How many more times?

[sahib]

The guns don't commit a murder but the people behind of it do. If a person gets to that state of mind to create a blood bath there is no law on earth that can prevent it. You have to be in the right place and in the right time with a gun to shoot him in the head. As it happened in Turkey. A policeman happened to be in a scene where a suicide bomber was running and he shot him on the head at blank point. It was lucky.

However, banning guns from public ownership will minimise the risk. There is no place for guns in any civilised society.

Arming teachers is a silly idea. We have a protection mechanism which is police. Therefore policing public places is sensible. I am not sure how it was in da old days in US but back in Turkey we used to have a second ranking officers called "bekci". They belonged to the police department, carried guns and had all the usual repsonsibilities of a police officer. You would see at least one in each public building. Or at the least they would be stationed outside. This was good. Not only it allowed those to make a decent living (Doug's brother-in-law?) but also provided greater security and safety to the society. But now with the cut backs this is not possible. The police is busy with meeting their monthly targets of issuing fines for traffic offences. As a result in my neighbourhood we regularly see them hiding behind doorways to catch people bumping over a buss path. Pathetic.

I strongly believe that there is no need to own guns. But at the same time it will not solve the problem. The problem is not that simple. The problem is that we are humans and there are times we can flip. What are you going to do about that?

 

[DaveP]

Interesting to note that as soon as armed response arrives they lose that control and take the quick way out.

Hmm.  That's the NRA's main talking point! 

The action needed to be taken now is to bury the dead!

Not proffer some baloney feel-good legislation, in the thousands of pages no doubt, where the negative consequences are more numerous than the supposed solutions.  I reference our stupid evolving PPACA and all the exemptions given.  Politicians are the last people to "prevent this from happening".  Their actions just make it even worse.

There is no "action" that will stop this or make the families involved feel any better.  You don't see that?
Mike

Of course I see that, I started this topic because I identified with them as a parent and grandparent.  Unfortunately there is nothing any of us can do to ease their pain, but it is the responsibility of those who have the power, to do something if they can, don't you think?  I don't pretend to understand the American psyche, are you trying to say you find it disrespectful to the parents to talk about it now?

I actually agree with you that the politicians will be able to do virtually nothing, even the President.  You are in such a bad situation with all these guns that people are going to die whether you all get automatic weapons or whether you decide to trash them all.  If you decide to hand them all in then there may be an epidemic of attacks by the criminals who still have them.

The mental health issue has no easy answer either, unless you go down the hi-tech route of the "Minority Report".  I really don't see how you can get out of this one, its kind of like a road of no-return.  I heard the Mother was a survivalist, we don't have any of them over here, its another American thing that's beyond us. ???
best
DaveP

 

[emrr]

Cowboys again; plenty here think there's still enough space to run and hide somewhere, in a defendable position.  I doubt many Europeans, Pacific rim Asians, or Indians have such concepts of free space. 

 

[living sounds]

Whenever something really bad happens the mass public outcries to the government for more protection and safety. The government in returns with a little more restriction on civil liberties

In a democracy, you are the government.

 

[emrr]

In a democracy, you are the government.

People here don't think so, so much.  They effectively neuter themselves with that reasoning, provides good excuse to not get involved.  Not that it's all that easy to be involved, in obviously meaningful ways. 

 

[tchgtr]

John,
    I agree with most of what you say in response to my last post, except the implication that we have more important things to discuss and deal with than what appears to be a random school shooting. And I do think this is a terrorist incident by definition. Shooting up a bunch of children under 7 yo and their teachers in a well-to-do NYC suburb school classifies as a terrorist event in my book, whether that was the intent of the shooter or not. It terrorizes most parents. In some way it affects our culture and education system on a large level, and must be dealt with.
    Also, after re-reading some posts, I certainly did not mean to imply earlier that John was the type of person to claim untrue notions about the current holder of our executive office. He's obviously too smart for that, and my reference was refering to the unceasing rumors I hear from the media and certain people I communicate with for business, and not from this forum, especially not from John, and I apologize if it as taken that way by inept writing.
 

One comedian had an interesting idea, a $5,000 tax on bullets, That would cut down on unintentional shootings. 

...BUT I also couldn't pass up an opportunity to out JR as a Chris Rock fan. I hope this dose of over-the-top humor is not out of place in this discussion, but since it probably is, I would suggest those of you sensitive to strong language and ideas not watch. (If you like it, the long version is even better, and provides an interesting viewpoint from a black perspective.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

But back on topic.
  I don't think comparisons with cars of BBQ forks as weapons are fair in the sense that cars and BBQ forks are not designed for the purpose of killing large numbers of humans, but handguns and automatic weapons are designed for exactly that purpose. Some people in our society should not be allowed to have them, and sometimes these are the people who want them the most.
  How do we stop that?
    I've never needed a gun in my over 50 years of life, even tho I know how to use them and have fired them for pleasure and sport on a few occasions. As a musician, I have lived and traveled to some pretty dangerous neighborhoods, and been cheated by unscrupulous members of the "music biz", and still never felt the need to protect myself with a gun. There are many times driving in SoCal that I'm glad I don't have one in the glovebox....
  As a result, I would gladly see guns limited in US society, but I understand that there are a lot of folks who wouldn't agree with that.
    But how many more times do we have to see innocent folks lose their rights and their lives because someone can't control their anger and fear?
    The NRA lobby is quite powerful, and only concerned with the current boom in business. They will do everything they can to keep the anger and fear ramped up on the side of gun owners. I've been to some gun shows recently, and seen the crowds, and sell-outs by the ammo suppliers.
    This is not a good atmosphere for our country....we have a history of killing our own brothers and sisters. The Civil War is still the greatest number of casualties inflicted upon Americans in war, and we did it to ourselves. Let's not have that again, please.
  PEACE on earth. Goodwill to all men (and women and children).

 

[DaveP]

Doug,
I see what you mean when its all about advertising dollars, our election spending is capped over here to stop it becoming too easy for deep pockets.  But people can still vote.

If the government wants to get re-elected then they have to pursue policies that the majority want, so in that sense the electorate are the government.
DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Whenever something really bad happens the mass public outcries to the government for more protection and safety. The government in returns with a little more restriction on civil liberties

In a democracy, you are the government.

We're a republic, but the legislators are already bending under the influence of emotional public outcry and offering to "fix" things with some new legislation. They are supposed to be the thoughtful adults here.

I would welcome some expanded public mental health focus (education, awareness, etc), while i do not look to government for all solutions. I recall a few decades ago when government support for this area was reduced. and mentally affected were forced out of public institutions and into half-way houses and whatever (the street). This is not a simple issue. These imbalanced individuals are among us and we need to not ignore their symptoms.  I suspect many end up in jail for sundry lesser transgressions, while that is not much of cure.

JR

 

[Andy Peters]

And there are no customs/border guards on the stateline I guess, so your whole country is basically porous and awash with firearms....OMG!

That is indeed the crux of the doctrine of State's Rights. Each state can choose to regulate (or not) whatever it chooses. New Jersey has those restrictive gun laws, yet it's very easy to drive a carload of weapons up from Florida or another southern state with much less restrictive laws and cause mayhem. As long as the driver obeys speed laws and pays tolls and doesn't otherwise attract attention, that trip is easy.

We certainly value our ability to drive from state to state without having to present papers at each border crossing. (Think of all of those touring indie-rock bands!)  Any suggestions of state-border checkpoints would be met with derision, or worse. Isn't the EU moving in that direction, what with easier border crossing between member countries?

One can also see the effects of this State's Rights thing with pollution. For example, one state may have passed serious greenhouse gas and pollution regulations requiring emissions controls on power plants etc etc. But if the state next door refuses to pass similar laws then those restrictions are quixotic. (This, by the way, is the exact argument given for reducing/eliminating all such restrictions in the US: "Well, if China and the rest of the developing world are going to poison the atmosphere, why should we be the only country paying more?")

-a

PS: FWIW, I attended a grammar school in northern New Jersey called Hudson Maxim. You might want to use the Google to see what he and his brother invented.

 

[living sounds]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

 

[simonsez]

If there's no change in regulation (guns ownership), i'm pretty sure that this not the last one.
I don't see any good reason why people allow to have gun.

 

[JohnRoberts]

John,
    I agree with most of what you say in response to my last post, except the implication that we have more important things to discuss and deal with than what appears to be a random school shooting. And I do think this is a terrorist incident by definition.

I repeat this appears cold blooded, but statistically this is a small number of deaths. It is part of the human condition to respond to events emotionally or rationally. THis is an emotional response.

Terrorism is by definition all about instilling fear with some newsworthy high profile violence  for some organizational advantage. Middle east terrorists craft their attacks for our news reportage.  OTOH this sure appears to be a random tragedy with no larger intent than to strike out violently against family members, and perhaps set a new body count record (I sure hope not that, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck. )

Shooting up a bunch of children under 7 yo and their teachers in a well-to-do NYC suburb school classifies as a terrorist event in my book, whether that was the intent of the shooter or not. It terrorizes most parents. In some way it affects our culture and education system on a large level, and must be dealt with.

The parents are also being terrorized by media, and those trying to use this to promote some agenda. I don't think schools in wealthy suburbs are in any more danger today than they were yesterday, while making this shooter notorious has some danger of inadvertently creating copy-cats. 

I lived in Fairfield County CT back in the '70s/80s and still have friends living there so I am not completely disconnected from any personal connection to this. I just tend to suppress my emotional reaction.

    Also, after re-reading some posts, I certainly did not mean to imply earlier that John was the type of person to claim untrue notions about the current holder of our executive office. He's obviously too smart for that, and my reference was refering to the unceasing rumors I hear from the media and certain people I communicate with for business, and not from this forum, especially not from John, and I apologize if it as taken that way by inept writing.

I make an effort to ignore the arm waving partisan spinners trying to prevent thoughtful inspection and discussion of important matters, by making people angry to distract them.

If we limit our posts here to our own thoughts, we can keep this (mostly) civil. (I recall some pretty uncivil threads in the past).

 

One comedian had an interesting idea, a $5,000 tax on bullets, That would cut down on unintentional shootings. 

...BUT I also couldn't pass up an opportunity to out JR as a Chris Rock fan. I hope this dose of over-the-top humor is not out of place in this discussion, but since it probably is, I would suggest those of you sensitive to strong language and ideas not watch. (If you like it, the long version is even better, and provides an interesting viewpoint from a black perspective.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

Humor has long been a vehicle for political opinion (Guliver's travels, Lenny Bruce, yadda yadda. ).

But back on topic.
  I don't think comparisons with cars of BBQ forks as weapons are fair in the sense that cars and BBQ forks are not designed for the purpose of killing large numbers of humans, but handguns and automatic weapons are designed for exactly that purpose. Some people in our society should not be allowed to have them, and sometimes these are the people who want them the most.
  How do we stop that?

Again IMO not the key issue. We need to deal with the individual mental meltdown. Force multipliers modulate the amount of injury not cause or prevent it. Statistically even with the force multiplier these are still a very modest numbers in total, while popular media is milking this for every drop of attention they can.

    I've never needed a gun in my over 50 years of life, even tho I know how to use them and have fired them for pleasure and sport on a few occasions. As a musician, I have lived and traveled to some pretty dangerous neighborhoods, and been cheated by unscrupulous members of the "music biz", and still never felt the need to protect myself with a gun. There are many times driving in SoCal that I'm glad I don't have one in the glovebox....

try driving in TX... you don't give out the one finger salute casually.

  As a result, I would gladly see guns limited in US society, but I understand that there are a lot of folks who wouldn't agree with that.
    But how many more times do we have to see innocent folks lose their rights and their lives because someone can't control their anger and fear?
    The NRA lobby is quite powerful, and only concerned with the current boom in business. They will do everything they can to keep the anger and fear ramped up on the side of gun owners. I've been to some gun shows recently, and seen the crowds, and sell-outs by the ammo suppliers.
    This is not a good atmosphere for our country....we have a history of killing our own brothers and sisters. The Civil War is still the greatest number of casualties inflicted upon Americans in war, and we did it to ourselves. Let's not have that again, please.
  PEACE on earth. Goodwill to all men (and women and children).

We agree to disagree... While we need to continue reviewing gun ownership, this tragedy was not caused by the weapon, but the disturbed individual with a weapon. AFAIK they are already restricted from gun ownership by law, so lets figure out how to make the existing laws more effective.

JR

 

[emrr]

While we need to continue reviewing gun ownership, this tragedy was not caused by the weapon, but the disturbed individual with a weapon. AFAIK they are already restricted from gun ownership by law, so lets figure out how to make the existing laws more effective.

Sure, the tragedy was not caused by the weapon, but the available weapon certainly exacerbated the situation.  That's what I primarily take issue with.  The definition of 'available' plays at the heart of this. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

One can also see the effects of this State's Rights thing with pollution. For example, one state may have passed serious greenhouse gas and pollution regulations requiring emissions controls on power plants etc etc. But if the state next door refuses to pass similar laws then those restrictions are quixotic. (This, by the way, is the exact argument given for reducing/eliminating all such restrictions in the US: "Well, if China and the rest of the developing world are going to poison the atmosphere, why should we be the only country paying more?")

-a

PS: FWIW, I attended a grammar school in northern New Jersey called Hudson Maxim. You might want to use the Google to see what he and his brother invented.

State's rights "thing"?

There is long record of cross border adjudication of water pollution issues in the courts and federal legislation. Air pollution is a little more squishy and there is still not unanimous coherent agreement about how to deal with it all (like carbon).

CA is at one extreme in this area, while even the european attempts to tax carbon from aircraft was rolled back somewhat as economically unfeasible.  (It would be cheaper for airlines to fly longer routes around Europe, than pay the carbon tax for overflight).

I hate that China is still throwing tons of mercury into "our" atmosphere with dirty coal, and do not argue that we should too. Has anybody here actually argued for that?

JR

PS: Damn I actually have real work I should be doing...

PPS: I received my early education in North Jersey... while no noteworthy inventor was from my small home town. 

 

[DaveP]

JR,

You have talked quite a bit in this thread about keeping emotions out of this, almost as if they were a hinderence to a rational man.  They should be kept out of the dispensation of justice, to avoid the lynch mob; agreed, but not in all situations.

I think we were given/evolved emotions because they were an asset and an advantageous trait.  Most people are peaceable and don't like making waves (witness Pucho's jury member) and so emotions are sometimes required to initiate action.  We often respond with tears at the sight of anothers distress ( witness your President) which helps to share the other persons grief.

Its too easy to get cynical, emotionally detached and think what's the point of trying to do anything, but I'm sure you're not really like that, you just like playing psychological games.

The shooter was obviously totally devoid of emotion to do what he did, and in that respect he was not human.  Sometimes we need a little anger to motivate us to right a wrong.  If you have no emotion you have no safety valve, which may have been part of the problem with the shooter.  But I'm pretty sure that living in a survivalist's house surrounded by weapons was not helpful to his mental condition.
DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

JR,

You have talked quite a bit in this thread about keeping emotions out of this, almost as if they were a hinderence to a rational man.  They should be kept out of the dispensation of justice, to avoid the lynch mob; agreed, but not in all situations.

Emotion is contrary to rational thought. 

Laws and governance should be rational not emotional. IMO Our form of government was crafted to diminish the influence of volatile emotional public opinion and be driven by calm thoughtful introspection and rational compromise.

I think we were given/evolved emotions because they were an asset and an advantageous trait.  Most people are peaceable and don't like making waves (witness Pucho's jury member) and so emotions are sometimes required to initiate action.  We often respond with tears at the sight of anothers distress ( witness your President) which helps to share the other persons grief.

Funny I recall Bohner being criticized and mocked for crying in public.  We all must deal with our personal emotion. I cried when Banbi was killed in that old Disney movie. My emotional buttons still work, but I can also rise above them and think clearly when that is called for.

It is a valid task of the President to comfort the citizens in such times, I did not watch, or need to be comforted.

Its too easy to get cynical, emotionally detached and think what's the point of trying to do anything, but I'm sure you're not really like that, you just like playing psychological games.

I am thinking clearly... this is a shortcoming in mental health management, not gun control. If anything we need to use all this public energy to accomplish something productive.

I am not playing psychological games. I like to expose the psychological games played by politicians and others, like using events such as this that are only superficially related to gun control to promote an old agenda. I.E. not letting a perfectly good crisis go to waste. (Rahm Emanuel famously quipped that from the WH a few years back). 

The shooter was obviously totally devoid of emotion to do what he did, and in that respect he was not human.  Sometimes we need a little anger to motivate us to right a wrong.  If you have no emotion you have no safety valve, which may have been part of the problem with the shooter.  But I'm pretty sure that living in a survivalist's house surrounded by weapons was not helpful to his mental condition.
DaveP

The shooter was arguably devoid of empathy, but conceivably overflowing with other very "human" emotion (like hatred). Murder is more of an emotional than rational act, in my judgment, while some disturbed individuals may try to rationalize irrational behavior. That doesn't make it rational. 

Hopefully by now my opinion on this is clear enough.

JR

 

[DaveP]

JR.
"Emotion is contrary to rational thought" I kind of thought you might say that, its the Spock test you know......teases out the Vulcans amongst us.

My wife bought me a tee shirt with the phrase:

"I may be wrong... but I doubt it"

Have you got one too?

I think this subject has been well and truly aired and it has exposed some pretty deep fault lines in the way we all come at things, maybe we should quit while we are all still friends.

I'm de-notifying this thread now.
best
DaveP

 

[riggler]

I love watching everyone debate. I think everyone is friends on here.

 

[hodad]

How quickly  people forget....

I have lived in Oklahoma City most of my life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Bri

I certainly haven't forgotten.  It did not involve guns, but it did lead to the government making it harder to obtain certain chemicals used in bomb making. 

There's a point where regulation and restriction of weapons trade makes a lot of sense to me.  Arizona's lax gun laws feed the Mexican drug cartels, and for them 26 dead is just another day at the office.  Georgia's lax gun laws feed demand for guns in New York and other points north--and while a certain percentage of those guns doesn't go to people who are using them in the commission of a crime, a certain percentage does. 

There's plenty of room for sensible restrictions on guns to coexist with those interested in self defense and hunting.  Unfortunately, that's not how the NRA plays it. 

 

[living sounds]

I think it's rational to assume that the killer wouldn't have had access to his deadly tools if his mother wouldn't have been allowed to own these guns, and the sale of firearms would be restricted in a way most civilized countries handle this.

The irrational idea is the imagined nescessity for the general population to own fireweapons to fight a fictitious tyrannical government. Or to rely on anecdotes about firearm-aided successful private crime prevention, vs. the very real firearm-related statistics of deaths and injuries.

Arms-proponents are feeding an emotional need to make life comply with their ideology. Humans are hardly ever rational, that's just an illusion. But the numbers tell the story how it is.