People are killing People !

[Chesspiece_face]

In many ways I think the problem lies in the pandemic of purposelessness and the generations raised by the mantra of "If it feels good, do it." Ask most people, "Why are you here?" and the answer will be "To have fun." I'm not against fun mind you, but it is a pretty shallow reason to exist.

There is no way you are going to get me into the gun control section of this debate, but I will comment on this.

I think this sentiment reflects much of the cultural conservative position in a lot of areas of concern. (which isn't to shove you under that description.) and i think that in many ways it overlooks many of the real social and cultural issues that have developed over the last 30-40 years which are creating some of the problems we are seeing.

Other people have noted that if a person wants to kill or harm another they can do it despite things like weapon control or they time they are alive. We had just as many homicidal loons 50 years ago as we do now, the big difference now is that with the information we have access to and the changes in the way news is delivered sensationalism is much more powerful.

The other item i will bring up, which is sort of my go to position for any debate about societal problems, is that we (as a country and as a species) have a serious problem with population increases and control which will only increase exponentially. There are too many people, and this creates a situation where many of these "loons" are able to slip through the cracks and not be noticed by all the people and insititutions that under different circumstances would most likely be able to take action before the damage is done. When columbine happened everyone across the country asked "how could these kids do this without anyone noticing" and the answer is that as the population grows out of control we are seeing a greater aspect of annonymity in areas of community and even family which we didn't have 50-100 years ago. Thus those connections which can keep people in check are thinning making it much more easier for people that are predisposed to antisocial behavior to go unnoticed.

[Jester]

To me, as you look at statistics, it should be very clear that intoxication and substance abuse is related to a very many social ills. Here are the statistics for the state where I live. In many ways I think the problem lies in the pandemic of purposelessness and the generations raised by the mantra of "If it feels good, do it." Ask most people, "Why are you here?" and the answer will be "To have fun." I'm not against fun mind you, but it is a pretty shallow reason to exist.

If the argument is that alcohol abuse has very serious negative effects, I have no objections. That's correct beyond any reasonable doubt.

The questions remain: does this stem from a relativistic, hedonistic code of morality? Is this a new phenomenon, or a very old one? Is it worse now, or before?

I suggest that drug abuse is not noticeably worsened by the "purposelessness" created by a "mantra" of gratification. This argument is itself a mantra of hectoring moralists, used since the dawn of time, but becoming less and less true, rather than more and more. The "kids these days lack the moral compass of the ancients" argument was old hat by the time of Confucius.

It was probably a myth then, and it's a myth now. It is generally advanced not because it is correct, but because it implies further questions that moralists have convenient answers to. Kids lack direction? I have a direction for them. Kids lack morality? I have a moral code for them. Society flying off the rails? Organize it according to my ideas. In the modern incarnation, it also comes with trendy books, lecture tours, and radio shows.

-Jester

[Jester]

When columbine happened everyone across the country asked "how could these kids do this without anyone noticing" and the answer is that as the population grows out of control we are seeing a greater aspect of annonymity in areas of community and even family which we didn't have 50-100 years ago. Thus those connections which can keep people in check are thinning making it much more easier for people that are predisposed to antisocial behavior to go unnoticed.

Edit: Foot-in-mouth is not the same as reasonable skepticism, Jester. This assertion seems to be well demonstrated.

-Jester

[Artega]

I'm not really sure what can be done to lower the occurrence of these kinds of things, but I can agree that regulation and general education isn't the answer.

I look at it kind of like how sex ed was for me when I was going through high school. When my parents were going through sex ed in high school, they were preaching abstinence - no sex, ever, until you're married. When I was going through it, it was half safe-sex-only and half abstinence-only. Now it's just safe-sex-only, and it still doesn't do a damn thing - teen pregnancy is still higher here than most everywhere else in the developed world. You can lead a horse to water, I guess.

I remember flipping through an article in a magazine (probably Time or Newsweek) that was listing some of the things other countries do better than we do. One of them was sex ed, and I believe it was the Dutch (maybe the Danes) who actually taught their kids something useful - how to use a condom, how to get them, how to avoid catching and transmitting STDs, and so forth. Seems Americans are far behind in that regard:P

[Jim]

Hi,

IMHO Only difference between a Sociopath & Psychopath is a GUN !

Roddney Dangerfield joke: [ as well as I can remember, & not Funny these days]

When the Police interviewed the Neighbors of a Man who just killed his Family of 6...the police asked what kind of a Man was he...they all said,
"He was a Quite man"

http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Articles/Psychopath.htm

A Psychopath will use people for excitement, entertainment, to build their self-esteem and they invariably value people in terms of their material value (e.g. money, property, comfort, etc..)

The idea that psychopaths eat people is a myth. In reality, a person with a psychopathic personality can lead what appears to be an ordinary life. They can have jobs, get married and they can break the law like anyone else. But their jobs and marriages usually don’t last and their life is usually on the verge of personal chaos. They are almost always in some kind of trouble or they are not far from it.

Characteristics of a Psychopath

*superficial charm
*self-centered & self-important
*need for stimulation & prone to boredom
*deceptive behavior & lying
*conning & manipulative
*little remorse or guilt
*shallow emotional response
*callous with a lack of empathy
*living off others or predatory attitude
*poor self-control
*promiscuous sexual behavior
*early behavioral problems
*lack of realistic long term goals
*impulsive lifestyle
*irresponsible behavior
*blaming others for their actions
*short term relationships
*juvenile delinquency
*breaking parole or probation
*varied criminal activity

ps: This INFO was in my desktop folder, I too like Google...let me know when it's Safe to leave my Home :wub:

[Jim]

Hi,

U.S. has more people in prison than any other country

Report: 1 percent of U.S. adults behind bars. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/28/pris...lation.ap/

NEW YORK (AP) -- For the first time in history, more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report.

Story Highlights:

U.S. has more people in prison than any other country

2.3 million U.S. adults incarcerated at beginning of 2008, Pew report says

50 states spent $49 billion on corrections last year

1 in 9 black males behind bars, report says

[Vandiablo]

Guns don't kill people, ...oh wait, they do.

I'll be back after the first 100 posts of the argument I just started.

-Bolty

Griselda, I suggest you BAN this troll! This place isn't good enough for him.

er, I mean This place is TOO good for him. Yeah.

[eppie]

Removing civilian rights to own guns would do nothing but make it even easier for the criminals. Criminals will have access to guns whether they're legal or not. At least you can fight back or even prevent it from happening if you have a gun of your own.

I think this is a common misconception. In e.g. Holland, a burglar will 99 out of a 100 times not bring a gun and maybe 90 out of 100 times not even a weapon. If you are a burglar in a country in which it is easy to own a gun you are more prone to bringing a gun with you for 'defence' , increasing the overal rate of shootings.
Apart from this I would like to see some numbers of people that 'saved' themselves from being killed because they had a gun themselves. You are right if you say that a shopkeeper that owns a weapons has more chance of holding of a robber but then we are only talking about the contents of his cash register and not his life. And I am sure a robber (often young inexperience criminals) is far more likely to use his gun out of nervousnes because he knows the chance is very high that the shopkeeper has a gun as well.

So as it surely increases ones feeling of justice it doesn't necesarry save lives when guns are legal. And than I am not even talking about inexperienced users.....in most cases the 'criminal' will shoot faster and more accurate than the victim. And I know people like Occhi and Pete will come up with there guns stories and about how fine shooters they are.....fine, I know this guys, but that is not the point here.


In Holland it happens almost never that a 'criminal' shoots an innocent civilian. Most murders are between criminals.
Of course there is a big difference in culture about this stuff...I mean I have never in my life seen a real gun (aparts from in museums)

[Hammerskjold]

I think this is a common misconception. In e.g. Holland, a burglar will 99 out of a 100 times not bring a gun and maybe 90 out of 100 times not even a weapon.

Hey that's great. Maybe you should urge your country to export these gentle burglars to other places.

And I am sure a robber (often young inexperience criminals) is far more likely to use his gun out of nervousnes because he knows the chance is very high that the shopkeeper has a gun as well.

Okie dokie...

So as it surely increases ones feeling of justice it doesn't necesarry save lives when guns are legal. And than I am not even talking about inexperienced users.....in most cases the 'criminal' will shoot faster and more accurate than the victim.

Hey uhm, what? You just confustigated me with your mental acrobatics. First they're young and inexperienced criminals who are so nervous because the shopkeeper has a gun. Then they will suddenly shoot faster and more accurate than the victim?

And I know people like Occhi and Pete will come up with there guns stories and about how fine shooters they are.....fine, I know this guys, but that is not the point here.

What -is- your point exactly? Why can't the whole world be more like the Holland you described? Hell I wish that was the case too.

Of course there is a big difference in culture about this stuff...I mean I have never in my life seen a real gun (aparts from in museums)

I learned basic gun safety when I was a kid, but I also understand that this alone will not guarantee an outcome of a decent human being. Only empathy can do that.

When someone doesn't have that or failed to or does not want to learn that, I wouldn't feel safe around them because -they- are more dangerous than any inanimate object can be. -They- are the weapon. You know, like Chuck Norris. You can't exactly ban someone like Chuck Norris anyway. Not in Holland, not in Timbuktu, not in this galaxy. Maybe in a parallel dimension where the anti-Norris exists, maybe there's a chance. Though really, that's like saying 1 in a trillion chance is still a practical chance.

But to get to the original point, here's my small contribution to pushing this thread to 100 replies. Jesus aborts baby Hitler with an illegal assault gun in Iraq in exchange for oil, which Jesus later burned for 7 days and nights contributing to a hoax known as global warming.

(edited for formatting)

[eppie]

>I think this is a common misconception. In e.g. Holland, a burglar will 99 out of a 100 times not bring a gun and maybe 90 out of 100 times not even a weapon.
Hey that's great. Maybe you should urge your country to export these gentle burglars to other places.

Aaaa.. we start being 'racist' here? You think our criminals are different than yours?

This is exactly my point, if you break in a house you don't 'need' a gun here, while in the US you will. It is just a question of an amrs race.
You say I want to defend myself, the burglar also says he wants to defend himself (that he is in your house and is the criminal and is responsible is not the question here). So for the point of justice more criminals are killed in the US while 'on the job'....the cost is that more innocent people are also killed. You choose for your way I choose for mine.

About the young inexperienced criminals.....if they say you grab for something they will shoot directly.....the more experienced ones as well by the way. And don't forget often drugs are involved as well.

I mean I travel to the US a lot, I enjoy it there and your system works for you...that's fine for me. I just wanted to say that I think that overal you will have more innocents killed, but you have a better feeling of being able to defende yourself, and that is also valuable......I don't think anyone of us knows how to state which is the most important of the two.

[Griselda]

It was a successful trolling, it appears. :lol:

Bolty, you're On Notice now. :ph34r:

[Hammerskjold]

Aaaa.. we start being 'racist' here? You think our criminals are different than yours?

Ahahahaha. Ahem, no. Maybe you should read it again. But if reading is not your strong suit, I'll try to clarify it for you. Most criminals I've seen have one thing in common regardless of race, colour, creed, geography or whatever criteria you care to label. They usually have some deficiency in the empathy department. Some are more lacking in that vitamin E than others, that's the one you should watch out for.

Now you can go on with the 'In Holland...' routine, since that seems to be what you are trying to say previously. eg: In Holland, most burglars are not armed etc etc. I don't mind the Yakhov Smirnov routine. You should know that I'm not American however.

But hey if you want to paint me as a racist, be my guest. I wasn't aware the Dutch was a specific 'race'. I will repeat it again though, I will not hold you specifically as a yardstick for a whole nation.

This is exactly my point,....etc etc

Honestly, my brain is dizzy from trying find what your point is. Guns are bad because even if good people have them bad people will also have them, who needs it for the defense against armed good people, and can lead to good people being shot by bad people. Is that the basic gist of it? And the responsibility of the suspected criminal is not the real question at hand.

If that is it, then I tap out. Wake me up when guns are abolished and light sabers are introduced. By then I'm sure the problems of violence and crime will be a thing of the past.

Has it reached a 100 yet? Damn. Ok, how about I'll throw in a bad word. Meekrab.

[eppie]

Has it reached a 100 yet? Damn. Ok, how about I'll throw in a bad word. Meekrab.

All I want to see is some stats that show that in countries were guns or legal less innocent people are killed because they can defend themselves. I know that that this doens't matter because like I said 'the right to be able to defend oneself with a firearm' might also be important.

I don't want to blame all kinds of incidents on the availabilty of guns (even if it might be the fact in some cases), the crazies always murder, like a father that killed his wife and children with a hammer and a knive because the were having serious money problems



By the way, I am not really charmed by your childish ways of discussing (''if reading is not your strongest point '''etc..) I don't think that is necesarry here.

[kandrathe]

All I want to see is some stats that show that in countries were guns or legal less innocent people are killed because they can defend themselves. I know that that this doens't matter because like I said 'the right to be able to defend oneself with a firearm' might also be important.

I don't want to blame all kinds of incidents on the availabilty of guns (even if it might be the fact in some cases), the crazies always murder, like a father that killed his wife and children with a hammer and a knive because the were having serious money problems
By the way, I am not really charmed by your childish ways of discussing (''if reading is not your strongest point '''etc..) I don't think that is necesarry here.

Hey, I know a case here where the psychopath killed a house full of people with an asphyxiate made from Clorox bleach. Burglary and violence can converge with armed robbery, but usually the psychology of theft is very separate from the psychology of violence. Disassociation and the resultant psychosis would make remorseless killers more akin to remorseless rapists as they do want they want without regards to who it hurts. I'm asking why the US has 10x more remorseless criminals per capita than Netherlands.

[eppie]

I'm asking why the US has 10x more remorseless criminals per capita than Netherlands.

Is that a fact?

[eppie]

Very off topic but every time I open the lounge in my browser I see a post called 'your site is unreadable' by 'sheep'.......and I have to laugh.......of course sheep can't read the lounge....man, I have problems sometimes....

[Hammerskjold]

All I want to see is some stats that show that in countries were guns or legal less innocent people are killed because they can defend themselves. I know that that this doens't matter because like I said 'the right to be able to defend oneself with a firearm' might also be important.

I don't want to blame all kinds of incidents on the availabilty of guns (even if it might be the fact in some cases), the crazies always murder, like a father that killed his wife and children with a hammer and a knive because the were having serious money problems
By the way, I am not really charmed by your childish ways of discussing (''if reading is not your strongest point '''etc..) I don't think that is necesarry here.

By the way, I am not really charmed by your childish ways of discussing ("Aaaa.. we start being 'racist' here"? etc...) either. But perhaps, in your mind that's a sign of respect and affection. If that's the case, I only want to return the same amount of courtesy back. MMMmmmmuah! That's a kiss on your adorable forehead.

As for the stats that you want to see, good luck finding that, but I would not hold my breath for it. Not everyone reports that kind of incident to the police, and not all police keep or release that kind of information. Most media are also followers of the 'if it bleeds...' policy.

Now to address what's really important here. Show me some real proof of a manned, moon landing because the ones NASA has shown are bunk, considering JFK could not have authorized such a mission especially since he was assasinated by a third bullet, fired by Castro's hired assasin\sleeper agent, Marylin Monrokovich.

Come on 100...

[Jester]

Now to address what's really important here. Show me some real proof of a manned, moon landing because the ones NASA has shown are bunk, considering JFK could not have authorized such a mission especially since he was assasinated by a third bullet, fired by Castro's hired assasin\sleeper agent, Marylin Monrokovich.

Everyone knows the Smithsonian has a refrigerator wing where they keep pieces of cheese brought back by Nikita Khrushchev, The Beatles, and Captain Nemo during the "Starbuck 11" moon landing.

Get your facts straight, you nut.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I wanted to respond to a couple of other items in your earlier post now that I have a little more time.

Interesting, especially for its harsh indictment of the spread of firearms. They clearly believe that guns are bad, and their prevalence accounts of a huge number of deaths in the US relative to other countries.

True, but I'm not holding that against them. Idealistically, wouldn't eat be nice if we could just all frolic in clover, hugging each other and eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in the sunshine. Until that day, however, some of us would still like to have the option of defending ourselves.

However, only one of those statistics has a comparative component showing a worsening over time. (There are a couple that say "have not declined since", but that means things are staying the same, not getting worse.) That would be the claim that, in 1933, 75% of deaths between 15-19 were natural causes, whereas in 1993 80% of deaths for that bracket were murders. The rest of the statistics would have to be compared to an equivalent series of data to support a claim that these numbers are up from earlier times.

There are a few issues with that. First is the timing: 1933 was during the depression, and 1993 was during the crack boom. So, in the first instance, "natural causes" like disease and starvation would be up, whereas in 1993, murders would be way up. The 10 years after 1993 were not as violent. Etc...

You make a good point here. Yes, it would be nice to compare more specifics of mortality rates. I would also like to see it done regionally. There is a big difference between a small town, a small city, and a major metropolis.

There is something different about the society of today, and that of 1933 beyond the propensity of the media to plaster the headlines with blood and carnage.

[kandrathe]

Is that a fact?

No.

US has 3.84x more murders than the Netherlands though.

The facts.