You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Perspective on mass shootings
- Thread starter Botswana
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Too bad we can't test my theory. Instead, mass murderers will have fair trial and soak up tax dollars in prisons with a place to sleep and 3 meals per day. Perfect jeepstrapped
New member
My $.02,
I think the mental health issue is a viable argument. For example, Loughner has been in a mental institution for a year, Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist and not to assume he is mentally unstable but something clicked with the gun range owner. Eric Harris was seeing a doctor or some king of therapist/psychiatrist and was being treated with Luvox which has some strong unhealthy side effects; note, I am not arguing the case that the medicine was the cause of Columbine. And, we are only looking at the mass killings related to firearms. I think if we look at a larger sample we will fine that there is a strong correlation between mass shootings and mental instability
I think there is a strong argument to make that, taking a firearm or firearm component, away from a mentally unbalanced individual will not prevent them from murdering people, it will only change the method they employ. In effect, gun control does nothing to save lives because it does nothing to resolve the issue with the mentally unbalanced person committed to acts of violence.
Then again, my thinking is along the lines that instead of being in the position of defending gun rights, focus on the individual as well as the correlation between violence acts like these and mental instability. That is, stop taking a defensive position and put the other side on the defense and make them defend an untenable position.
Yes, there is an issue of who decides when someone is too mentally unstable to own a firearm, and what the criteria are; however, I would suggest the bar be set fairly high because, again, removing one tool will not stop the violence.
Maybe we need a review of what it takes to have someone involuntarily committed. What leeway does law enforcement have in this regard, doctors, psychiatrists?
In retrospect it looks like someone dropped the ball in the Holmes case, in Loughners case, and in Columbine.
So, in addition, there needs to be closer examination of how the system failed and culpability needs to be assessed.
I am starting to ramble, but the overall point is, make the other side defend not one, but multiple positions. It isn't a "gun" issue, it is a health issue as well as the system failing because people fail to do their job.
I think the mental health issue is a viable argument. For example, Loughner has been in a mental institution for a year, Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist and not to assume he is mentally unstable but something clicked with the gun range owner. Eric Harris was seeing a doctor or some king of therapist/psychiatrist and was being treated with Luvox which has some strong unhealthy side effects; note, I am not arguing the case that the medicine was the cause of Columbine. And, we are only looking at the mass killings related to firearms. I think if we look at a larger sample we will fine that there is a strong correlation between mass shootings and mental instability
I think there is a strong argument to make that, taking a firearm or firearm component, away from a mentally unbalanced individual will not prevent them from murdering people, it will only change the method they employ. In effect, gun control does nothing to save lives because it does nothing to resolve the issue with the mentally unbalanced person committed to acts of violence.
Then again, my thinking is along the lines that instead of being in the position of defending gun rights, focus on the individual as well as the correlation between violence acts like these and mental instability. That is, stop taking a defensive position and put the other side on the defense and make them defend an untenable position.
Yes, there is an issue of who decides when someone is too mentally unstable to own a firearm, and what the criteria are; however, I would suggest the bar be set fairly high because, again, removing one tool will not stop the violence.
Maybe we need a review of what it takes to have someone involuntarily committed. What leeway does law enforcement have in this regard, doctors, psychiatrists?
In retrospect it looks like someone dropped the ball in the Holmes case, in Loughners case, and in Columbine.
So, in addition, there needs to be closer examination of how the system failed and culpability needs to be assessed.
I am starting to ramble, but the overall point is, make the other side defend not one, but multiple positions. It isn't a "gun" issue, it is a health issue as well as the system failing because people fail to do their job.
Crankgrinder
New member
Against my better judgement i suppose i may add to this. Things like this are all acts of domestic terrorism thats what it is let me just say that first. I agree with all that some sort of mental problem almost always contributes to the actions of these criminals but perhaps that mental problem started out as a mental weakness at first and then caused them to crack which lead to the topic of this discussion. Society itself i dont think is largely to blame, a criminals actions are his own let me say that too, but, society has problems that seem to be getting worse each generation. It seems to me that (and im 30 y/o) used to you would run into these people every now and then, im talking about very rude individuals, ones who care about one thing and thats themselves. These individuals respect only two things 1. money, and lots of it and 2. that which can either destroy or cause them great bodily injury. These days it seems that these kinds of people are everywhere, that this mentality somehow seems to be the new norm and it shouldnt be that way at all. Perhaps in dealing with what would seem to them as a whole society of such people on a daily basis their weak minds somehow gave in and cracked, giving them what in their mind could be a motive to murder unknown individuals out of hatred alone, after all to them everyone is now scum no matter who. Now people minding their own business in a public place are not at fault for this stuff, and neither is society itself i hope to have made that clear already. these people are terrorists thats that. Its been said before that this is a symptom of a much deeper problem within I believe that is possible. With mom away at work, dad away at work and the shcools, peers,streets.video games,television being left to raise kids things are no longer being taught that once were a part of everyones everyday life such as value systems, beliefs and such. Morality is not there anymore. It would seem that this combined with other factors such as drugs (legal and not legal) and other distractions too long to name has caused society to decay in some way right along with the minds of quite a few. Now again please dont think that im siding with the devil here and dont think that perhaps ive thought like such criminals at some time or another, I just wanted to offer the perspective that perhaps the topic is in fact a symptom of a deeper problem, and im not saying itll stop it all, not saying its the cure or that itll even help but positive beliefs, value systems and respect or fellow man i think are a part of it and i suppose it starts at home. No gun law, clip ban or restriction that government can pass will even begin to help the problem because thats not what the problem is. Again only part of a symptom, treated with false medication as has been done in other areas for a very long time.
History has proven that the alternative turns into something none of us want.Instead, mass murderers will have fair trial and soak up tax dollars in prisons with a place to sleep and 3 meals per day.
You can not legislate craziness, fanaticism or senselessness out of existence. Just banning inanimate objects is an exercise in futility in preventing acts like these from happening in the future. I think the tide started turning to people buying firearms when they figured out laws were not going to protect them from becoming a victim and it wasn't more dangerous to own a firearm for protection.
The alternative is not pretty. Look at the guy that did the shooting at Ft. Hood. They are making a mountain out of a molehill over the beard instead of finishing the trial and sentencing him. Our leadership won't even use the T word when it comes to him despite the evidence that he was.
The alternative is not pretty. Look at the guy that did the shooting at Ft. Hood. They are making a mountain out of a molehill over the beard instead of finishing the trial and sentencing him. Our leadership won't even use the T word when it comes to him despite the evidence that he was.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Ok then Too bad we can't test my theory. Instead, mass murderers will have fair trial and soak up tax dollars in prisons with a place to sleep and 3 meals per day. Perfect
Actually, your theory has been tested repeatedly in different forms. Long prison terms don't scare such folks. Various forms of executions including firing squad, electrocution, hanging, gas chamber, and lethal injection all have failed to stop people from murder, shootings, mass murder, and mass shootings.
Beyond that, your theory involves a form of torture that is not considered civil and is not legal.
Yes, mass murderers get a fair trial and they should get a fair trial. It is part of the Constitution. Unfair trials means a corrupt justice system. What is really scary is that you were suggesting murdering the purported mass murder without a fair trial as per your followup post. That would be an extrajudicial execution, aka a lynching.
Mannlicher
New member
Humans have slaughtered other humans ever since pre history. I just finished reading "War before Civilization", by Lawrence Keeley.
His scientific take is that humans today, war aside, are much less likely to be massacred than were hunter/gatherers or early farmers.
When the state of the art weapon was the bow and club, those intent on mayhem got it done. Today, the actions are the same, just the weapons differ.
Evidently, we are hard wired to commit heinous acts against other humans.
His scientific take is that humans today, war aside, are much less likely to be massacred than were hunter/gatherers or early farmers.
When the state of the art weapon was the bow and club, those intent on mayhem got it done. Today, the actions are the same, just the weapons differ.
Evidently, we are hard wired to commit heinous acts against other humans.
randersonabq
New member
violence
It seems to me that violent computer games, movies and TV shows harden people to violence. I constantly hear that people can participate in make believe violence and not become affected. I have no proof of the negative affect of seeing, hearing and, in games, participating in violence but I cannot help but believe that it changes some people. Yes, most people can separate real life from make believe, but can everyone?
Are these murderers putting into real life what they see in the fiction of violent games and movies?
This fictional violence is, the Courts say, protected by the First Amendment. I do not think that the Constitution's writers would be horrified by the today's interpretation of the Second Amendment as they felt that militia had won American Independence. How they would feel about the First Amendment protecting purveyors of anti-social violence and pornography is another question.
Maybe I am wrong, but I fear not.
What do you think?
It seems to me that violent computer games, movies and TV shows harden people to violence. I constantly hear that people can participate in make believe violence and not become affected. I have no proof of the negative affect of seeing, hearing and, in games, participating in violence but I cannot help but believe that it changes some people. Yes, most people can separate real life from make believe, but can everyone?
Are these murderers putting into real life what they see in the fiction of violent games and movies?
This fictional violence is, the Courts say, protected by the First Amendment. I do not think that the Constitution's writers would be horrified by the today's interpretation of the Second Amendment as they felt that militia had won American Independence. How they would feel about the First Amendment protecting purveyors of anti-social violence and pornography is another question.
Maybe I am wrong, but I fear not.
What do you think?
Double Naught Spy
New member
Grossman would say, Yes, but that would not account for such problems in countries without as much in the way of video games, tv, and movies.
What you are talking about, of course, is exposure to information. The problem isn't TV, games, or movies per se. If you familiarize yourself with the biographies of numerous bad people, they often were inspired by books, evil books with their evil ways. Nobody wants to do away with books. They are part of our education system, but it isn't the books that are at issue (so they aren't evil). If there is a problem with any of these, it is exposure to the information. So you have information exposure and when you are talking about kids, then you have parenting issues. Part of the reasons parents don't want you hanging out with the "wrong crowd" is that you will undoubtedly get exposed to things and values not appropriate in the eyes of your parents, new information that they don't like.
Violence will still exist outside of these information sources, but note it isn't the medium by when the information is conveyed that is necessarily the problem. Like firearms, TV can be used for good and evil and with kids, or just plain fun, but supervision is a very strongly suggested facet.
What you are talking about, of course, is exposure to information. The problem isn't TV, games, or movies per se. If you familiarize yourself with the biographies of numerous bad people, they often were inspired by books, evil books with their evil ways. Nobody wants to do away with books. They are part of our education system, but it isn't the books that are at issue (so they aren't evil). If there is a problem with any of these, it is exposure to the information. So you have information exposure and when you are talking about kids, then you have parenting issues. Part of the reasons parents don't want you hanging out with the "wrong crowd" is that you will undoubtedly get exposed to things and values not appropriate in the eyes of your parents, new information that they don't like.
Violence will still exist outside of these information sources, but note it isn't the medium by when the information is conveyed that is necessarily the problem. Like firearms, TV can be used for good and evil and with kids, or just plain fun, but supervision is a very strongly suggested facet.
I think this is nothing new. History show countless incidents of individuals killing more than three people at one time. There should be strict punishments but insane, crazy, evil people are going to act. No amount of legislation or rules are going to stop this. The only thing the law abiding have is punishment and closure at some point. Blaming guns, video games, movies etc just takes focus from the person who engaged in the activity and provides them with an excuse.
Beyond that, your theory involves a form of torture that is not considered civil and is not legal.
Ok then, let's say your son or daughter or brother or sister or wife or parents were shot in that theater. How civil and legal is THAT? ~Oh yea, I forgot. Our legal system is too politically correct to let the punishment fit the crime.
Yes, mass murderers get a fair trial and they should get a fair trial. It is part of the Constitution. Unfair trials means a corrupt justice system. What is really scary is that you were suggesting murdering the purported mass murder without a fair trial as per your followup post. That would be an extrajudicial execution, aka a lynching.
As if we aren't 'sure' who did it, or what his rights should be. I believe in upholding the constitution, yet - we keep doing the same thing and getting the same results with mass shootings. Maybe it's time to think outside the box and truly punish and discourage this type of evil activity.... not just go with the flow and think the problem will take care of itself. Really?
Obviously, doing the same thing doesn't yield different results!!
Fact of business:
1) I shouldn't HAVE to worry about my loved ones going to public places
2) Those with thoughts of evil mass shootings should REALLY have something to worry about regarding the consequence of their actions. As of now they don't.
zincwarrior
New member
Also
3) Better background checks to weed out the nutters
4) A mental health system with more teeth and better networking. Whats the link in many of these nutjob shootings? Someone knew about and tried to report it or get them help. VMI. Tucson. Aurora. Even the Fort Hood shooter (although terrorism) had been reported.
3) Better background checks to weed out the nutters
4) A mental health system with more teeth and better networking. Whats the link in many of these nutjob shootings? Someone knew about and tried to report it or get them help. VMI. Tucson. Aurora. Even the Fort Hood shooter (although terrorism) had been reported.
Mayosligo in post #50 -
Pretty much says it for me.
I think this is nothing new. History show countless incidents of individuals killing more than three people at one time. There should be strict punishments but insane, crazy, evil people are going to act. No amount of legislation or rules are going to stop this. The only thing the law abiding have is punishment and closure at some point. Blaming guns, video games, movies etc just takes focus from the person who engaged in the activity and provides them with an excuse.
Pretty much says it for me.
Chadio -
You are correct in that it shouldn't be a worry. Unfortunately, as I've already said in a different thread today, your safety is an illusion.
I walk into a room, I look for the exits, I make a mental note of who enters and leaves. The only time I sit with my back to the main entrance is when I eat lunch with LEO friends.
On the highway, I am constantly scanning around me and keeping inventory of which cars are in which positions around me. I have a long commute in heavy traffic and I've had to suddenly switch lanes before. It helps to have some idea of what your exit is.
I'm always on the lookout for suspect behavior. When I was in India, a man was tailing my project manager (a female) and one of the female staff members we were there to train. We had become separated, but once I made eye contact and moved in their direction he reversed direction and left. What was he up to? No idea, all I care about is he went the other way.
I've had to draw a weapon in defense before, I've opened the door with a gun behind my back once, I engaged in hand-to-hand with some wannabe gang-bangers in a mall food court a few years back.
A Mall. Food Court.
There are no safe places.
I'm not against relaxation or even letting my guard down, but in environments I don't control I am not safe. I can't count how many car accidents I've avoided simply by paying attention. How many dangerous situations have I successfully defused just by not being a target? No idea, but more then a couple at least.
At some point, no amount of preparation or situational awareness will help you if things suddenly go sideways. You just have to hope your preparations and training are enough to get you through.
Bad people don't care and they never will. It doesn't take a spree killer, it just takes an individual or a handful of miscreants to create a situation that we all agree shouldn't happen. Yet it does. The sooner we come to grips with that and stop putting on rose colored glasses the better off we'll all be. Bad people would get away with less if we as a society would acknoweldge they are there and were prepared to deal with them.
I shouldn't HAVE to worry about my loved ones going to public places
You are correct in that it shouldn't be a worry. Unfortunately, as I've already said in a different thread today, your safety is an illusion.
I walk into a room, I look for the exits, I make a mental note of who enters and leaves. The only time I sit with my back to the main entrance is when I eat lunch with LEO friends.
On the highway, I am constantly scanning around me and keeping inventory of which cars are in which positions around me. I have a long commute in heavy traffic and I've had to suddenly switch lanes before. It helps to have some idea of what your exit is.
I'm always on the lookout for suspect behavior. When I was in India, a man was tailing my project manager (a female) and one of the female staff members we were there to train. We had become separated, but once I made eye contact and moved in their direction he reversed direction and left. What was he up to? No idea, all I care about is he went the other way.
I've had to draw a weapon in defense before, I've opened the door with a gun behind my back once, I engaged in hand-to-hand with some wannabe gang-bangers in a mall food court a few years back.
A Mall. Food Court.
There are no safe places.
I'm not against relaxation or even letting my guard down, but in environments I don't control I am not safe. I can't count how many car accidents I've avoided simply by paying attention. How many dangerous situations have I successfully defused just by not being a target? No idea, but more then a couple at least.
At some point, no amount of preparation or situational awareness will help you if things suddenly go sideways. You just have to hope your preparations and training are enough to get you through.
Bad people don't care and they never will. It doesn't take a spree killer, it just takes an individual or a handful of miscreants to create a situation that we all agree shouldn't happen. Yet it does. The sooner we come to grips with that and stop putting on rose colored glasses the better off we'll all be. Bad people would get away with less if we as a society would acknoweldge they are there and were prepared to deal with them.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Ok then, let's say your son or daughter or brother or sister or wife or parents were shot in that theater. How civil and legal is THAT? ~Oh yea, I forgot. Our legal system is too politically correct to let the punishment fit the crime.
Got it. Because the bad person broke the law, then it is okay for us to break the law? No, that isn't how it works.
As if we aren't 'sure' who did it, or what his rights should be. I believe in upholding the constitution, yet - we keep doing the same thing and getting the same results with mass shootings. Maybe it's time to think outside the box and truly punish and discourage this type of evil activity.... not just go with the flow and think the problem will take care of itself. Really?
Obviously, you don't believe in upholding the Constitution because you are advocating lynching people for a crime. You don't want them to have a fair trial.
Thinking outside the box is good. Thinking outside the Constitution and into doing illegal acts is not good.
Fact of business:
1) I shouldn't HAVE to worry about my loved ones going to public places
Fact of business? I don't think so. As noted, such safety is something of an illusion as noted. Every time you go outside your home, your level of risk increases or at least morphs from one type to another, but generally it will increase. You should worry. Not worrying would be stupid. However, advocating illegal acts is even worse.
2) discouraging and punishing those who carry out acts of violence, mass shootings, terrorism.
We already do this. As a matter of "fact," we implemented a bunch of new laws to make things like bombing or setting churches ablaze illegal back in the 90s when it was already illegal to do so. We have all sorts of new laws for terroristic crimes when the crimes being committed were already illegal.
2) Those with thoughts of evil mass shootings should REALLY have something to worry about regarding the consequence of their actions. As of now they don't.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
1. Before one rants about throwing away the BOR, one might study up. NO evidence for deterrence for capital punishment. Yep, some commentators might say there is - but most reviews say no.
2. Video games - Grossman is summarizing the literature from a particular school of thought. However, the video game violence connection is not accepted by all in the literature as having any predictive validility for violence.
We chortle about the 2nd Amend. protecting rights and then want to torture folks and get rid of fair trials. That's not legit.
2. Video games - Grossman is summarizing the literature from a particular school of thought. However, the video game violence connection is not accepted by all in the literature as having any predictive validility for violence.
We chortle about the 2nd Amend. protecting rights and then want to torture folks and get rid of fair trials. That's not legit.
We can't defend our rights by willing to compromise others is what you're saying?
I agree. I'm all for the death penalty, but yeah it doesn't work as a deterrent. All it does is make sure that individual never commits a murder again.
I'm a little dismayed at the suggestions around mental health or even taking away provisions around cruel and unusual punishment. The US system is not centered around vengeance but rather justice. The distinction is extremely important.
I think a lot of the reaction is more of the "something must be done!" reaction.
The only thing I'd like to see is anyone who commits a mass or serial murder cannot use the insanity defense. Anyone that unbalanced needs to be removed from the populace permanently.
I agree. I'm all for the death penalty, but yeah it doesn't work as a deterrent. All it does is make sure that individual never commits a murder again.
I'm a little dismayed at the suggestions around mental health or even taking away provisions around cruel and unusual punishment. The US system is not centered around vengeance but rather justice. The distinction is extremely important.
I think a lot of the reaction is more of the "something must be done!" reaction.
The only thing I'd like to see is anyone who commits a mass or serial murder cannot use the insanity defense. Anyone that unbalanced needs to be removed from the populace permanently.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
That's pure and simple BS. The insanity defense came out for a mass murderer if I recall who was clearly not responsible.
Removing the unbalanced from the population harkens back to some of genocidial opponents of the past. In fact, the genocide of the Holocaust did not start with the Jews, Gypsis and gays - it started with the mentally ill. Such excutions were supported by the German psychiatric profession.
If you actually knew something about the biology of mental illness, you might not be so full it. Also, study up on the insanity defense rules.
Disgraceful comments in this thread.
Thus, closed with extreme prejudice.
Removing the unbalanced from the population harkens back to some of genocidial opponents of the past. In fact, the genocide of the Holocaust did not start with the Jews, Gypsis and gays - it started with the mentally ill. Such excutions were supported by the German psychiatric profession.
If you actually knew something about the biology of mental illness, you might not be so full it. Also, study up on the insanity defense rules.
Disgraceful comments in this thread.
Thus, closed with extreme prejudice.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.