Criminal Deeds

[DeeBye]

^^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.

No, I was stating the absurdity of not enacting a law because criminals will just ignore it anyways.

[Occhidiangela]

Are you thinking of Anders Breivik in Norway?

Yes. should have double checked, sorry about that. Nowhere near as sorry as the parents of those kids, I imagine.

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?

Actually, yes, I think there is, but it is probably more accurate to say "people with behavior disorders" rather than "lunatics." Or loonies. Depends on how deeply you want to look into this.

Acting out has been rewarded in this society for quite a long time. Likewise, there is a sustained inundation of our cultural background noise with violence as a resolution to conflict or unresolved conflict. It is a particularly American trait, and it isn't getting any better with the amount of a pass the gang and prison culture gets, and how it spreads. That's only the latest pathology, there was plenty before that arrived.

The Indian, not the Arrow.

I find it almost curious how myopic people get in attempting to analyze what is going on, particularly people from the outside. It's not your problem, and yet you are full of free and useless advice about it.

Kindly piss off.
All of you. (This isn't personally directed at you, Jester, but it is collectively addressed to all of the non Americans who think they have some sort of answer. You don't.)

Whatever answer we come up with (if we do, collectively) will have to be made in America. Get over it. Your opinion isn't worth considering.

Occhi

[DeeBye]

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.

That's a valid criticism. I'm not suggesting that we ban guns (or penises). I'm saying that using the argument of not enacting a law because law-breakers will ignore it anyways is ridiculous.

[Occhidiangela]

That's a valid criticism. I'm not suggesting that we ban guns (or penises). I'm saying that using the argument of not enacting a law because law-breakers will ignore it anyways is ridiculous.

Who is this "we," DeeByeal?
I seem to recall that you are Canadian.
You aren't part of "we." See above.

Merry Christmas

[DeeBye]

Who is this "we," DeeByeal?
I seem to recall that you are Canadian.
You aren't part of "we." See above.

Merry Christmas

I'm sorry. I didn't see the "Americans only" tag for this discussion.

[LennyLen]

To get back on-topic of the incident itself and gun control, I don't actually consider events such as this (as horrific as they are), to be a good reason for tightening gun control laws. While owning firearms does make it easier for a twisted individual to commit mass murder, there are other methods that could be used if they were determined enough.

A far better reason for tighter restrictions on gun control is the number of people who are accidentally killed each year because they, or someone near them, were doing something stupid with a firearm. Or the number of children who are killed playing with guns that their parents failed to store securely.

I'm sure that many people can be trusted to handle and store firearms safely, but loose gun laws allow people the people who can't be trusted to own weapons as well.

[eppie]

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?

Meat, I don't necesarrily think this guy (or people like him) would benefit from being institutionalized. First I mean getting psychological support (I am sorry I know a dutch name for this and I am not really sure how to translate this). This mean having a system in place where people who have mental problems or are diagnosed with real mental diseases have the chance to 'not become lost'. The thing is, this costs a lot of money....a lot of 1 on 1 sessions with highly trained people etc. So the question than is (maybe you can ask yourself this question): do I want to pay 2% more income tax to be able to reduce violent outbreaks where mental patients kill or wound other innocent people.

Second: I am not seeing the benefit for this guy (or people like him) as the most important thing. The most important thing is that societu will benefit.

---

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

Please read my contributions. It is important that a country has a system to help and treat mentally ill or unstable people or people who are suicidal. This costs money and a big effort of course.

We can also see the comparison with China here (which was mentioned in the first post in this thread. China also doens't have good support for people with mental issues.

And to Occhi: it is too simple to take one event and base your argumentation on that.
Good support can help reduce these type of events. No legal gun ownership will do the same and will reduce the number of victims in some of these kind of events. But you will never be able to get rid of these things 100%.

[eppie]

Kindly piss off.
All of you. (This isn't personally directed at you, Jester, but it is collectively addressed to all of the non Americans who think they have some sort of answer. You don't.)

Well I have an answer but that would require you to pay 2% more income tax, so I guess this will not work (because that would be communist).

Whatever answer we come up with (if we do, collectively) will have to be made in America. Get over it. Your opinion isn't worth considering.
Occhi

That's the spirit. Well the answer will for sure not come from you. Or do you write on other forums as well, and then also use good arguments?

I mean a few years ago you were rude as you were now, but you wrote some smart things once in while. Now it is just some trolling once in a while.

It seems you are happy with the situation as it is now, and I know many americans are but I also think there are equally many that want to change things....but realize that it is not so easy to have an (for the US) out of the box answer.


Further it is clear that things like this massacre can happen anywhere. You know how often I read about a father or mother who is in a divorce commits suicide and takes his kids with him/her? (in Holland alone??) Maybe it would have been good if those father could get hold of a gun because it would be a lot less painful for those kids then being strangled, burned or knived to death.....on the other hand maybe then they would make even more victims.


And to repeat:

legal guns will make more victims but will give people a greater sensation of safety (which on a personal level for some people ill be true). You choose for the sensation of being safe personally, I choose for less victims. They are both valid positions so we don't need to discuss about them.

I can add to this: if I would live in the US in a state were it is legal to own guns, chances are big I would also buy one. Even though I would be in favour of making it illegal to own guns. For a very human reason I would say. If that annoying neighbour has a gun, maybe it is better that I also get one.

[Jester]

Kindly piss off.
All of you.

Is it your contention that gun massacres are somehow a uniquely American problem? As you point out yourself, other countries have these tragedies, just not as frequently. The questions about how guns are to be regulated, and what effect that has on crime, or on the frequency of massacres, comes up regularly in my countries.

So, I don't understand. The perspective from non-US countries seems perfectly reasonable to me. You might not agree with it, but it's not automatically invalid.

-Jester

[eppie]

Greetings.

What a world we live in. A great, wondrous place. A disturbing place. You will of course have heard of the Connecticut massacre by now. A sick, sad, and horrible incident which will be talked about for a long time to come. Oh yes, you will hear about it, but, you may or may not hear about the incident in China, where a man stabbed 22 children and one adult. Why not you ask? Nomad

Another similarity between these cases. The Chinese guy thought the world was coming to an end, and also this american (or at least his mother) though this.

[ShadowHM]

Kindly piss off.
All of you. (This isn't personally directed at you, Jester, but it is collectively addressed to all of the non Americans who think they have some sort of answer. You don't.)

Whatever answer we come up with (if we do, collectively) will have to be made in America. Get over it. Your opinion isn't worth considering.

Occhi

I must have missed the directive from Bolty that said non-Americans were not welcome to share data and post opinions in this forum. If you want an echo chamber of your own thoughts, I am sure you can easily find one elsewhere. Don't let us detain you here.

Who is this "we," DeeByeal?
I seem to recall that you are Canadian.
You aren't part of "we." See above.

Merry Christmas

As the next door neighbour to the country with the control problem, we do feel the effects quite often. So we do have more than a mere intellectual stake in the discussion.

Your vitriol is both unbecoming and counter-productive. Kindly recall that when you next get the urge to post more of it.

Merry Christmas to you too.

[Nomad25055]

Greetings.

I feel the urge to share something I came across on youtube pertaining to a statement I made concerning psychiatric evaluations. It's long winded and is made by a doomsday prepper. Apparently Mr. Dsarti lost his gun rights for mental reasons even though he was declared sane. Something to do with a suicide joke he made in the presence of a cardiologist I believe.

Nomad

[Sir_Die_alot]

I'm sorry. I didn't see the "Americans only" tag for this discussion.

You're America's hat. You can discuss it, just don't expect us to listen. ;D

No, I was stating the absurdity of not enacting a law because criminals will just ignore it anyways.

It depends how you apply it. Murder should be illegal, and it is! A murderer is breaking the law by that act alone, so any law you make besides this is just restricting his method of choice. This assumes your restriction is effective in him acquiring the weapon of choice in the first place. If the psycho had poisoned a room full of children would we be talking about regulating draino?

The fact is we have a lot of access to things that could potentially cause fatal harm to a lot of people, even without guns. We could outlaw them all but I'm pretty sure you would be feel different if you couldn't have a box of matches or gasoline, let alone a car. We just have to hope people have some responsibility, and generally people do.

[Kevin]

This assumes your restriction is effective in him acquiring the weapon of choice in the first place. If the psycho had poisoned a room full of children would we be talking about regulating draino?

The fact is we have a lot of access to things that could potentially cause fatal harm to a lot of people, even without guns. We could outlaw them all but I'm pretty sure you would be feel different if you couldn't have a box of matches or gasoline, let alone a car. We just have to hope people have some responsibility, and generally people do.

We do regulate all of that. Cars require registrations and inspections and training before you can operate one, there are further regulations on how children are allowed to ride in them. Draino has packaging requirements to help prevent accidents. Gasoline has regulations on transportation, sales, and storage. You can not walk up to a gas station with an empty milk jug and fill it with gasoline.

Again most of these regulations are to minimize the impact of accidents, and many of them are very effective at that. Some of them are even effective at stopping, or at least raising the bar, on using these things for intentionally harming others.

We also have laws on guns and ammunition, but in many cases they are weaker than what we have for things like Aspirin. Aspirin has to be in child proof containers to be sold. Ammunition does not. I'm not saying it should be. I'm saying that arguments like this are often dismissed out of hand. Perhaps they should be. I agree that too much regulation is a problem. I also agree that some regulation is good, and I tend to support the kind that maximizes the reduction of the effects of accidents at minimum cost. Child proof caps can save a life while costing about 1 cent a container. Good regulation. Requiring everyone to attend stunt driving school before being allowed to drive would very likely minimize accidents and deaths, but the cost would be huge. I'm unaware of anything where having ammo in a plain cardboard box has caused major issues so regulating it to be sold in child proof containers wouldn't make sense. Requiring gasoline to only be allowed to be sold/stored in clearly marked and tested containers makes sense, I don't want my neighbor to be storing gas in old milk jugs in the garage.

So I'm for more required licenses and training before people are allowed to operate a firearm. Does it solve the particular issue that started this thread? Probably not, but maybe. If testing and retesting were required for the mother and anyone else who lives in a house where guns are kept (say once every 4 years) maybe this doesn't happen. By the way I'm also for requiring people to have to retake the driving written and road tests every 6 years or so, because while it would add cost, I also think it would save enough lives to be cost effective, I don't push hard for it because effectively funding it isn't simple.

Anyway, it's disingenuous to try and say "does it make sense to try and regulate X" when we already do, and some of the regulations are directly related to the topic at hand, saving lives.

[shoju]

I have a lot of thoughts on what happened. I'm not sure that the following post directly correlates to the conversation being had here, but this is what I said on another forum, in response to someone who said that "Evil" was responsible for what happened.

It wasn't evil that perpetrated this horrific act. This was not some terrorist plot to destroy things. This was a 20 year old kid. He suffered from Mental illness. You should read the blog post "I am Adam Lanza's mother", and you should also read the counter point, "You are not Adam Lanza's Mother" I agree with many of the ideas presented in the former, while recognizing some of the shortcomings presented in the latter.

But I fully believe, at this time, with the information available, that Adam Lanza wasn't "Evil". He wasn't "Crazy". He wasn't "Psycho" or "Psychotic". He was ill. But, because he caused some unspeakable horror, we will brand him as all those things, and he will be just another whackjob with a gun, that went out and did something terrible. He will become a caricature, used to speak about why Gun Control is a "now" issue, and why "more people should be armed". His act will be used as an exploitative position for which people can claim that this happened because God isn't in our schools, or because those teachers weren't packing, or because he played too many violent video games, or listened to terrible music.

In the coming months, we will lose the real Adam Lanza. What he was in life, and in the terrible moments leading up to his death, will be lost to political stumping, religious zealotry, and good ol' "Amurikun Freedumbs".

What will be lost, is that this 20 year old kid, was mentally ill. That there was something wrong inside the chemical / electrical makeup of his brain. And somewhere, in the last week or two, something snapped. Something broke him. Something set him off. And instead of receiving the treatment, and health care that he needed, he took up arms, and murdered 27 people. What will be lost, are the details of how it got there. How he was lost, How it all fell apart for him, and how in the end, the help he needed, wasn't there.

America embraces a violent culture. Jim Wright already covered that well. We are violent. We praise the Anti-Hero. We love Guns. We love Violence. It's in our Music (not just Rap. I'm looking at you Pumped up Kicks.). In our TV Shows. In our Movies. In our Politics. In our Sports. We love violence. We crave violence. We feed on Violence. Couple that insatiable love for violence, with a mental health ideology that labels it as taboo, as something that doesn't need funding (look at where a ton of cuts happen in our government funded infrastructures, you will find that Mental Health is high on the chopping block) and bad things are going to happen.

In the wake of this tragedy, I've seen terrible things, Like the T-shirt linked,(The shirt linked was this) that make me want to vomit. (Thank god for the unfriend function of facebook.) But what I haven't seen enough of, is sensibility. This wasn't evil. Mental Illness isn't "Evil". It's not the devil. It's not the fucking exorcist movie. It's real. It is indeed terrible, but not for the reasons that you might think.

I'm part of the problem. I love my guns. I love the "Anti-Hero" Punisher type gritty vigilanteism. I love the bad guys. It's a society, and culture thing. What differentiates those who survive in this culture, and don't go gun people down, and those who fall apart in this culture, and do go gun people down, can be tied heavily into our Mental Health (not solely, but a large part of it). And until we stand up and realize that there are changes that need to be made, it wont change. We will continue to lose people in horrific, senseless tragedies. We will continue to lose the "real" person behind the crimes, and we will continue to see it happen. Again, and again, and again.

I'm not going to say what changes need to be made. I don't know. I firmly believe that there are some things that could make our culture, and the guns we love more safe. I think that there are things we can do to make sure that the people who need help, receive the help. I think that there are things we can do to make our schools safer. I think there are things we can do to make our culture less obsessed with the violence that we feast on. But, who knows if what I think should change will have the desired effect.

But I don't think that removing guns from the society alone will stop it. China, and the 150+ children and teachers who have been assault there this year by men with bladed weapons show me that banning guns alone will not stop senseless tragedies.
I don't think that Mental Health improvements alone will stop it. I do believe that it will help a great deal, but I don't think that it will stop it.
I don't think that banning music, and video games, and other "violent media" will achieve the appropriate outcome either.

But I do know, that if we don't start somewhere, and get the ball rolling, more people will die. It hurts to type those words. It hurts to think about what happened on Friday. I went home, and I hugged my kids tighter than I have in a long time. I'm sure they thought I was weird, or something. I know my oldest did. I walked up, and gave this almost 16 year old, 6' 180lb athlete a big old hug, ruffled his hair, and said "I love you". When you have kids, things like this make you do things like that.

[Sir_Die_alot]

We do regulate all of that. Cars require registrations and inspections and training before you can operate one, there are further regulations on how children are allowed to ride in them.

And how many unlicensed drivers are out there? If you think the license is a barrier, then you might be surprised. Same goes for insured. A law really only works when there is a high likelihood you will get caught, and if it isn't working so well with cars how do you think it will work on guns? Especially with those who don't generally respect laws in the first place.

But to your main point of gun laws in general, if you think I'm arguing for no laws let me set you straight. That's definitely not the case. However am I against "creat(ing) more strict gun laws to reduce tragedies like this". There is a point laws overstep reasonable safeties to reduce risk. Show me someone who is bringing up safety on ammo boxes over this. (besides yourself) That's not what this is about. Every time something like this happens the politicking is less about crazy people and how to deal with them, than it is how to ban guns.

[DeeBye]

We do regulate all of that. Cars require registrations and inspections and training before you can operate one, there are further regulations on how children are allowed to ride in them.

And how many unlicensed drivers are out there? If you think the license is a barrier, then you might be surprised. Same goes for insured.

A fully fueled car being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the driver to kegstand and burn rubber shall not be infringed.

[Archon_Wing]

Well, I just threw up my hands on this one. I don't know. I don't want to punish the people that do use their weapons responsibly but surely tragedies like these bear a huge emotional toll.

Personally I agree with FIT and try to find ways to improve the human condition instead of chaining them with more laws. Our culture of violence that views the best way to solve a problem with that is something that must be dealt with, if not... whether it be guns, grenades, or knives, we will still have higher murder rates than most of the rest of the civilized world.

[kandrathe]

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.

First, when I heard about this on the radio I cried for an hour. Then, I shared it with my wife, and we cried together for an hour. We have a 4th grader, and our elementary school is no different than that in Newtown.

I think there are at least four types of homicidal violence in the US. Those used as a tool in commission of a different crime (robbery, rape, etc.), gang related turf defense, domestic altercations, and this other type of psychopathic homicidal outburst. Before you can equate statistics from place A to place B, you need to balance for all the other factors. If you want to see tough gun laws and their failure to change crime, look to Chicago with over 500 homicides this year. If you want to compare Chicago to international cities, try Caracas, Mogadishu, Bogata, Bangkok, or Juarez. You need to find places with the same levels or corruption, poverty, crime, and desperation. Amsterdam is a fairly peaceful place with ~3-4 homicides per 100000, whereas Chicago is more like 18 per 100000.

I've only seen a few places in Europe that were not socially serene. So, it's apples to potatoes really. I think much of my state is like northern Europe actually, and most of the violence occurs in sections of an urban ghetto. This year in Minnesota we had about 96 murders and manslaughter cases (53 in the Twin Cities) for 5.3 million people, where about 40-45% of them own guns.

If you want to look at places like Newtown... you have Norway, and Breivik, who maneuvered through many legal channels to obtain the murder weapons he needed including access to explosives. He was willing to go extensive lengths. I don't think laws would stop people like him. A woman in Florida recently got fired, then ran down her boss with a car. A close relative had a psychopathic stalker come after her and her friends with a knife. The terrorists who took down the WTC, did it with box cutters.

When it comes to homicide, I'm actually more upset about the other three common forms of violence, rather than these random psychopaths. If Biden offers some ideas for helping people deal with psychologically troubled relatives, I'll be flabbergasted. If that helps identify and prevent even one homicidal case, then I'll be totally dumbfounded.

If Biden has any new ideas on how to eradicate violent crimes and urban street gangs, the drug wars, and kids killing kids -- then I'd say WTF took them so long to implement it?

If Biden can do anything to curb domestic violence, then again, what have they been doing holding it back?

No, I'm afraid the answer will be the usual "feel good" fare of more laws for the lawful. We have to do something knee-jerk, in response to these aberrant fractions of 1% of violence in the US. It's just like the TSA. How many "terrorists" have they found now over the past decade? Like that one ex-army guy from Jamaica, right?

[eppie]

Great that we could stop this thread now that the NRA has found a brilliant solution.