Newtown CT school shooting memorial thread

[giblets]

kentonio, I am wondering something. Which do you think is worse, 20 deaths from 20 shooters or 20 deaths from one shooter? Just answer the question.

It's obvious which one will create a media circus that will possibly inspire more killings.

[Berzerker]

rip

[Hauldren Collider]

20 deaths from 20 shooters is worse of course, because it means 20 people have murderous intent. I'm confused by why the two have any parallel however. You don't only have people dying in mass shootings, you have an endless stream of individual killings every day.

An excellent point that I was about to make. Why should we let these school shootings affect our public policy? They are almost a rounding error on the overall death rate from firearms. The truth of the matter is that 1) Murders are basically never committed with assault weapons, and 2) there is essentially nothing we can do to prevent these sorts of mass killings. Here's my reasoning for that:

First of all, the kind of monster that would kill 20 people is has a psychology as alien as an actual space alien. It's not worth trying to understand these people, and it is generally a fool's errand to try to identify them beforehand. In my opinion, these sorts of mass killings are like an earthquake or a hurricane--they happen every so often and there's really nothing you can do to stop it. The weapons he actually used to kill people are common handguns that wouldn't be banned under the strictest of plausible gun control measures. Furthermore, I could easily cause just as much carnage in an elementary school with my twin brother's pump-action 12 gauge as I could with a handgun. It would be trivial. The school and children would be defenseless. Since the killers generally commit suicide at the end of their rampage, there is no legal recourse we can use to keep them from doing this. What stops this from happening all the time is the fact that it's really rare to come across a human being so sick and twisted that they think it is okay to do these things.

Now, as for individual killings, almost all of the firearms deaths to children occur when parents shoot their small kids. But only a handful of parent killings of children occur with firearms. Kids are helpless. If a parent decides to kill his or her child, they don't need a gun. You could do it almost as easily with your bare hands. So I think in terms of saving kids' lives, banning firearms is unlikely to do any good at all.

What I want our legislators to do is to recognize the things we can and can't control. We can't control the one or two psychos a year, but there are a lot of other things we can do to prevent kids from dying.

[Krill]

An excellent point that I was about to make. Why should we let these school shootings affect our public policy? They are almost a rounding error on the overall death rate from firearms. The truth of the matter is that 1) Murders are basically never committed with assault weapons, and 2) there is essentially nothing we can do to prevent these sorts of mass killings. Here's my reasoning for that:

The weapons he actually used to kill people are common handguns that wouldn't be banned under the strictest of plausible gun control measures. Furthermore, I could easily cause just as much carnage in an elementary school with my twin brother's pump-action 12 gauge as I could with a handgun. It would be trivial. The school and children would be defenseless. Since the killers generally commit suicide at the end of their rampage, there is no legal recourse we can use to keep them from doing this. What stops this from happening all the time is the fact that it's really rare to come across a human being so sick and twisted that they think it is okay to do these things.

How long a time frame do you consider taking? If it's over the next 50, 75, 100 years, would it not make sense to reconsider banning guns but legalising non lethal weapons ie tasers? You're right that one incidence shouldn't dictate policy but you yourself pointed out the amount of deaths that occur because of guns. Is it worth considering changes now to save future generations, if not this one? The American Constitution has been around for what, almost 10 generations? Yes it defines a culture but cultures change.

Now, as for individual killings, almost all of the firearms deaths to children occur when parents shoot their small kids. But only a handful of parent killings of children occur with firearms. Kids are helpless. If a parent decides to kill his or her child, they don't need a gun. You could do it almost as easily with your bare hands. So I think in terms of saving kids' lives, banning firearms is unlikely to do any good at all.

Saving kids lives from abusive parents is something that social services, mental health professions and law in other areas should be focussed on. It is a separate issue, but it's still one that all cultures struggle with on some level.

First of all, the kind of monster that would kill 20 people is has a psychology as alien as an actual space alien. It's not worth trying to understand these people, and it is generally a fool's errand to try to identify them beforehand. In my opinion, these sorts of mass killings are like an earthquake or a hurricane--they happen every so often and there's really nothing you can do to stop it.

The psychology of these individuals is formed from their life experiences, so if your culture actually focussed on improving access to mental health services for children you could potentially stop some of these scenarios from happening. Either by treating the children or finding out that they are "incurable" and detaining them, but that's something for society to decide on one level or another. As much as socialized medicine has stigma in the US, socialized medicine for mental health is an important decision because part of that decision is the protection of society. Locking someone up because they are crazy but haven't commited a crime is illegal, obviously, but for treatment...Guy, you know about this in the US?

[Hauldren Collider]

How long a time frame do you consider taking? If it's over the next 50, 75, 100 years, would it not make sense to reconsider banning guns but legalising non lethal weapons ie tasers? You're right that one incidence shouldn't dictate policy but you yourself pointed out the amount of deaths that occur because of guns. Is it worth considering changes now to save future generations, if not this one? The American Constitution has been around for what, almost 10 generations? Yes it defines a culture but cultures change.

Nonlethal weapons like tasers are already totally legal. The constitution has nothing to do with what I am saying--although I am of the opinion that while the 2nd amendment is probably anachronistic, we shouldn't trample over it simply because of that fact, and if it is to be repealed, we should use the amendment process. That being said, although it is probably anachronistic, that doesn't mean that its principles are actually bad policy, they may simply just not be worth enshrining in the constitution.

Regardless, gun violence in the US is mostly gang violence. I think legalizing pot would probably do a lot more to bring down the gun violence rate than any gun control measure you could concoct.

Saving kids lives from abusive parents is something that social services, mental health professions and law in other areas should be focussed on. It is a separate issue, but it's still one that all cultures struggle with on some level.

I am all for finding new ways to try to protect kids from parental abuse. Parental abuse is an abomination. But there's only so much we can do. We don't have telescreens. There's no big brother watching us. At some level, we simply can't save everyone.

The psychology of these individuals is formed from their life experiences, so if your culture actually focussed on improving access to mental health services for children you could potentially stop some of these scenarios from happening. Either by treating the children or finding out that they are "incurable" and detaining them, but that's something for society to decide on one level or another. As much as socialized medicine has stigma in the US, socialized medicine for mental health is an important decision because part of that decision is the protection of society. Locking someone up because they are crazy but haven't commited a crime is illegal, obviously, but for treatment...Guy, you know about this in the US?

I don't know nearly enough about psychology to reject your statement that issues like schizophrenia and depression are a product purely of surroundings, though I doubt that is the case. At any rate, as I said earlier, you can only do so much to try to detect these people and their problems. And we have other issues that kill a lot more people. As I have said on this board many times, I want to help the most people, not the most visible people. There are other places we could allocate resources and save many more lives.

[kentonio]

An excellent point that I was about to make. Why should we let these school shootings affect our public policy? They are almost a rounding error on the overall death rate from firearms.

They affect your public policy because they manage to jolt Americans out of their normal apathy. You lose around 10,000 people a year to gun murders and its been going on for so long that no-one seems to think about quite how obscenely remarkable that is in a first world country. Sometimes it takes something like this to make people stop and actually look at what is going on around them.

First of all, the kind of monster that would kill 20 people is has a psychology as alien as an actual space alien. It's not worth trying to understand these people, and it is generally a fool's errand to try to identify them beforehand. In my opinion, these sorts of mass killings are like an earthquake or a hurricane--they happen every so often and there's really nothing you can do to stop it.

Sorry but that's completely wrong. You think the kids at Columbine couldn't have been helped? Mental health issues tend to spiral when the people are left to fend for themselves. Very, very few people are born with no capacity for human empathy, which is why you find many serial killers suffered abuse as children. If people are treated like ****, or left to suffer without help then they sometimes go wildly out of control.

The weapons he actually used to kill people are common handguns that wouldn't be banned under the strictest of plausible gun control measures.

What do you need handguns for? Single shot rifles for hunting, fair enough. Shotguns for vermin control in rural areas, understandable. License them, but banning them isn't necessary. What possible need does anyone but a cop or soldier have for a handgun though?

Furthermore, I could easily cause just as much carnage in an elementary school with my twin brother's pump-action 12 gauge as I could with a handgun.

What the hell do you need a pump action shotgun for? You need to shoot a rabbit 5 or 6 times to make sure it's dead?

What stops this from happening all the time is the fact that it's really rare to come across a human being so sick and twisted that they think it is okay to do these things.

This is where your theory demonstrably falls down. Where are these mass killers in other countries? We know they happen of course, Norway showed that in blinding detail, but in America they happen a LOT. Like, really a ****ing lot. There's been 20 since Virginia Tech just 5 years ago for goodness sake! When this stuff happens in other countries the whole country is shocked to its core. In the US it takes something as bad as the dead being a group of 6 year olds to shake people out of their trance!

What I want our legislators to do is to recognize the things we can and can't control. We can't control the one or two psychos a year, but there are a lot of other things we can do to prevent kids from dying.

It's not about one or two psychos, its about 10,000 deaths a year, with the big mass slayings as just the horribly visible tip of the iceburg.

HP decided to run a headline with the days shooting deaths..

Another Day, More Deaths: Two Police Officers Shot And Killed In Kansas... 3-Year-Old Accidentally Shoots Himself, Dies... Gunman At Large After Shooting Victim 4 Times... Man Shoots Wife... One Person Shot In San Antonio, Gunman Later Shot By Cops... Woman Shot At Campground... Woman Shot To Death, Son 'Thought She Was Sleeping'... 3 Gunned Down In Grand Rapids

That's one day..

[Krill]

I don't know nearly enough about psychology to reject your statement that issues like schizophrenia and depression are a product purely of surroundings, though I doubt that is the case. At any rate, as I said earlier, you can only do so much to try to detect these people and their problems. And we have other issues that kill a lot more people. As I have said on this board many times, I want to help the most people, not the most visible people. There are other places we could allocate resources and save many more lives.

I'm currently trying to procrastinate to not write a sociology/psychology essay, but I'm writing the same points here. Not all mental health issues are purely biological in origin, there are causes based on society as well: it's one of the reasons that there is a higher prevalence of certain mental health issues in people with lower socioeconomic status. The problems only start to arise when you realise it's this group that can't access services and that it's this group that has more of those issues...and there is more people in this area in societies (not just western societies) than there are rich people able to afford a shrink.

That said, for some people depression can be caused purely because of society, the iconic example being the rape victim who becomes pregnant, can't abort the foetus and becomes depressed and suicidal. I'm not saying that all cases have no biological causes, just that it does happen.

[regexcellent]

They affect your public policy because they manage to jolt Americans out of their normal apathy. You lose around 10,000 people a year to gun murders and its been going on for so long that no-one seems to think about quite how obscenely remarkable that is in a first world country. Sometimes it takes something like this to make people stop and actually look at what is going on around them.

So we should ban high capacity magazines because of a bunch of people that are killed with guns that don't use high capacity magazines?

The "assault weapons ban" proposed would not affect the guns used in around 99% of gun murders.

Not that any gun control would but that rule in particular is retarded.

[Berzerker]

those 2 cops were our local finest

[regexcellent]

What the hell do you need a pump action shotgun for? You need to shoot a rabbit 5 or 6 times to make sure it's dead?

I missed this
As opposed to what other kind of shotgun? A break-action? Those things suck, and besides which most of them can't fire slugs.


I'm still hung up on where you think "need" is the appropriate word in this context. This isn't the ****ing soviet union; items are not distributed to people based on their need. Construct a reason that he need not have it.

[BlackCat]

Regardless, gun violence in the US is mostly gang violence.

Dream on : FBI

[Tuberski]

Originally Posted by HPAnother Day, More Deaths: Two Police Officers Shot And Killed In Kansas... 3-Year-Old Accidentally Shoots Himself, Dies... Gunman At Large After Shooting Victim 4 Times... Man Shoots Wife... One Person Shot In San Antonio, Gunman Later Shot By Cops... Woman Shot At Campground... Woman Shot To Death, Son 'Thought She Was Sleeping'... 3 Gunned Down In Grand Rapids

Scarily enough, two of those happened near me and my family... in different states.

ACK!

[-Jrabbit]

I used to be a gun owner. Then I had a family.

Statistically, the odds of successfully raising your child to adulthood go WAY up if you don't have firearms in the home. So I got rid of my rifle and pistol.
My daughter is now 24. I can't say I miss my guns, nor have I ever "needed" them.

[Felch]

They affect your public policy because they manage to jolt Americans out of their normal apathy. You lose around 10,000 people a year to gun murders and its been going on for so long that no-one seems to think about quite how obscenely remarkable that is in a first world country. Sometimes it takes something like this to make people stop and actually look at what is going on around them.

Basing policy on emotionally charged black swan events is stupid.

What do you need handguns for? Single shot rifles for hunting, fair enough. Shotguns for vermin control in rural areas, understandable. License them, but banning them isn't necessary. What possible need does anyone but a cop or soldier have for a handgun though?

Handguns are compact and easy to carry, while still giving you the firepower you need to defend yourself.

What the hell do you need a pump action shotgun for? You need to shoot a rabbit 5 or 6 times to make sure it's dead?

Pump action shotguns are cheap, reliable, and powerful tools of self-defense.

It's not about one or two psychos, its about 10,000 deaths a year, with the big mass slayings as just the horribly visible tip of the iceburg.

HP decided to run a headline with the days shooting deaths..

That's one day..

Which is why we need handguns, pump action shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles to defend ourselves. We live a rock and roll lifestyle.

[-Jrabbit]

Why not just admit that, really, at the heart of it, you just LIKE GUNS?

Claiming you "need" firearms for self-defense is stupid. How often does that really happen in your "lifestyle"?
"Oh, I'm off to the mall and they're having a sale. Better pack heat!"
I mean seriously, are people lining up to invade your home? WTF do you have there that's so valuable? And why not just move away from these evil invaders?