Criminal Deeds

[FireIceTalon]

People are the root of all evil, and they disgust me.

This is philosophical Christian folklore, grounded on the idealistic premise that people are inherently sinful creatures and therefore prone to do evil things (and what is evil anyway? This is a somewhat emotive and subjective term to use in any discussion about the nature of our social being). It has no relevance or any use to explaining the rationality behind human actions. Not to mention, it paints our species with a rather broad brush. The children killed in this tragedy were people - are they the root of all "evil" in your opinion, and do they disgust you?

People's nature and behavior are very much largely determined by their social and cultural environment, and by current economic and political conditions or other material factors. Some people disgust me, but more than anything, the capitalistic system and its religious like overtones are far more repulsive to me.

[DeeBye]

Nice strawman argument there.

I'm not sure how you call that a "strawman argument". You suggested that creating tougher laws won't work, because people like this will ignore the law anyways. I've seen this argument used a lot, and I disagree with it. Rape is illegal, yet people are raped every day. Should we not have strict anti-rape laws because rapists will ignore the law anyways?

Perhaps when you start using your head for something other than a hat rack, I'll start reading your posts again on a regular basis, and perhaps (gasp!) even take them seriously.

I sometimes use my head to display my sunglasses too.

[Jenjan]

I agree that a gun is a tool. That they, by themselves, are not the problem.

Humans are fallible creatures. In our moments of weakness we make mistakes. Depending on the means available to us at those times, those mistakes can be amusing anecdotes, or they can be national tragedies.

Guns may not be the problem, but removing them from the equation would be a solution.

[FireIceTalon]

I agree that a gun is a tool. That they, by themselves, are not the problem.

Humans are fallible creatures. In our moments of weakness we make mistakes. Depending on the means available to us at those times, those mistakes can be amusing anecdotes, or they can be national tragedies.

Guns may not be the problem, but removing them from the equation would be a solution.

Yea, good luck with that. Won't ever happen. Ever.

[Kevin]

I agree that a gun is a tool. That they, by themselves, are not the problem.

Humans are fallible creatures. In our moments of weakness we make mistakes. Depending on the means available to us at those times, those mistakes can be amusing anecdotes, or they can be national tragedies.

Guns may not be the problem, but removing them from the equation would be a solution.

I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought with the rest of my posts. I'm fairly convinced that removing them from the equation will make things safer overall, though it will certainly make certain situations worse. A large part of my point is that guns increase the severity of an action, be it an assault, accident, or defense. I also tend to say that money can't buy you happiness but it certainly can grease the wheels of the vehicle that gets you there.

But I also think that removing guns is treating a symptom, admittedly an acute symptom, but still a symptom. There is value in treating the symptom and perhaps you need to before you can treat the cause.

Of course the cause will never fully be cured, despite what some ideologues might say, human nature is more than just societal pressure. There is experimental, as well as case study of isolated societies, within the field of evolutionary psychology that are fairly convincing.

Societal pressure can certainly over ride it (the classic prison guard, and 3rd Wave experiments are often pointed to), but we have genetically based behaviors, that lead us to form similar societal norms over and over again. Those traits are also why certain things can shape attitudes and behaviors, why "brainwashing" can work.

But it's not simple, nothing involving the human brain is. Some of that base nature can have quite a few societal expressions, but we tend towards things because they helped the species survive back when natural pressures were still forcing evolutionary changes (I know a controversial statement, but we don't have many selective processes happening to us, though overpopulation is starting to create some new ones but this is all very tangential to my point). Some people, regardless of what form society takes, will not cope with it well, be it being wired differently, or be it being exposed to things that created certain neural pathways. Nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive, and while that makes isolating factors frustrating, it's odd to me that so many people want to make it an either/or proposition.

The practicality of removing guns from a society, especially the US society, are not simple, the effects of doing so are not clear, and with a large disenfranchised population (how many people do we have in prison?) the transitional period could be very painful, and potentially bad enough to have many devastating and wide spread unintended consequences. The final result, I think, would be much better though, I just don't see a nice path to get there right now.

Now after we solve other issues, or at least alleviate them, I think we would have a much nicer pathway to taking care of the gun violence issue, due in part to it starting to take care of itself thanks to fixing, or removing some of the pressure of, the root causes. But I could be very wrong. I won't oppose trying to regulate or remove many of the guns from out society, I just won't push for it at this time.

[eppie]

Nomad

I don't understand your point here. Also in countries where the public is not allowed to have guns, certain job groups are allowed.

---

If you look at the statistics on the per capita murder rate, there is no clear cut answer to this question. For example, New York and Alaska have virtually the same murder rate per capita, while New York has strict gun laws and Alaska has much looser gun laws.

This is strange when you know that Alaska is full of criminal gangs.
The Wasilla Crips, the Anchorage bloods.
I think it was a very good comparison that was made here.

---

EDIT: And my heart, mind, and soul whole-heartily goes out to the families of the Connecticut shooting. I actually teared up listening to the news this morning. Such sick people. I really wish that mother f-er didn't kill himself! What a chicken-shit way to go! He should face his crimes in a court of law. God, I can't even think about it, getting so upset!

I understand your anger, but this guy was clearly insane. Do you seriously think that someone who would kill 20 children would be scared off by a prison sentence? I think you really have a very simplified view on things.

Punishment is not the issue here, it is changing your society in such a way (and this requires investments so higher taxes) that mentally very unstable people are treated and helped before they do such a thing. The same thing happened in Holland a year ago where a scrizofrenic guy for some reason had a licence to own a few guns.

Someone like this should not be allowed near guns. So if social services see a person like this it means that his mother is also not allowed to have guns in her house.

[eppie]

Nice strawman argument there.

Perhaps when you start using your head for something other than a hat rack, I'll start reading your posts again on a regular basis, and perhaps (gasp!) even take them seriously.

Don't be such a moron FIT. Have you stopped to think just for two seconds before you posted this? Probably not because else you would know Deebye was being sarcastic.

---

You cannot undo the wicked by punishing the good.

Nomad

And will you be heading the ministry that decides who is wicked and who is good?

The ease of killing is for sure a very important factor here and needs to be taken into account. I read that in Holland every year a few 100 (maybe 1000) people commit suicide. We just had two cases of people who were constantly bullied. I am sure that a percentage of these kinds of people (maybe 5%) would consider going out with a blow. So if only it would be easy to get your hands on some guns we would see this thing happening more often for sure.

Again, the cause is not the gun (the cause is people being bullied or people have serious mental issues) but they do surely facilitate things a lot. Getting a gun is a great tool if you are angry at the world, but going around and trying to stab your classmates (with a more or less 0 chance you will be killed yourself so instead of going out with a bang you spend the rest f your life in prison) is not really an option for most except the craziest few.

[eppie]

If you remove guns from the equation, yes, you get more injuries than deaths in cases like this. But it is my belief that this will be offset by more crimes and more deaths elsewhere.

I think you will have less crimes and deaths elsewhere. Murder rates in New York keep dropping for example. It is not impossible to get a gun, just more difficult.

Don't stop at background checks, enforce educational courses for gun owners and purchasers that must be retaken every couple of years.

I think the redneck faction of NRA supporters will not be happy about this. Education??? terrible.

---

Guns may not be the problem, but removing them from the equation would be a solution.

Yea, good luck with that. Won't ever happen. Ever.
[/quote]

Well it works pretty fine in many countries.

[Occhidiangela]

People's lives destroyed by media frenzy and a government using their loss, their grief, to fuel anti gun legislation. Guns are bad! We need more and stricter laws! Few realize the issue isn't guns. That laws and regulations won't solve anything. Fewer still actually care I suspect.

...

This whole thing reeks, and my guts are churning from the stench. My condolences for the victims and their loved ones, I'm sorry for your loss, and for the fact your dead will become martyrs for what is in my opinion, another evil. So Lurkers, what do you think? How would the anti gun push affect you and your friends or family? What is your opinion on the situation?

You assert that guns are not the issue, and that regulation would not help. Is it true? I don't believe it is.

The United States has overwhelmingly higher levels of gun ownership (especially small gun ownership) than comparable countries, and also much higher murder rates, especially for domestic disputes involving firearms. Widespread small-arm ownership also leads to widespread gun theft, which increases the availability of black-market firearms to criminals. It also makes regulation path-dependent. If you prevent guns from flooding the streets in the first place, gun control is more effective at preventing crime. If guns are already widely available, then it takes a long time to remove firearms from illegal circulation, and so gun control is less effective.

I think the correct comparisons are with international statistics, not anecdotes - and between countries roughly comparable with the US (Canada? UK?) rather than China. There will always be tragedies that put one or another topic in the news, but this is not a sane way to make policy.

-Jester

Sweden, what a paradise of gun laws that protect its people from murder. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out, did it?

We have gun laws, Jester. Lots of them. We also have a society that produces a number of loonies.

If that's to dangerous for you, stay away.

There are enough loonies in this country that people arm themselves as a precaution. You blame the arrow, but I blame the Indian.

Read.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList...d=25&id=21

The NRA have been keeping track of this sort of thing since before I ever thought to join them back in the 80's. I remember reading vignettes of this sort back then. I let my NRA membership drop for nearly 20 years. I rejoined back in 2009. Might have been a mistake, as its political lobby, the NRA-ILA won't stop sending me junk mail asking for money.

[eppie]

There are enough loonies in this country that people arm themselves as a precaution. You blame the arrow, but I blame the Indian.

I understand why you want to think like this, but when talking about the massacre this thread is about I can't help but wonder, how you fit this into your reasoning.

So somehow it was good that it is legal to own guns in Connecticut because like that people can defend themselves......so I am sure you agree with me that not much defending happened untill police arrived.

Again I want to state that although not agreeing with them, I respect your gun laws (because it is just a case of which liberty you regard most important) but in this case your reasoning is just completely flawed.

Or do you actually inted there need to be MORE guns in the public space? Maybe 6 year olds and their teacher should start wearing guns as well?

[Taem]

EDIT: And my heart, mind, and soul whole-heartily goes out to the families of the Connecticut shooting. I actually teared up listening to the news this morning. Such sick people. I really wish that mother f-er didn't kill himself! What a chicken-shit way to go! He should face his crimes in a court of law. God, I can't even think about it, getting so upset!

I understand your anger, but this guy was clearly insane. Do you seriously think that someone who would kill 20 children would be scared off by a prison sentence? I think you really have a very simplified view on things.

Punishment is not the issue here, it is changing your society in such a way (and this requires investments so higher taxes) that mentally very unstable people are treated and helped before they do such a thing. The same thing happened in Holland a year ago where a scrizofrenic guy for some reason had a licence to own a few guns.

Someone like this should not be allowed near guns. So if social services see a person like this it means that his mother is also not allowed to have guns in her house.

Your right, I am mad. I feel that inhumane bastard deserves to be tried in a court of law, so he could see the damage he's done, and feel responsible and the remorse involved. He took the easy way out and that is what upsets me so much! I'd rather he was killed by police even than shot himself in the head.

As to the rest, of course what you say has merit, but what if the boy/man didn't even live with his mother so she owned the guns without any issue and he just went over her house, killed her, and took the guns? You're essentially making the same argument as Nomad here for pro-gun, but without a real argument. Nomad came up with some good points for pro-gun in the second part.

And how do you feel people should be "treated"? Who is to judge who needs help and who does not? In recent years, they [officials] will check your facebook page to see if you've made threatening comments lately, but if you aren't displaying any outward signs of being mentally unfit, how'd anyone know who really needs help or not? As was the case in Columbine, those two boys weren't insane by any definable clinical standards (at least, not until they pulled the trigger), but rather mad at their peers. Emotional, hormonal boys who needed guidance, but who would have known? And even if physicians do see someone in time, they do make mistake too:

Martha Mitchell Effect

I don't know how reliable this source is, but if it's too be believed, then is seems political dissidents are sometimes institutionalized even today, implying that if the state or feds had more power to institutionalize people, they would undoubtedly abuse this power:

governments-indefinitely-detaining-citizens-in-psychiatric-wards-without-due-process-of-law

Case and point, I do agree that we as a society could do more to help people with morality, I've been saying this for years on these boards, but I don't know the correct way to do it, and I feel putting the power into the states or feds hands could and would lead to political abuse of the system.

[FireIceTalon]

I have to agree with eppie here. This guy's crime was horrible, probably one of the most heinous that one could do, but implementing inhumane draconian laws isn't the ultimate solution either. In rare cases like this, where the person is clearly off his rocker and rehabilitation is not an option, they need to be isolated from the vast majority of society, but in a more humane way. I could see why people would want this guy dead, and there was a time, even very recently, when I would have said the same thing - but ive given this kind of issue some thought and I just don't think our draconian law system works that great or discourages such things in the long run (maybe to some extent in the short run, but the long run is more important). Even for many lesser offenses, like drug cases, many people who go to prison come out much worse than when they went in. Our system is designed based on individual cases and it attacks symptoms, and not causes, because the system itself IS the cause. Making tighter gun laws isn't the solution either - I'm from Los Angeles, a place with VERY strict gun laws, and we have some of the highest crime in the nation. And that isn't because there is a lack of guns or a lot of guns - its because there is a high population density combined with a very high rate of social and economic inequality, and poverty. If society was more egalitarian and more humane, i.e. not capitalist, we would see much less of this type of shit (and much less of alot of what ails our society in general) - guaranteed. You have to change society first before you can expect people to change, period. Draconian justice systems don't make people better, and in fact, they arguably make the problem worse.

[eppie]

Your right, I am mad. I feel that inhumane bastard deserves to be tried in a court of law, so he could see the damage he's done, and feel responsible and the remorse involved. He took the easy way out and that is what upsets me so much! I'd rather he was killed by police even than shot himself in the head.

MEat, I am sorry I have to say this to another valued member of the lounge but you clearly not understanding what is the situation here.
Do you seriously think someone who killed 20 children would 'see the light' if he would be taken to court?
When you kill 20 children you are completely insane, and you don't have feelings the same way you and I have.

As to the rest, of course what you say has merit, but what if the boy/man didn't even live with his mother so she owned the guns without any issue and he just went over her house, killed her, and took the guns? You're essentially making the same argument as Nomad here for pro-gun, but without a real argument. Nomad came up with some good points for pro-gun in the second part.

I think here you are at least a bit closer to getting it yourself. Of course no social program or law will prevent these things from happening 100%, but the situation right now in the US is far from perfect.
You have (as a generally very individual, low tax, everyone for himself society) very little tools in place to help people with heavy social issues (be it suicidal, be it mental disease, be it rough childhood or whatever) and you mix that with a widespread availability of guns.
The choice is just up to you.....do you want to be able to punish the shit out of a few of these mental cases, or do you want to prevent these things from happening, say 50 % less? True, the social, psychological route is a bit left wing and sissy, but it will diminish the amount of innocent victims.

And how do you feel people should be "treated"? Who is to judge who needs help and who does not?

I was thinking about people who studied for these kinds of things....but maybe that is just me talking crazytalk. (psychologists, sociologists etc.)

In recent years, they [officials] will check your facebook page to see if you've made threatening comments lately, but if you aren't displaying any outward signs of being mentally unfit, how'd anyone know who really needs help or not?

Again, you will not be able ever to stop these kind of things all together....all I am for is trying to make this happen a lot less.

As was the case in Columbine, those two boys weren't insane by any definable clinical standards (at least, not until they pulled the trigger), but rather mad at their peers. Emotional, hormonal boys who needed guidance, but who would have known? And even if physicians do see someone in time, they do make mistake too:

There were signs, that I agree are difficult to see before anything happened, but suicidal teens is actually a very big issue, something that happens a lot. And if you have the type that a part from being incredibly unhappy is also mad at a group of people he or she blames for this unhappiness and you combine that with availability of effective and very unpersonal tools of death something like this can happen. You don't have to have a PhD in psychology to be able to see this behavior.....but of course you need to be there....with which I mean if schools take e.g. bullying seriously and are very active in helping student who are going through rough times you would actually be able to prevent out some of these cases (indeed some of these...maybe 10 %, maybe 20%, maybe 50%...so everybody can decide for himself how much tax money this is worth for him)

Case and point, I do agree that we as a society could do more to help people with morality, I've been saying this for years on these boards, but I don't know the correct way to do it, and I feel putting the power into the states or feds hands could and would lead to political abuse of the system.

I don't completely see what you mean with morality here (maybe it is because I don't get the finesse of the language), but I don't see how you would connect supporting people with mental illness to political abuse.

I mean if you really think that way and trust your government so little I would emigrate if I were you.

---

I have to agree with eppie here.

Thanks but I didn't exactly mean what you thought.

I am not saying that this killer didn't deserve to die.
Even if he did this while not knowing what he was doing it would for many reason be better that he would get a death penalty.....but this is not the case.

My point was about meat assuming that someone who commits a, as you said it correct, a crime so heinous it is almost unbelievable being susceptible for any type of reason such as in a trial in court or so.

Apart from asking for a punishment doesn't do anything to get these kids back, it also doesn't do anything to prevent comparable crimes or making some kind of point to someone (the killer, the parents of the kids, the public).
A case like this is just so terrible that the only sane reaction from anyone should be to ask how we can prevent this as much as possible.

[Taem]

Case and point, I do agree that we as a society could do more to help people with morality, I've been saying this for years on these boards, but I don't know the correct way to do it, and I feel putting the power into the states or feds hands could and would lead to political abuse of the system.

I don't completely see what you mean with morality here (maybe it is because I don't get the finesse of the language), but I don't see how you would connect supporting people with mental illness to political abuse.

I mean if you really think that way and trust your government so little I would emigrate if I were you.

NOTE: SORRY TO DO THIS, BUT I HEAVILY EDITED THIS AFTER SOME THOUGHT! IT SAYS ROUGHLY THE SAME THING, BUT IS MUCH CLEARER AFTER MY EDIT; REGARDS

Lol, no I trust my government, maybe too much ! In regards to what I was saying about power is that power will be abused. I do trust the states and feds to a degree, but I don't want them to have the power to declare me insane because of my political point of views; and what does this have to do with the shooter and reform you ask? I have a fear of loosing my freedoms unjustly, and what I fear more than the current system is a system where, to try and pinpoint psychopathic behavior before it becomes a problem, we have to closely monitor everyone's actions, everything they type or say. I can't really fathom any solution your presenting in which a social system can "predict" psychological instability by simply "watching" them, and if they "feel" there is a problem, stepping in. That seems more like a fantasy than the link I presented IMO.

So in regards to helping people who have problems, what I've always advocated is teaching children - from first grade all the way to 12th grade - the correctness of right versus wrong; "you see a kitty with a broken arm stuck in a drain, do you, a) call for help, b) try and push it down the drain so it can hopefully get free later on, c) walk away and forget about it, or d) kill it so it won't have to suffer anymore." Of course, even sociopaths will answer correctly, however if the lesson plan is to talk about the consequences of each of those decisions and what "is" right, I feel the lesson plan has a much greater chance of sinking in as opposed to not teaching morality at all! What's that, you say? Let's face it, all institutions leave it to the parents to teach their children morality, and hope that the parents are moral themselves and that if they aren't, the children are smart enough to see a different future for themselves, but this is seldom the case, hence the term, "like father, like son."

Let me summarize this; tldr: We have social systems in place now in America, but they aren't so effective when the individual chooses to remain under the radar. The only way I can see your method being effective would be to monitor people to such a degree - as to know when a person is about about explode - it would require total control, i.e. KGB-style watchdog software. And this would undoubtedly be abused, is what I was saying, which is why in the end, I think preventative care is the best option, i.e. teaching morality.

---

Your right, I am mad. I feel that inhumane bastard deserves to be tried in a court of law, so he could see the damage he's done, and feel responsible and the remorse involved. He took the easy way out and that is what upsets me so much! I'd rather he was killed by police even than shot himself in the head.

MEat, I am sorry I have to say this to another valued member of the lounge but you clearly not understanding what is the situation here.
Do you seriously think someone who killed 20 children would 'see the light' if he would be taken to court?

Of course not. It's a revenge type mentality I guess.

When you kill 20 children you are completely insane, and you don't have feelings the same way you and I have.

I can agree with this. The only difference is you feel this man would benefit being institutionalized, and I feel he should be institutionalized until proven sane, then forced to stand trial and face his crimes and so he suffers inside for what he's done. Of course, does not matter now that he's dead, but are you saying that is wrong of me to feel this way about him? Would it be wrong of me to say that perhaps it's an American thing to think this way?

[Jester]

Sweden, what a paradise of gun laws that protect its people from murder. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out, did it?

Are you thinking of Anders Breivik in Norway? Because otherwise, I have no idea what you are referring to. The rate of gun deaths in Sweden is pretty tiny, although higher than some of its neighbours.

There are enough loonies in this country that people arm themselves as a precaution. You blame the arrow, but I blame the Indian.

And is the United States uniquely endowed with an abundance of lunatics? I can't see why, although sometimes it's tempting to think so. I do, however, stick to the idea that the US, however distinct, is a country like most others composed of people like most others.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

The only thing unique about the US is that it enslaved a populace of people within its own borders (that it forcefully brought here, to be bought and sold - since African labor was much cheaper than indentured servitude of lower class whites) to build its society, instead of exclusively using colonialism to conquer one nation to the next to expand itself alongside the development of capitalism as Western Europe did.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I sure didn't expect to break my posting fast to support FIT, but here it is.

I'm not sure how you call that a "strawman argument". You suggested that creating tougher laws won't work, because people like this will ignore the law anyways. I've seen this argument used a lot, and I disagree with it. Rape is illegal, yet people are raped every day. Should we not have strict anti-rape laws because rapists will ignore the law anyways?

Using your example the law should be an anti penis law to prevent rape. Not every person with a y chromosome is going to rape someone just like every gun owner isn't out to murder. Outlawing certainly would have an effect, but not all positive. Should we also outlaw guns for police? Security? Where is the line? You're still hoping that those people can use it responsibly. Outlawing just guarantees that shady people will far outnumber law abiding when it comes to gun ownership. Control is a much more valid argument than ban.

We could also apply your logic to cars. I could kill a LOT of people, especially children, with my car. Easily as many as this person did with a gun. You should see how many kids there are on the sidewalk before and after school starts down the street. And it would take a lot longer for me to run out of gas than this guy would have taken to run out of bullets, even with the biggest magazine available. This was a shock crime, but could have been committed a number of ways with as much effectiveness. But we are blaming the gun not the psycho, or the person who gave the psycho the gun.

This particular event really is the anomaly. Most of our gun crime is gang related, which also relates to drugs. If we can't stop them getting drugs to sell how are we going to stop them getting guns? And if we did have a tight enough police state to manage that, that is probably when we would want our gun rights back.

I sometimes use my head to display my sunglasses too.

I look nerdy even in the coolest sunglasses for some reason. They also tend to slip off my face. Is this the sunglasses company telling me I have a funny face?

[LennyLen]

We could also apply your logic to cars. I could kill a LOT of people, especially children, with my car.

Except that it wasn't DeeBye's Logic, it was FITs logic. DeeBye was simply using reductio ad absurdum to counter the former illogical statement.

[FireIceTalon]

^^No, it wasn't. Deebye misrepresented my argument as being that there should be no laws at all, which wasn't my argument to begin with - that is a strawman fallacy. Therefore, you are wrong. Nice try though.

[Nomad25055]

Greetings.

I was a bit rash in some of my statements perhaps. When I say people disgust me, I mean people in general. No specific groups, just people. There are no problems in society that are not created by people. Whether or not a person is good does not have a necessary impact upon their actions. Environment, chemical imbalance, whatever the cause, people do bad things. No, I don't dare say I'm the one or could be one to judge, that would be lunacy. Nobody can judge, they can assume, yes, but not judge. It's simple cause and effect, more gun laws, less guns, equals less gun crime, but easier crimes to commit. Crimes that wouldn't perhaps otherwise take place. As I said, there are no easy solutions, but there are solutions. In fact, I've heard rumblings of psychiatric evaluations as part of the firearm purchasing process in addition to being tied to medical records. Get depressed? Get drugs? Red flag, seize their firearms until it has run it's course. That's a solution, that while good in theory, would lead to injustices. There simply aren't any solutions, well, perhaps many, that wouldn't see things get worse at first.

Nomad