Do These Mass Shootings Really Only Happen in America?

The majority is what democracy should give priority to

Not necessarily at all times and/or under all circumstances. An unfettered tyranny of the majority is no less a tyranny than any other. To praphrase Ayn Rand (who was in some ways admittedly a few peas short of a pod), my individual rights are not subject to a vote.
 
Thanks for the post ScrubCedar. It was very well written and explained well and concisely, as well as an internet post might, the depth of feeling behind the various elements of the Constitution.

However, the murderers in these incidents chose guns. The 2A gave them, as with all Americans, the right to guns, or to the person from whom they accessed their weapons.

My concern, aside from the obvious horror of the attacks we've been discussing, is that surviving victims of these attacks, the victims' families, their friends, and the wider gun-ambivalent public will start to view those that died as also having died for the 2A.
And they, the families and friends, will not see those as meaningful sacrifices for the greater good.

TBH, I think to most my views are clear, and my motives too.
Members can agree or disagree what I've said, but take time to at least consider it objectively.
 
Merry Christmas to you as well Pond.
You've brought up a very good point. "My concern, aside from the obvious horror of the attacks we've been discussing, is that surviving victims of these attacks, the victims' families, their friends, and the wider gun-ambivalent public will start to view those that died as also having died for the 2A.
And they, the families and friends, will not see those as meaningful sacrifices for the greater good"

Somewhere along the line some Americans seem to have lost knowledge and urgency when it comes to our freedoms and patriotism.
They seem to simply not be able to comprehend that we could become an oppressed people just like anyone else can. As such they are willing to trade away our rights for seeming safety.
A qoute attributed to Ben Franklin addresses this. ”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
It is our responsibilty to help those on the fence and the uninformed understand that what you so aptly articulated is a falsehood that sounds correct, but isn't.
Does anyone here seriously believe that this bright, technically talented, young man who "could assemble a computer in minutes" was incapable of finding a way to create IED's or even worse chemical weapons of some sort?
What would the death toll have been then?
Listen to the old nurse who dealt with large numbers of mentally ill patients over the years, there is a higher incidence of high IQ amongst the mentally ill.
Just because they are crazy does not make them stupid, quite the contrary.

In this world that has access to the internet and therefore explosives and chemical/biological weapons knowledge. Do we really want to be limiting what type of weapons we have available to fight back with?
This is the answer to that particular objection.
 
@Johnwillimans;Bingo....

It was not always so though. Federal funds for mental health were a perfect target in the 80's, which were devastated, and never refunded. We are now reaping what was sowed then. Saving a buck "here" without assessing and mitigating the future impact "there" and we arrive at our current problem....a nation full of undiagnosed, bullied, misunderstood, ostracized, untreated mental cases with access to guns.

Should the NRA not champion the mental health cause as another pathway to 2A defense?
 
To praphrase Ayn Rand (who was in some ways admittedly a few peas short of a pod), my individual rights are not subject to a vote.
Click to expand...

Well actually they are. The amendment process is the ultimate expression of the power of the people as a whole. Through it any right can be added or subtracted.
It may be difficult and easy to side track, but it is possible.
 
In other countries mass shootings are done by the government and its agents-Syria at present, Rwanda in 1994, Babi Yar in 1941, e.g.
 
And 'Moral' health...

"...the focus needs to be on the state of mental health care in this country,..." (quoted from a previous post)

I'd offer that there is a moral health component in modern antisocial behavior. Some people are not just 'nuts' by our conventional observations. They don't drool, or stack B'B's or do other weird stuff. I believe that some people are just evil at heart. In so many instances, those who snap are described by family and neighbors as 'normal', or a 'good kid', or a 'friendly neighbor'.

The conscience we're all born with - a gut level understanding of right and wrong, has been so suppressed and overwhelmed by a lifetime of bad choices by some people as to render their humanity moot.

Those who refute the existence of good and evil in the world will ascribe mass killings to an undiagnosed mental illness. I believe a life-long string of bad choices can make someone comfortable, even invigorated by mass slaughters as we're seen.

Can they be rehabilitated? Don't know. I agree we should expend a case by case effort to determine if an offender understands their actions. Does society require it's pound of flesh? Yes it does, and swift justice to these offenders may, just possibly deter the next 17-25 year old looking for his (or her) 15 minutes under society's microscope.

To waste our public conscience blaming 'mental illness' for evil acts or evil choices may only serve to cripple our public will to act.

It isn't the average cretin who is a mass murderer, McVey etal. were/are clear-minded people who are listening to the whispering of the devil on their left shoulder instead of the angel on their right.

Their choice. But, we have a choice, too. Protect ourselves and our loved ones. And, lest I forget to say it, try, as best we can to be good people, better citizens, and students of the daily application of the Golden Rule.
 
Smokiniron, some of the points of view you present (re: mental illness vs. good/evil) are not mutually exclusive. I don't hear many people "blaming" mental illness re: these heinous acts, just acknowledging that it exists. Only a very small minority of people with mental health problems cannot truly distinguish between right and wrong, and (contrary to the belief of many) any type of legal defense based on insanity is rarely successful. The mental illness may have been part of what led to the crime, it is true, but this does not mean that the perpetrator is not responsible for his/her actions (again, with extremely rare exceptions). To say that an undiagnosed mental illness contributed to a heinous act such as we are discussing is definitely not to "refute the existence of good and evil." At least not in my book.
 
Wow. Unless meant as darkly humorous hyperbole, the above reflects an astoundingly unfortunate lack of understanding about what we in the mental health profession actually do.
Click to expand...

I know what they used to do: institutionalize these nutters.

There used to be dozens and dozens of mental hospitals in this country, and involuntary commitment was easily accomplished. Now these people are asked to take some medication and turned loose.

As I've noted before, the phrase "Off his meds" appeared just about the same time they started closing most of the large mental hospitals down .....

The consensus here, which I agree with, is that there will always be nutters, and some will be violent..... these things WILL continue happen to happen, whether or not you punish all the people who did not do it ...... even in a police state like Communist China, these things do happen. A police state is not acceptable to me: Non Starter.....

So ..... the question has been answered, and that brings the next question:

What do we DO? I am a firm believer in the FACT that the only effective answer to a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun, and the sooner the good guy gets there, the fewer innocents will get killed (look at the Oregon Mall) The school principal that ran to confront the nutter in this incident was doing her duty: she was ultimately responsible for the safety of her students. While it was a brave thing to confront a killer armed with nothing but harsh words, it accomplished nothing but getting her killed........ I ask you this:

Would it have not been a better thing for her to have confronted the nutter with a gun, and shot him until he stopped killing children?

Where is the downside to that?

"Educators/Administators don't like guns!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!" is not a valid arguement: they are ultimately responsible for the safety of the students, and if they are unwilling or unable to do the job, then we need to find soemone who can.

It really IS that simple.
 
Me: To praphrase Ayn Rand (who was in some ways admittedly a few peas short of a pod), my individual rights are not subject to a vote.

Buzzcook: Well actually they are. The amendment process is the ultimate expression of the power of the people as a whole. Through it any right can be added or subtracted. It may be difficult and easy to side track, but it is possible.

I see your point. Mea culpa. I should have clarified and said that the unalienable rights that every human being possesses are not, IMHO, subject to a valid vote, said rights having been endowed them by their Creator.
 
Pond, James Pond
The majority is what democracy should give priority to, and it seems a growing number to want more gun control.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the U.S.A. is a Republic and therefore a limited democracy. The majority can not ignore the Constitution and deny our rights. The majority does not always rule.

If the goal is to make students safer in schools then it should be obvious that properly trained and equipped armed guards would make them safer. Properly designed schools that have limited access to unauthorized people would make them safer.

No student in the U.S. has died due to fire in school in the last 50 years. This is since schools were designed and built with smoke detectors, fire alarms and sprinkler systems. Schools have fire extinguishers and practice fire drills. But some people do not want armed guards. It makes no sense. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA is attacked as a nut for calling for armed guards; while former President Clinton was applauded by the same people for doing the same thing and spending $60,000,000 to do it.
Politics. Hypocrisy. Government seeking power over the people.

When mass shootings occur and there is no armed person on site to confront the shooter the number of innocents killed is many times greater than when an armed individual confronts the shooter quickly. "The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started." Larry Correia

"The biggest mass killings in US history have used bombs (like Bath, Michigan 38 elementary school children and six adults killed), fire (like Happyland Nightclub killed 87 people) or airliners (killed almost 3,000 on 9/11/2001)." Larry Correia

Firearms make us safer. Look up the work of Dr. John Lott and Dr. Gary Kleck. On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns. Over the last 20 years the number of firearms in America has increased year after year. More and more states have instituted concealed carry laws with tens of thousands of people carry concealed weapons everyday; and yet in spite of the liberals proclamation that blood would run in the streets, violent crime has decreased and homicides have decreased.
 
Last edited:
Buzzcook said:
Well actually they are. The amendment process is the ultimate expression of the power of the people as a whole. Through it any right can be added or subtracted.
It may be difficult and easy to side track, but it is possible.
Click to expand...

As a practical matter the majority can certainly choose to protect some rights and violate others but basic human rights exist regardless. The obvious example is slavery. Slavery was always wrong even though the majority has been ok with it for much of human history.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
mental illness...

Apologies, Quincunx... I did not intend to indict the mentally ill, but to suggest that many criminals are in fact, very sane - and also very evil. It's my opinion. I can't easily prove the existence of 'evil' as I perceive it in these circumstances. I also believe that evil people will almost always try to hide behind the skirt of insanity. After all, short of offing themselves, few sane criminals are willing to take the ultimate responsibility for their slaughters.
 
banning "military style/assault weapons" and hi-cap mags because of what happened in Newtown, CT is like banning gasoline because of what happened/could of happened in Cokeville, WY in '86.
 
Pond, James Pond
The majority is what democracy should give priority to, and it seems a growing number to want more gun control.
Click to expand...

As Mello2u pointed out, the United States is not a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic, with democraticly elected representatives, who are constrained by that Constitution .....

A pure Democracy is mob rule: it can boil down to 51 wolves and 49 sheep voting on the dinner menu.

...... what we have right now is minority of sheep bleeting for all canine teeth to be tuned in, ignoring the fact that the wolves will no doubt keep theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top