How about the shootout at the Clackamas Mall. A concealed carry firearms owner displayed his firearm but didn’t shoot. Apparently he didn’t need to. The monster’s next shot killed himself. I think that solved something.
The shooting last week at the mall in Clackamas, Oregon has been overshadowed by the tragedy that unfolded Friday morning at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. In Oregon two innocent human beings lost their lives, but perhaps the carnage would have been worse if not for Nick Meli, who has a concealed carry permit and was in the mall when the gunman opened fire. Meli pulled his weapon, but did not shoot the gunman because there were bystanders who could have been injured. The gunman saw Meli, an armed citizen, and rather than shoot more innocents he pointed his weapon at himself.
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
We’re talking school shooters, or the broader category of people who just snap and start mowing down perfect strangers, seemingly for no reason. People like that exist everywhere, have probably existed since the burning bush - but America looks to have more of them by a large margin these days, even factoring population size. Is it because y’all are more crazy ? Or because your crazies have easy access to things that enables going postal in that specific way that other countries by and large do not ?
[/QUOTE]
So…we are talking about an extremely rare event that has relatively few, though emotionally high, numbers of actual victims…yes? As to whether we have more crazy people, I’d say that instead it’s a difference in how we snap when we do. In Japan, to get back to my earlier point, they don’t snap by going out and killing a bunch of random strangers. Instead, they focus inwardly and go the self destruction route. Result…more suicides, less folks going nuts and shooting up a school. Cultural difference. In Europe, they also have less guns, thus less gun violence…but they have a much higher incidents of alcohol accidents, injuries and deaths compared to population levels. Again, cultural differences in how Europeans snap verse how Americans do. Result…lots more random deaths caused by alcohol in Europe than in the US. It all balances out IMHO.
very slowly And there have been many digressions in this thread going along many different paths, so your attempt to say we need to focus only on the topic of the thread is laughable.
very, very slowly I can understand why you’d want to just focus on that however. I’ve already addressed the actual OP earlier, if you want to go and look.
Doorhinge, you without fail call these people “the monster.” Does that help you? Seems kind of simplistic and circular to me, but I suppose that’s the point.
XT, can you really, honestly not think of any reason why Japan might have a higher rate of suicides?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
XT, can you really, honestly not think of any reason why Japan might have a higher rate of suicides?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, I can think of several…as I can think of several reasons the US has a higher number of gun deaths. And I freely concede that the US has that higher rate because we have more freedom of ownership of firearms to countries such as Japan or most European countries. It’s a price we pay for that freedom of ownership, and I again freely concede that to some the price is too high.
My point in all of this is, again, to try and get people to look rationally at the numbers and actual risks. Things like what happened at this school in Connecticut were certainly tragic. But they are also rare. I see people seriously over-reacting to this because at a visceral level is IS horrifying. But to ‘prevent school shootings’ is something that would cost much, much more than the risk justifies.
I’m not opposed to gun regulation or tighter regulations/closing loopholes. I can see how that balances with societies needs. Where I start drawing the line is either with stupid, silly regulations that will have zero effect on the problem but look and feel good (such as the AWB, which is being discussed for possible reimplementation) or completely over the top responses…i.e. let’s get ride of the 2nd Amendment, let’s ban all guns, etc etc.
This same argument could be applied to acts of terrorism. Should the country, following 9/11, have said ‘oh well, nothing to be done about that’. The visceral level then was horrifying then too, and it resulted in the Afghan war and countless new security measures. However, logically no particular person was in any great danger of being killed by Bin Laden. We really could have done nothing and saved ourselves a lot of trouble. But is that the right way to respond to things? Maybe Bin Laden would have taken out a few hundred more people a few years later - but as many pro gun people say the numbers are small compared to the total population.
If something is truly horrifying at a visceral level - like the slaughter of 20 small children in their classroom - then that is something serious. It is not over-reacting to treat it seriously. Much of this country is having trouble digesting this news - many parents fear the same thing could happen to their children. And I personally hope something, like effective gun regulation, is done about it as something was done after 9/11. I don’t agree with everything that was done after 9/11, but it is better to do something than nothing.
I’m asking you if ritualistically using the term “the monster” is some kind of coping strategy that helps you to understand or compartmentalize this.
It seems to me that gun advocates treat many concepts as dichotomous categories. This kid is not to be pitied, and his acts are not defensible. But as much as you’d like to pretend otherwise, he was just a guy with a gun.
I see there’s a lot of talk-- some in this thread-- that mental health is the true issue behind school shootings. Frankly, some of it sounds like attempts to cloud the actual issue.
Seems to me that in order to prevent or at least monitor gun possession by those with mental health problems, you’d have to infringe on the current rights of the ordinary gun owner. Guns would have to be tracked, which suggests registration. I know some states-- any why this is done at the state level is confusing, when those who oppose improvements to gun control point to a federal document-- do not require registration. Wouldn’t a national registration system be the first step in implementing a program to prevent the possession of firearms by persons known to have mental health problems?
And yet guns are the weapons of choice for spree killers. Why? We don’t half a dozen people bomb malls and schools every year?
You’re wrong about this. Some of their pipe bombs worked, some didn’t. Like I said, making your own bombs is dangerous and not easy. And not a single person in Columbine was killed by a pipe bomb. They were all shot to death. I’m not sure a single Columbine victim was even injured by a pipe bomb.
But he didn’t bomb the movie theater. He walked in with a gun and started shooting. And I agree that your insistence on calling these people monsters is getting kind of absurd; you’re not achieving some kind of moral victory here. In fact you’re sort of implying they are superpowered.
Most schools have more than one entrance or exit. And there are almost 100,000 public schools in the U.S. Grab a calculator and figure out how much that’s going to cost.
I’m not seeing how that is different from what I wrote. If those studies haven’t been done, make sure they’re done. If the recommendations are sensible, well researched, and not totally draconian, news outlets will adopt them. Getting the government into the business of shaming the press is a bad idea.
No what we should have said is “Let’s require locks on all cockpit doors.” That, plus paying a bit more attention to intelligence reports, was all that was needed.
Instead we ran around in hysterics, and as a result got Gitmo, the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, and at least one completely unnecessary war (the necessity of the Afghanistan war is debatable, but there’s simply no excuse for Iraq). Frankly I wish we HAD done nothing in the aftermath of 9/11 rather than what we did do; we’d be better off now.
No it is horrifying. The two words are not synonyms. Something can be horrifying without being serious , and something can be serious without being horrifying.
“First, do no harm.” That’s a cornerstone of my profession.
It is not true that doing something is always better than doing nothing. Doing something can sometimes lead to making things worse. It’s only better to do something if you can be reasonably sure your actions will actually help with the problem you’re trying to address.
Emotionally-driven legislation usually doesn’t work out well.
Outside of fiction, what can be horrifying without being serious? Are you saying mass shooting isn’t serious?
So we shouldn’t ever make any changes if emotions will be involved?
Realistically, emotionally-driven legislation is about the only kind that we actually get. After several years the two parties can’t even agree on budget/taxes without it being an emotional drive to the ‘fiscal cliff’. It takes a lot of emotion from voters to get congress to do anything. Therefore now is the time to enact new gun regulations. Later, if years go by without any major gun related incidents then it will be the time for pro gunners to try to lobby for a relaxing of those laws. That is how this country actually ticks.
Go ahead, defend his actions. I’d like to read how you do it.
He murdered his mother. He murdered 26 other people. He killed himself. How do you defend that?
And no, it’s not some kind of ritualistic coping strategy. I believe these mass murders (aka monsters) want notoriety. No one is stopping you from giving it to them by repeating their names over and over as often as possible. But why do you want me to do the same? What’s in it for you?
I read that to be one half of his dichotomous categories. -
“… *dichotomous categories. This kid is not to be pitied, and his acts are not defensible.” *
Maybe Hentor the Barbarian can provide more detail?
So, getting back to my use of the term “monster” to describe mass murderers, do I have your permission to use the term “monster” or do I have to use the mass murderers proper name? Or is it my choice?
