WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[AsburySkinsFan]

This right here is why you aren't mature enough to handle this conversation.

And the fact that you routinely ignore actual factual evidence proves why your opinion is a fantasy.
BTW, I am a gun owner, but the last thing I want to do is strap on my cannon and waltz through the frickin' mall.

[PeterMP]

Nobody wants to tackle the real issues like mental health.

I asked you before, what would you do?

You think there's a mental health solution to the problem, this guy was living at home with his mother. She knew he had issues, what would you have done?

What is the mental health solution?

What about Cho, the VT shooter?

Should a guy that made it through 3 years of college and no previous criminal record been locked up because he was approaching graduation?

If you don't have a solution, then possibly we should talk about other solutions.

In terms of self-defense, I asked much earlier in this thread, do you know of a case of self-defense where the out come would have been changed if rifles were limited to single shot pump or bolt action rifles and hand gun magazines were limited to say 6 bullets?

[elkabong82]

And what gun control law would have prevented any of the school shootings, or the myriad of murders that take place using stolen guns?[COLOR="Gold"]

Hilarious!!! Where are local school districts going to get the money to redesign schools? To arm and train teachers in Israeli martial arts... Seriously!!! What color is the sky in ya'lls world?

Well had the mother of the shooter been made better-aware of the correlation between poor mental health and mass shootings, or been required to own a safe and as a result of both was more compelled to keep her guns locked up, or had been made to attend an annual class on safety and proper handling and storage, perhaps the tragedy could have been prevented. This is why I brought up such suggestions and also said that we need to improve gun control, not just simply have more of it.

Perhaps if mental illness screening for all household members was a requirement of purchasing a gun, and such screenings were annual along with mandatory safety meeting, then this kid in Newtown may never of gotten his hands on a gun. Perhaps if we improved early recognition and treatment of mental illness it could have been prevented. There are multiple issues at work here. The entire spectrum of guns and violence prevention needs to be re-thought in this country and newer, practical and at times unique, solutions need to be devised.

My previous post had suggestions for the questions you ask, I wish you had quoted that part and addressed my suggestions.

And I don't think the "hilarious" remark is necessary or even appropriate in this conversation, especially not in response to people trying to come up with solutions instead of sticking simply with "yes guns vs. no guns," which hasn't gotten our society very far in the gun debate.

If people want to take school safety seriously, then money has to be given to that cause. New schools are being built across the country, why can't those have better designs? Teachers can be asked to take lessons on their own time and there can be a class or seminar on this very issue as part of the teacher licensure process, which wouldn't be a significant burden on the colleges training them seeing as most offer martial arts courses anyways.

There are ways to implement safety features, but it requires an open mind and a creative one, not a dismissive one. Heck, even simply improved procedures in the school would help, yet I don't see many folks talking about even that, and money isn't as much of an issue with simple procedure improvements.

[Jumbo]

skinfaninny, I had held this back, but I will go ahead and post it now---you have no room to be chastising anyone given the merit of much of your contributions. And you almost got a week of for the "circle jerk" remark, as did 2v2nv for one of his (and the same another).

You can believe what you want, and I can believe what I want. You can add your little tear jerker at the end, but you still haven't addressed the real issue. You wouldn't have to look into a parent's eyes and tell them their kid died because you owned a gun, unless you were the one that killed the kids or you were stupid enough to leave them laying around to be stolen. Only then is it your fault. The poor kids at Sandy Hook died because mentally ill people are rarely diagnosed or treated in this country. To say otherwise is dishonest and is only trying to achieve an agenda by playing off the emotions and not by real and honest discussion of facts.

I live in Vermont. We have the most liberal gun laws in the country. Anybody that can legally own a gun can carry it open or concealed. By your rule of thumb our streets would be running red with blood but we have one of the lowest murder rates. I live in a rural area with bear and coyote that venture into our yard. It takes the police 45-60 minutes to get to our house. There are occasionally break-ins too because it is a rural area without police protection. Personally I can't imagine allowing my children to be hurt in any way while waiting for the police to arrive. You can give up your guns if you want, but most of us won't. Not unless you're willing to pay for 24/7 police protection for everybody.

I mean if making guns illegal will prevent murder, why don't we just make murder illegal? Oh yeah...

Per your last comment in that post (and touching upon what I was playing with in my previous post) maybe we should loosen up on the drinking and driving over-reactions thanks to MADD,, since we still have thousands of auto deaths each year related to alcohol. Do you realize that the rationale you're using, in the manner you use it, suggests that, and even extends to arguments that laws against murder aren't keeping people from murdering? So what good are they? It's not black or white. It's not all or nothing. It's not stupid (which is what many people are when they want to mean "simple"). It's complex. It's been said numerous times that there is more than one major component to address in dealing with the degree of violence in this culture (and I suggest gun-related violence ais a prominent feature of violence in our culture).

It's also been said numerous times that these are not "all or nothing" situations where discussing possible helpful interventions has to equal a perfect answer before anything is up for negotiation.

Extremists on either side are a part of the problem. And anyone not willing to negotiate between "total ban of private ownership of guns" and "zero added restrictions" on guns is part of the problem. People who keep arguing from a "won't budge an inch from my long-held position" on any side are part of the problem.

For the rest of the quoted post, while I don't think you are stupid, I think you are blind to just how much nonsensical commentary (to use a term other than "stupid") was in your post. See if you can figure out why I highlighted the parts I did and would call them "stupid."

I certainly think "having guns in private homes" is a sure keeper for me, though numbers and types is on the table, as are other aspects. And I feel that way whether someone lives 30 minutes from police response and near wild animals or in a gated community next to a golf course.

I lived in rural Alaska for 25 years and know about shooting bears, but was even happier to own a gun in my travels to Tacoma WA in the 80's. But since you brought that **** up, I am willing to bet that more people were killed in Vermont by privately owned guns, deliberately and accidentally, than were by bears and coyotes.

This thread is past meriting being closed, but I was hoping you guys would move on of your own volition by now.

I am still going to leave it open for now (another mod may close it, as we all have our opinions on it) but mi amigos twa and Asbury---you guys are done in this thread. Period. No need to PM me. Just consider it a late Christmas gift from me to you (and no, you can't exchange it---you're stuck).

skinfaninny, you said you were done, but if you feel a need to "rebut" my comments, go for it---I won't be extending that matter with any replies, and I bear zero ill will of course.

But after you do that (if you do) you're done in the thread, too, as is 2n2vn.




Tomorrow, I hope you can bury your own personal tailgate-related mental health issues as I will mine, and focus on something different for awhile.

[stevemcqueen1]

You are incorrect and need to do a little research. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You are only regurgitating the anti-gun rhetoric that is prevalent in certain circles. There are many countries where the rights to guns are guaranteed by law but have lower homicide rates than ours. In some of those, the non-gun homicide rate is higher than the ones committed with a gun. There are also several countries where guns are illegal but their homicide rates are much higher than ours. It's really not that hard to look this stuff up instead of spreading lies. It is very convoluted and cherry picking a few statistics to suit your argument is disingenuous.

Now I see why so many people have dropped out of this thread. There is a small group of anti-gun folks that seem to repeatedly offer only phrases to trigger emotional responses and outright incorrect information. Nobody wants to tackle the real issues like mental health, they just want to try to browbeat everyone into their own line of thinking because they truly believe guns should be outlawed. Don't tell me that's not what you guys believe as one person tried to because that would be yet another lie. Read your own comments and try to say it with a straight face. I'm out of this one. You guys can go back to your little circle jerk and dream of a day when there are no guns in the world, but I'll go back to reality. Enjoy.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms

&

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

Then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

Then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

Look at the facts for yourself. The US is a total outlier among the developed world. Are the countries you're talking about unstable third world & developing countries without the rule of law? Wouldn't it be cherry picking on your part to consider a place like Honduras or Lesotho a better indicator for the US than developed countries like Canada, the UK, Japan, France, Germany, and every other first world Western democracy?

Just admit your motivations here. You're not interested in facts or reality or truth.

[Jumbo]

steve, edit out your "horse****" insult so you don't get a week off and make that your last post in the thread, too. The other dude can't reply without getting banned, anyway.

I'm done here and with the PMs for now.

If I find any problems tomorrow morning, those involved will get to miss posting on ES for the next week.

[MartinC]

On what grounds will you take away the guns from millions of law abiding gun owners?.

Because it would demonstrably reduce the murder rate in the US. The UK and US are very similar societies in most respects in terms of education, popular culture, access to and use if video games etc etc. One of the major differences is our attitude to and access to guns. It's virtually impossible to legally own a gun in the UK.

There were 58 murders by firearm in the UK in 2011 - most of which were criminals killiing other criminals. Given the population differences that's equivalent to 290 murders in the US. In 2011 the were over 8500 murders by firearm in the US.

That's quite a stark difference and its very hard to explain apart from the prevalence of and access to guns in the US. Guns are not the only problem but they are a big part of it. To me at least looking from the outside in (kind of I spend a lot of time in the US and am likely moving full time to the US sometime in 2013) the problem is clear - the solutions of course as is often the case are far from clear.

---------- Post added December-30th-2012 at 07:24 AM ----------

Even a repeal of the 2nd does not remove the weapons ,care to guess how bloodless that would be?.

Extremely bloodless. There would be a lot of posturing, much nashing of teeth, whole volumes of vitriol written and spoken but actual armed conflict as gun owners defend their guns to the death? Hardly any would be my guess. I would say far less deaths from that than the 8500 a year being murderd in the US under the staus quo.

[stevemcqueen1]

steve, edit out your "horse****" insult so you don't get a week off and make that your last post in the thread, too. The other dude can't reply without getting banned, anyway.

I'm done here and with the PMs for now.

If I find any problems tomorrow morning, those involved will get to miss posting on ES for the next week.

Sorry about that. Happy to comply.

[alexey]

I asked you before, what would you do?

You think there's a mental health solution to the problem, this guy was living at home with his mother. She knew he had issues, what would you have done?

What is the mental health solution?

What about Cho, the VT shooter?
...

I'd say our goals should be to continue removing social stigma from mental disorders, develop social support systems to prevent struggling individuals from being ostracized.

[PeterMP]

It's also been said numerous times that these are not "all or nothing" situations where discussing possible helpful interventions has to equal a perfect answer before anything is up for negotiation.

This is where I'm at with this. Are there reasonable things that we can do where there isn't a reasonable a scenario where the result isn't actually more deaths?

If we take those actions AND couple them with good studies by organizations like the CDC to understand what worked and what didn't AND we end finding a set of policies that actually result in there being fewer REAL killed people, isn't that a good thing?

If we put massive restrictions of the power of the guns and bullets the and number of bullets (in terms of per a magazine) that an individual can buy, is there any reasonable argument by which that will cause more deaths?

Is there any case where even modern "normal" capacity handguns or many of the assualt rifle have actually been required in self-defense by an individual citizen? Is there a case where the situation hasn't been "resolved" (somebody ending up incapacitated, including dead, or somebody fleeing) in the person firing the first 6 shots from a handgun or even fewer from a rifle?

If we do that, yes some people are still going to be murdered and yes some people are still going to die from guns, but I think there is a good chance it would reduce gun deaths, especially in cases like what happened in CT.

[alexey]

So, you're saying that instead of looking for quick fixes and things to blame, we need to analyze this complex situation and put together a multifaceted approach with viable monitoring and correction mechanisms? Sounds great. Good luck with that

[Jumbo]

I take it all even as thinking long term, Peter.

Major social themes that have changed, and are still changing, started with smaller hard-contested battles won with perseverance and often fueled by growing social concern over horrible wrongs---including singular events accumulating and becoming of a more common, personally-experienced, nature. Having both productive and unproductive aspects to its role (linked to POV) media coverage has always been a factor (and is increasingly so) since the early days of newspapers.

Maybe moves some try to take now, in all the arenas under discussion, and that will be strongly resisted (even furiously so) by some, can lead to social evolution that, a century from now, results in both a stronger (not weaker) culture and a less violent one.

I don't see increased non-extreme firearm-related restrictions and better enforcement of existing laws, increased emphasis on care for mental health issues being addressed more effectively, and reasonable social pressure (just pressure) on everything from video games, to all entertainment to news media, for all to self-govern more responsibly and be less dedicated to a sensationally-exploitative-over-the-top-anything-for-a-buck standard, as leading to some weaker and worse-off culture---even if somehow it was successfully pulled off.

Of course, with an uber-free society comes such risk of so many issues as we face, and is a big reason why we have so many laws already. So many people just don't seem to want to "behave well" on their own, and so we also live in one of the most complex and "busy" legal/judicial systems in the world with a huge incarcerated population.

But with most of us (I'd like to say "all") wanting to remain as "uber-free" as possible is good reason why any legal controls used in addressing these matters really should be as judiciously designed and moderate in scope as possible. And done one step at a time, evaluating along the way. And then properly enforced when accepted.

As I will keep noting, the issue of cultural levels of violence is far bigger than "school shootings", though those put a prominent face on it and provoke the kind of emotions often needed for real change. Some people in opposition to change diss the emotional angle, as "it's just the emotions" prompting others to "want to pass laws." This is often done hypocritically, as much such resistance is more emotional based and less rational or logical based, despite pretensions otherwise.

Yet it is emotional (or existential) drives that usually provokes major action with humans. So....

[PeterMP]

I'd say our goals should be to continue removing social stigma from mental disorders, develop social support systems to prevent struggling individuals from being ostracized.

I'm not sure what you mean by ostracized. Do you really want somebody operating openly in society like these people? I suspect ostracization is an evolutionary result of these people first killing people they are close to in many cases. Yes, they might kill a complete stranger, but that is less likely then killing somebody they are close to in some sort of manner. I guess in some cases there is an issue because there is essentially forced associations (e.g. school).

But as twa has pointed out, this guys parents appear to have been pretty wealthy. Is there any evidence they lacked support?

I read the wiki page on Cho and just from that he and his family got lot's of support through the years. Plus, there were undoubtedly some support at Va Tech (at most colleges, students can recieve free counsling and it was suggested that he do so).

In both incidents, the people that were killed would have been better off if the people were further "ostercized" (i.e. institutionalized).

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do more mental health work, but these aren't vets coming home from war, the homeless, or even people that generally come from poor socioeconomic out comes.

Where there are likely real issues with respect to access.

These are people from middle class + house holds that have reasonable access to the healthcare system. These are people where society is battling between over institutionalizing people and respecting their right to privacy and try and live a "normal" life (especially with respect to Cho).

I'm certainly not sure if less ostercization is the issue.

[sacase]

We need better gun control laws and regulations, not necessarily more, but definitely better ones. It doesn't have to be near-impossible to get a gun, but there should be requirements for gun owners that ensure or at least aim to improve, safety, handling, and storage of guns. Like Bang pointed out, many criminals get their guns from home thefts. My solution of requiring gun owners to show proof of owning a safe would at least help because more people would have their guns stored in safes, which would cut down on guns being stolen from the home. There should be more attention on this aspect as well, and people should be told to hide their guns well to help curb down gun thefts.

You are completely correct about socioeconomic stuff, etc. needing a better focus.

Its interesting that you mention this, I was having a conversation with a coworker about this. I said I am not in favor of restricting gun rights at all. In fact, I think that any law abiding American should have the right to own up to the standard combat weapon of a US soldier. I realize most don't agree, but so be it. I said that the one thing that I think that may help and not infringe on gun rights, was requiring certain storage requirements for different types of weapons. I can easily live with having proper storage requirements. If you want to own a combat level rifle then you have to store it in an alarmed safe.

---------- Post added December-30th-2012 at 05:22 PM ----------

That's a lie you have been told and you have believed, if what you say were true then countries that have banned guns wiuld have the same exact murder rates that they did before their ban.....but the fly in your ointment is that they do not.

Actually you are pretty much wrong. Look at Australia



Homicides have pretty much stayed the same. Their gun ban went into effect in 96.

You can see the rest of the statistics. The gun ban actually did very little and homicides caused by guns was already trending down.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

[alexey]

....
I'm certainly not sure if less ostercization is the issue.

Interesting points, I'll have to give it more thought...

I was coming mainly from two angles - in case of Columbine, i think that social problems (and perhaps lack of mating opportunities?) played an important role. So less ostratization may have helped there.

In case of Newtown, having more people involved may have had them raising red flags and suggesting professional evaluation, as well as possibly institutionalization, rather then having mom deciding hey, maybe guns would be a great hobby for my troubled son.


Possible evolutionary value of ostracizing troubled individuals is an interesting angle. That seems to be a natural reaction. However, as you noted, at this point we have institutionalized ostratization, so maybe getting more people in position to influence the decision making process would help. This way we can maybe avoid having single moms hide their violent kids in the basement until they pop.