Absolutely, sammielee. The hypocrisy is astounding. Your 'solution'is simply a very obvious agenda. You arenwilling to tolerate a much higher death rate for your convenience.
Who or what is to blame for the Newtown CT shooting?
by BreathoftheIndianNose 62 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sammielee24
I have no freaking clue what the h$ll you are talking about EP nor do I especially care. It's Christmas. A bunch of little kids won't sit open the gifts under the tree - if you think that having 100 armed guards inside that school would have been the answer, then have at it. I don't care. That is a cop out. That sort of action simply allows one to avoid civilized dialogue around the real issues - but if that's your bubble, live in it. No matters to me. I don't have any agenda - at all. You must. Who knows? sammieswife
-
EntirelyPossible
Emotional arguments making stuff up and going on a screed is exactly why cooler heads need to be involved. Thanks for that demonstration.
-
tornapart
Maybe he had bad parenting. Maybe he spent a childhood getting what he wanted when he wanted it. He was allowed to play violent video games. His parents didn't have a clue what he was up to. He had acess to guns in a society where everyone has them. Violent movies and video games were easily available and made him believe that life is easy come easy go, it's not real. He had no role models to show him anything different. He saw a society where self is the most important person, it doesn't matter about anyone else. Was he taught any values? Was he taught manners? Was he taught to think of others? Who knows? If he had a mental health problem, did anyone really care?
-
sammielee24
No emotional argument here. Have at it. sammieswife.
-
EntirelyPossible
Be honest with yourself, at least, about the emotional arguments you were making. Dishonesty is no basis for a discussion.
-
tenyearsafter
I'll repost from a comment I made on another thread:
Though there is no real reason for the general populace to have so-called assault weapons, they are not the same as the "real" automatic assault weapons the military use. The ban on "assault" weapons is a red herring in the greater argument of gun violence...what to do about the estimated 350,000,000 guns already in ciculation? The Australian "buy back" option has been bantered around...that would not likely be effective in the U.S. since so many guns are unregistered and thus "don't exist". The criminals will not sell back their guns, so that would leave only legally obtained guns owned by law abiding citizens. Sure, some of these legal guns are used by shooters like Adam Lanza, but the majority of gun crime is just that...criminals with illegally obtained guns, they aren't legally allowed to possess, commiting crimes against others.
The greater question is, how can we prevent this type of madness? The vast majority of these mass shooter incidents involve individuals with some form of mental illness. What have we as a country done to treat and help the very individuals we viilianize after the fact when these incidents occur? The guns are the tools of this insanity, but I would venture to say that if no guns were available, these mentally ill individuals would use some other type of weapon to commit their savagery. (ie: the Chinese mass school stabbing incidents) Let's treat the cause, not the effect!
As to armed police/security in schools and public places, this is not a new concept. Many places in the world utilize that option...check out any airport in Europe. Israel had a huge problem with school attacks...until they put armed security in every school. Is this a solution...NO!...but it is a defense until a better answer can be implemented. As a police officer myself, I can assure you that a police officer onsite could have made a difference at Sandy Hook. An article about Columbine having a deputy onsite was posted. The deputies at Columbine did what they were trained to do at the time...wait for back-up and secure a perimeter. Today, all police are trained in the "active shooter" scenario, which is to immediately enter and stop the shooter (read that to mean "kill" the shooter). Would they stop all killing of innocents?...no, but it would stop the kind of wholesale slaughter as seen at Sandy Hook.
There is no easy answer to this...certainly not the lame NRA response, but neither is the Feinstein ban or other gun control laws being proposed as knee jerk reactions. We totally ignore the mental health issues while righteously making guns the villians. I wish I had an answer to the problem of how we handle the plethora of weapons already in circulation...I have read nothing posted on this subject so far that would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy.
Therein lies all of our challenge...
-
tenyearsafter
Do first person shooter video games, violent movies or music cause these mass shootings?...no. I do believe that if a person with mental illness, especially "schizophrenia" or personality disorder, is immersed in the violent culture of any of these types of media, they could possibly be triggered to cross the line between fantasy and reality. Common sense would indicate that if people with personality disorders can be influenced by "inner" voices, external stimuli could be a culprit as well. Just sayin'...
-
RubaDub
The shooter was responsible.
It only makes sense. Guns, bombs, tanks, grenades, military fighter jets and other weapons of war do not kill people. People kill people.
It's strange to me that here in the USA that we as citizens don't have easy access to some of this weaponry since they don't harm people.
Rub a Dub
-
TD
Besty,
The US has 15x per capita gun ownership, yet 74x per capita gun homicide. (compared to the land of the free, aka the United Kingdom)
Do you think that represents a vertical movement in the total number of killings, a lateral movement in the way in which killings occur or a diagonal vector of some sort?
Has enacting laws so strict that this laughable little piece of trade show schwag is illegal enough that its possession could land me in jail reduced violent crime in the U.K. overall?
