say that walking into a building and randomly shooting as many people as possible puts one firmly in the category of “evil.” If this is not “evil” then I struggle to imagine what your definition of the word must be.

And to reiterate, I do not comprehend how NOT randomly shooting everyone you see is an unreasonable expectation.

So your solution would seem to be: People who walk into a building and shoot it up should not be allowed to have guns? Nice job, cap’n. Problem solved.

[CarnalK]

@solosam

Thank you for demonstrating my point. This is not a solution that can be legislated.
.

And you just demonstrated what I suspected. You hold the insane notion that restricting someone’s parental rights is on par with restricting gun ownership.

[Czarcasm]

@solosam

I already answered this. I am extremely interested in hearing the mother’s opinion, so if you have a link to where the mother offers this, please share.

Did you read the link in post #120?

[solosam]

@CarnalK

And you just demonstrated what I suspected. You hold the insane notion that restricting someone’s parental rights is on par with restricting gun ownership.

When did I ever suggest restricting someone’s parental rights? You are inventing a position I’ve never taken.

My criticism is that his father is displacing the blame for his failures rather than accepting he raised a monster, and that preventing violence (of any sort) should begin with raising responsible, moral human beings.

Are you suggesting that there is an upshot to raising children to be violent sadists and mass murderers? Or that looking to moral values and upbringing as a solution to violence is an unreasonable imposition on a parent’s rights and liberties? Because that’s both absurd and insane.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@solosam

When did I ever suggest restricting someone’s parental rights? You are inventing a position I’ve never taken.

My criticism is that his father is displacing the blame for his failures rather than accepting he raised a monster, and that preventing violence (of any sort) should begin with raising responsible, moral human beings.

Are you suggesting that there is an upshot to raising children to be violent sadists and mass murderers? Or that looking to moral values and upbringing as a solution to violence is an unreasonable imposition on a parent’s rights and liberties? Because that’s both absurd and insane.

Didn’t I just get done telling you that parenting plays a smaller role than genetics? What the fuck is wrong with people here? Science? Pffft. I have my ill-informed opinion. Why do I need science?

[Czarcasm]

@solosam

When did I ever suggest restricting someone’s parental rights? You are inventing a position I’ve never taken.

My criticism is that his father is displacing the blame for his failures rather than accepting he raised a monster, and that preventing violence (of any sort) should begin with raising responsible, moral human beings.

Are you suggesting that there is an upshot to raising children to be violent sadists and mass murderers? Or that looking to moral values and upbringing as a solution to violence is an unreasonable imposition on a parent’s rights and liberties? Because that’s both absurd and insane.

The only one displaying ignorance here is you. The mother raised the monster-the father deplores how she raised him.
edited to add: Read that link in post #120.

[solosam]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

So your solution would seem to be: People who walk into a building and shoot it up should not be allowed to have guns? Nice job, cap’n. Problem solved.

Okay, I’m confused here. There are already a laundry list of crimes and conditions under which a person is not allowed to possess a gun. One of my big frustrations in reading this thread is that people keep claiming that convicts, children, and the mentally disturbed should not be allowed to have guns… And they’re not. I know people who have had their guns confiscated by the police because they were hospitalized for a mental illness. Gun transactions are already tracked and approved by the FBI, and checked for warrants and past convictions. People convicted of domestic violence are already categorically denied gun ownership. And people keep perpetuating the myth that none of these laws exist and any random criminal can just pick up a gun with no legislation or oversight.

My POINT, which you insist on evading, is that instilling someone with a moral foundation and a respect for human life should be the starting point for preventing violence rather than an afterthought.

But fuck it, why bother raising decent human beings when it’s just so much easier to take everyone’s guns away?

[solosam]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Didn’t I just get done telling you that parenting plays a smaller role than genetics? What the fuck is wrong with people here? Science? Pffft. I have my ill-informed opinion. Why do I need science?

Great, so we can just a DNA test to decide whether we are allowed to own guns or not. The ones who are born evil don’t get guns, because clearly our morality and our decisions are just a drop in the bucket compared to whether we got the evil chromosome. Why bother writing laws in the first place, if our genes decide whether or not we’re going to break them?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@solosam

Great, so we can just a DNA test to decide whether we are allowed to own guns or not. The ones who are born evil don’t get guns, because clearly our morality and our decisions are just a drop in the bucket compared to whether we got the evil chromosome. Why bother writing laws in the first place, if our genes decide whether or not we’re going to break them?

See, I try to provide a succinct description of evidence on CU traits, and some corrective education on categorical thinking, and this is what comes back.

There’s little point in any evidence based discussion here.

[solosam]

For what it’s worth, I apologize. I got angry and couldn’t pay attention, and I let my moral outrage get the better of me. I am sorry.

I should have said: I believe that evil is objectively real, and the shootings in question are the result of willful and deliberate malice. I refuse to accept the premise that these incidents are inevitable, because the notion that our morality is the product of genetics and circumstance rather than choice is repulsive to me.

This notion also forms the basis of my resistance to gun control arguments, which is moral rather than pragmatic. I accept that Australian-style gun confiscation and restriction would be a pragmatic solution, but it is not a moral one. The presumption that mass killings are inevitable denies human agency; It is built on the premise that we have no control over ourselves or others and therefore the only possible solution is to remove the means by which the crime is committed. This, essentially, says that we are not responsible enough or moral enough to be allowed to make a choice, because it is inevitable that someone would choose poorly. This argument reduces us to the level of animals (or even something below animals, because there are plenty of animals who are capable of more moral reasoning than some of these mass shooters).

I reject this. It is an affront to basic human dignity to believe that we are so irresponsible and so chaotic that even one person would choose to commit this kind of act. It’s an abomination. But equally so, the idea that we can’t control ourselves or make moral decisions for ourselves, and that our moral judgment is so impaired that we can’t even be trusted to NOT choose atrocity. And with that, the idea that our first resort should be to remove the implements we use to commit crime (which we are too untrustworthy to even possess), rather than improve ourselves or hold ourselves to higher standard.

But like I said, I’m sorry I got angry and lost perspective.

[Hiker]

@solosam

This notion also forms the basis of my resistance to gun control arguments, which is moral rather than pragmatic. I accept that Australian-style gun confiscation and restriction would be a pragmatic solution, but it is not a moral one. The presumption that mass killings are inevitable denies human agency; It is built on the premise that we have no control over ourselves or others and therefore the only possible solution is to remove the means by which the crime is committed. This, essentially, says that we are not responsible enough or moral enough to be allowed to make a choice, because it is inevitable that someone would choose poorly. This argument reduces us to the level of animals (or even something below animals, because there are plenty of animals who are capable of more moral reasoning than some of these mass shooters).

You seem to suggest that your “moral” and “pragmatic” solutions are mutually exclusive. Why is that? I suppose if you say that we should try to reduce the number of people *wanting *to commit gun violence, few people would disagree. But even though I do not know how you would try to achieve that I think it is safe to say that even a reduction by 25% would be considered a huge success. Still - it would leave 75% of potential offenders dangerous.
It is a bit like suggesting that instead of putting a lock on my door I should make people not want to steal from me. Even if I succeed with most people, the few that remain will do all the damage.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@solosam

But like I said, I’m sorry I got angry and lost perspective.

That’s very decent of you. I was certainly intemperate myself.