See This Post. He said it better than I could.
Well, maybe there might be a middle ground.
I really don’t understand the endless news loop, in the absence of new evidence. And the endless “reporting” of the “reactions” of people not directly involved. It is hard for me to keep from suspecting there is at least some level of exploitation/voyuerism involved.
:dubious: The connection being what? The burdens, when any, of the USA PATRIOT Act fall upon the armed and upon the unarmed, and never does being armed make things one whit better. Private gun ownership does zero to keep off “government intrusions,” unless you actually use your gun to shoot a cop or something, and that will only bring more government intrusions down on your head.
And doesn’t owning a gun say a lot more about the owner’s psychology than owning a fire extinguisher does?
Only to someone who obviously has prejudged the person based on their own world view concerning guns. IOW, to YOU it says something…to me, it says nothing either way.
My personal (and very possibly irrational) view of events at the time was that as a society we were undesireably and unnecessarily expanding police powers and restricting personal liberties. I was extremely upset at constitutional rights I value highly being infringed upon, which contributed to me becoming more sympathetic to the views of people who value different constitutional rights - namely gun ownership - more highly than I do.
Some level? This has been the basis of the news media for several hundred years.
There are recommendations for how the press should cover suicides to reduce the risk of additional suicides, and I think in general those are followed (because guess what: people in the news don’t want to be responsible for suicides). If there are similar recommendations that relate to mass killings like this, then those should be considered and adopted, too. I agree that coverage that puts the emphasis on the killer instead of the victims is grotesque, for example. But it’s not realistic to expect the news to ignore stuff like this; it’s shocking and people pay attention to it, and it’s news by any definition. Although that doesn’t mean the media needs to move to Connecticut for the next month.
The media, in general, has done a little to mitigate the “glorification” factor; many outlets are going with the - we won’t repeat the shooter’s name ad nauseum, and focus on the victims instead - schpeil.
That’s a good trend, and one I hope to see continue. (I’ve been deliberately avoiding the media coverage for the past few days.)
Current 3D printers are already being used to make gun parts, including illegal/regulated ones. The only obstacle is that they are pricey. The problem with prohibited patterns is that unlike currency, which is a very specific and identifiable pattern, gun parts will work just fine in a highly variable set of configurations, and even if you could conceivably account for that, then you could cheat the system by putting smaller parts together, dividing larger parts, making an inverse mold, disguising it as a similar legal part for another machine, etc. You run into similar issues as with analog drugs.
I suppose you could already make these parts if you had machining/lathing equipment or access to it, but 3D printers decrease the obstacles and difficulty greatly.
If you’re serious about trying to prevent school shootings, the first thing you should do is find out why the monster chose to murder people. Why did the monster in Connecticut kill his mother? How was the school shooting related to his mothers death? Unless he documented his thoughts, we’ll have no way of knowing exactly why he did this but there might be some clues. He killed himself before the police could capture or kill him.
The Columbine shooting started with those monsters planting two 20lb bombs in the commons area. The plan was to shoot people as they ran out of the school. When the bombs didn’t explode, they entered the building and began shooting and throwing pipe bombs. They killed themselves before the police could capture/kill them.
The Colorado movie shooter wired his apartment/condo with explosives and set his sound system to begin playing music very loudly at about the same time he would be killing people in the theater. His neighbor had decided not to turn the door handle when she couldn’t get anyone to answer the door. If she, or the police he expected, had tried opening the door, half of the building would have been destroyed and many more lives would have been lost.
These monsters don’t need firearms to murder people. They will use any tool at hand or make something lethal.
How do we stop or limit mass murders? Find out why the mass murder wasn’t turned over to the mental health professionals BEFORE they began murdering people.
Yes they do. You think he had the mind set to chase after 20 children and stab each of them to death. It was a mass killing exactly because of guns.
There’s no question he had the mindset to do that. He wanted to kill children. If he couldn’t have obtained guns, he would have run amok in another fashion. The only question is how high the body count would have bee.
Wild-ass speculation.
I contend that he was one gigantic pussy who wouldn’t have said, “shit,” if he had a mouthful, but that big gun made him a big man.
What? You just detailed two significant examples where the bombs DIDN’T end up killing anyone, but the FIREARMS were exquisitely successful! Your logic is entirely ass backwards.
Um, because they hadn’t committed mass murder yet? Like I said elsewhere, it isn’t like people who are going to commit these acts have a little tag stamped on their ass. You can’t just turn them over and say “Oh, got one.”
Until Minority Report comes to reality, you will not be able to predict with any kind of certainty at all. And mental illness isn’t always present, at least in any apparent post hoc fashion (apart from the fact of the shooting itself). Here in Pittsburgh, Poplawski was a gun nut who ended up killing three cops and seriously injuring a fourth. What was his mental illness? And Sodoski was a guy who raged against women because they apparently didn’t like him, so he went and killed three women and injured 9 others at an L.A. Fitness. What was his mental illness?
Mental illness is a sufficient explanation only for those who think in purely dichotomous categorical terms: mentally ill/not mentally ill; good guy/bad guy; safe with a gun/not safe with a gun. This level of simplistic, rudimentary thinking is the problem.
The commonality across all of these incidents is ready access to firearms. Plain and simple.
Of course it would be very difficult to stab 20 children to death- he’d have used a machete.
And where did he get the idea that having a gun made him a big man? Maybe the media saturation reports of previous killings that make the shooter more important in death than he ever was in life? Or an entertainment industry that shows moody, misunderstood antiheroes slaughtering those who’ve wronged them?
Why, oh why, do people want to do something about something as long as it isn’t something about the actual fucking things that are used to do the killing. Oh no, it can’t be the guns this guy used to mow down 20 little kids. It’s video games and movies that are the problem.
There was an interesting conversation on Morning Joe this morning. There were discussing the role of violent video games in this situation and someone made the point that kids in Japan play all the exact same games as kids in the States do. But Joe was quick to point out, “Japan isn’t America. We have millions of guns in this country.”
Boing. Are we seeing the fucking connection yet?
I’ve heard quite a few people over the years say that the act of shooting a gun gave them a feeling of raw power.
Certainly I can see how just holding a battle rifle and realizing that I could use it and kill just about anyone I’d like with it, tearing them to goddamn shreds while barely breaking a sweat, would make *me *feel a bit dizzy. Sort of like walking to the edge of a cliff and thinking “I could totally jump to my death right now”, and still being sort of pulled towards it in a fascinated way. I’m sure many people have felt that weird sensation/idea.
And some… well, some *do *jump.
I’m seeing that Japan and America have very different cultures besides guns. The United States has more non-gun homicides alone than homicides from all causes in Japan and western Europe combined, despite the latter having a larger population. I did indeed err if I suggested that media violence alone is the cause of shootings, but it certainly doesn’t help. And as for why we don’t do something about “the actual fucking things that are used”, there have been scores of rebuttals that I’ll summarize for you:
- It’s doubtful that a ban would actually prevent people determined to obtain a gun from getting one.
- Even if it could, there are other means of mass murder- perhaps not as efficient and convenient as guns, but deadly enough.
- To obtain the dubious level of “safety” given above would require sacrificing the utility of lawfully owned and used guns; in all probability a net loss.
Well I own a gun and I don’t. Maybe because I’m familiar with the reality of guns instead of the fantasies Hollywood pushes.