|
|
Post by katiejane on Jul 24, 2015 13:08:09 GMT
[quote source="/post/682583/thread" timestamp=" Gun control laws will not stop mass killings. They'll just find other ways. If that were true then countries like UK and Australia would regularly see mass killings by means other than guns but we don't.... yet we certainly have many people suffering with mental illness just as the USA does. We also have limited access to mental health support and treatment. So I don't buy the argument that its not gun control but mental health services that are needed. |
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103 
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 24, 2015 13:23:15 GMT
I don't think all shooters/suiciders are mentally ill. Some probably are, and some not. I do think killing yourself after killing others is the weenie way out. Avoidance of punishment. Not brave at all. And this:
will not work. Throwing MORE laws at those who will NOT obey them is USELESS. They don't care about laws. Make a bazillion more gun laws and it won't help if they don't obey the laws. All it does is make it harder on those who DO obey the laws to defend themselves. You can't legislate away evil. I wish it were possible, but it isn't.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:28:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 13:24:14 GMT
[quote source="/post/682583/thread" timestamp=" Gun control laws will not stop mass killings. They'll just find other ways. If that were true then countries like UK and Australia would regularly see mass killings by means other than guns but we don't.... yet we certainly have many people suffering with mental illness just as the USA does. You said it before I could gar. I agree with you and would also add that mental health treatment isn't at a gold standard here either far from it. Blaming the lack of mental health treatment, to me, is just apathy from a large section of the population which put their rights,selfishly in my opinion, above the fundamental human right that everyone is entitled to......the right to life. I'm not referring to any particular poster on this thread in saying that, but just a general feeling every time I hear that it's happened again. The wall that is in the US separating the two sides of the debate seems to be impenetrable somehow, in particular the pro gun lobby who are not willing to give an inch to save an innocent life and yet these are the very same people that will be first in line to condemn any other country's human rights laws or lack of. This will all die down in a couple of days until the next time  |
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,402
|
Post by katybee on Jul 24, 2015 13:24:21 GMT
Sometimes it's a mentally ill person seeking revenge against some perceived wrong. Sometimes it's a racist trying to start a race war. Sometimes it's a terrorist on a jihad. Hmmm... There's only one thing all these have in common: People who had absolutely no business owning guns had extremely easy access to them.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,402
|
Post by katybee on Jul 24, 2015 13:25:19 GMT
If that were true then countries like UK and Australia would regularly see mass killings by means other than guns but we don't.... yet we certainly have many people suffering with mental illness just as the USA does. You said it before I could gar. I agree with you and would also add that mental health treatment isn't at a gold standard here either far from it. Blaming the lack of mental health treatment, to me, is just apathy from a large section of the population which put their rights,selfishly in my opinion, above the fundamental human right that everyone is entitled to......the right to life. I'm not referring to any particular poster on this thread in saying that, but just a general feeling every time I hear that it's happened again. The wall that is in the US separating the two sides of the debate seems to be impenetrable somehow, in particular the pro gun lobby who are not willing to give an inch to save an innocent life and yet these are the very same people that will be first in line to condemn any other country's human rights laws or lack of. This will all die down in a couple of days until the next time Yeah--,it's embarrassing. |
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Jul 24, 2015 13:32:26 GMT
On our news they said the shooter turned the gun on himself. So why did you have to maim and kill others in the process of killing yourself? What a selfish prick. I talked with my psychologist about this after a family member committed suicide. It's so easy to understand that a person was not thinking properly when they kill themselves. But, we have a tendency to try to make sense of why they made the decision to take other people with them. Why do we expect logical thinking in the instance of killing others before themself, but not the suicide itself? The person is not thinking properly in either situation. Again, if they aren't in their right mind, can they be selfish? Yes they can. We can excuse away every action if we try hard enough. |
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Jul 24, 2015 14:30:56 GMT
This will all die down in a couple of days until the next time We haven't even yet buried all of the victims of the last shooting, now we have another one to deal with. But oh my, oh dear, there is simply nothing that can be done about these things. Nothing at all! |
|
oldcrow
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,828
Location: Ontario,Canada
|
Post by oldcrow on Jul 24, 2015 15:45:11 GMT
Is this really just about mental illness? Does gun control play no role in any of this? I am in favour of gun control. I live in Canada and we have gun control but we still have shootings. I believe better mental health availability would help but it would not completely stop it. Because the ones who need the help are not always the ones who would seek it. |
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Jul 24, 2015 15:56:43 GMT
President Obama was interviewed by a BBC journalist on our prime time news last night. He said his biggest regret/frustration of his presidency so far is that (paraphrasing) "despite all the mass shootings, America still doesn't have the common sense gun safety laws to stop events like this" I genuinely wonder what it will take for things to change when the two sides of the argument seem so far apart. It must be soul destroying and frightening to see and hear about this happening so frequently. After Sandy Hook happened I asked myself the same question. If someone killing a class full of 5 and 6 year olds didn't do it, I don't think anything will.  |
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Jul 24, 2015 16:07:29 GMT
On our news they said the shooter turned the gun on himself. So why did you have to maim and kill others in the process of killing yourself? What a selfish prick. I talked with my psychologist about this after a family member committed suicide. It's so easy to understand that a person was not thinking properly when they kill themselves. But, we have a tendency to try to make sense of why they made the decision to take other people with them. Why do we expect logical thinking in the instance of killing others before themself, but not the suicide itself? The person is not thinking properly in either situation. Again, if they aren't in their right mind, can they be selfish? IMHO, only psychosis removes the criminal intent. (Andrea Yates is a really sad example.) I believe the Aurora shooter wasn't in his right mind, but his desires to inflict pain and death to others was clear. Same with Adam Lanza. Are there still hospitals for the "criminally insane?" Or is that a remnant of the past? |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 24, 2015 16:17:37 GMT
Sometimes it's a mentally ill person seeking revenge against some perceived wrong. Sometimes it's a racist trying to start a race war. Sometimes it's a terrorist on a jihad. Hmmm... There's only one thing all these have in common: People who had absolutely no business owning guns had extremely easy access to them. ^^^ what evidence are you basing this on? Hindsight is 20/20, and all that... are there truly things in their record that would have / should have precluded them from getting a gun when they purchased it? Or is this statement based only on how you feel about their actions? What criteria would you put into place? If someone is Muslim, they 'might' be a terrorist therefore they aren't allowed to purchase a gun? How do you determine someone is a racist-who-wants-to-start-a-race-war; what question on a gun ownership application or a background check would tell you this? I believe there are a LOT more responsible gun owners out there than there are lunatics who commit these types of crimes; unfortunately, these types of crimes are what make the news. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:28:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 16:21:07 GMT
6/17/15 - Charleston, SC 9 killed in The Emanuel African Methodist Church
July 4th Weekend - Chicago, IL 10 killed 53 injured
7/5/15 - San Francisco, CA Kate Steinle was shot and killed walking with her father on Pier 14 by an undocumented individual with a gun stolen from the car of a Bureau of Land Management Agent.
7/16/15 - Chattanooga, TN 4 marines and one Navy officer were killed in two recruitment centers
7/22/15 - Hayward, CA Police Officier Scott Lunger was shot and killed during a "routine" traffic stop.
7/23/15 - Lafayette, LA 2 killed and 9 injured before the gunman shot himself. He fired 13 shots. Do the math.
I just listed 6 cases were people were killed for various reasons. The one common denominator in each incident was a gun. Sad part is there are many more cases during this time period I didn't list.
To those who say "more gun laws are not going to stop this sort of thing" I say well let's try it and find out shall we. We may be pleasantly surprised.
To those who say " Well if these people didn't have guns they would find another way". Really why when it's soooo easy to get a gun. And they are fast & efficient.
The scary thing is this could happen anywhere and to anyone of us because the victim is almost always an innocent party just going about their business like praying in a church, celebrating a holiday, taking a walk with their father, or going to the movie to see a comedy.
But what is going to happen now that folks have expressed their sorrow for the victims and outrage at the shooter is we will go on with our lives until the next time and start the cycle all over again. I have to wonder what that says about us as a society.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 24, 2015 16:33:44 GMT
...I could go find all sorts of reports of crimes and deaths being committed that didn't have anything to do with guns, too-- it doesn't really prove anything statistically, to me.
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Jul 24, 2015 16:38:13 GMT
following your logic, Krazyscrapper, cars should be outlawed long before guns.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:28:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 16:39:10 GMT
...I could go find all sorts of reports of crimes and deaths being committed that didn't have anything to do with guns, too-- it doesn't really prove anything statistically, to me. What we have here is a perfect example of deflecting from the subject at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 24, 2015 16:40:27 GMT
nope- what we have here is people saying one thing causes another without proof- flawed logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Jul 24, 2015 16:42:50 GMT
I talked with my psychologist about this after a family member committed suicide. It's so easy to understand that a person was not thinking properly when they kill themselves. But, we have a tendency to try to make sense of why they made the decision to take other people with them. Why do we expect logical thinking in the instance of killing others before themself, but not the suicide itself? The person is not thinking properly in either situation. Again, if they aren't in their right mind, can they be selfish? IMHO, only psychosis removes the criminal intent. (Andrea Yates is a really sad example.) I believe the Aurora shooter wasn't in his right mind, but his desires to inflict pain and death to others was clear. Same with Adam Lanza. Are there still hospitals for the "criminally insane?" Or is that a remnant of the past? There are still hospitals both for the criminally insane as well as for people who are legally insane but haven't been charged with a crime. There are also a ton of people who can't meet the very tight definitions for not guilty by reason of insanity who are housed in prison, sometimes in special mental health units. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a legal standard, not a medical standard -- you can be running around the prison naked on all fours receiving messages from God via the intercom and still be legally sane. A decently high percentage of people in jail and prison are severely mentally ill. There may be information out there that I haven't seen, but I don't know that I have seen anything that tells us if this particular guy was mentally ill. He has been described as a drifter, but that can mean a lot of things. I think people tend to project onto situations a lot of their assumptions; if you have someone who identifies as Muslim who shoots military personnel, he is a jihadist, whereas if you have someone who is a white guy in his late 50s who shoots up a theater, the initial assumption is mental illness. FWIW, I don't think it has to be one thing. Mental illness, easy availability of guns, a culture where guns and gun violence are glorified, lots of publicity around shootings such that shooting becomes the template for what to do when you (and "you" are almost always male) reach your edge -- it is complicated. ETA: One argument that is not plausible is that the US doesn't have a specific gun violence issue. If you look at homicide by gun rates here versus, well, everywhere else, it is clear that we are something special. |
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,402
|
Post by katybee on Jul 24, 2015 16:43:01 GMT
Sometimes it's a mentally ill person seeking revenge against some perceived wrong. Sometimes it's a racist trying to start a race war. Sometimes it's a terrorist on a jihad. Hmmm... There's only one thing all these have in common: People who had absolutely no business owning guns had extremely easy access to them. ^^^ what evidence are you basing this on? Hindsight is 20/20, and all that... are there truly things in their record that would have / should have precluded them from getting a gun when they purchased it? Or is this statement based only on how you feel about their actions? What criteria would you put into place? If someone is Muslim, they 'might' be a terrorist therefore they aren't allowed to purchase a gun? How do you determine someone is a racist-who-wants-to-start-a-race-war; what question on a gun ownership application or a background check would tell you this? I believe there are a LOT more responsible gun owners out there than there are lunatics who commit these types of crimes; unfortunately, these types of crimes are what make the news. Adam Lanza had known mental illnesses and yet still had extremely easy access to guns. James Holmes had a known history of mental problems, and had even expressed his desire to kill people… Yet he still got a gun. Dylann Roof had known mental problems. He also had narcotics arrests in the months leading up to the Charleston shooting that should have prevented him from getting a gun – but he still did. Just walked right into a store and bought it. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez had a history of known mental problems. He had been treated for substance abuse and depression. His parents tried to have him committed to a mental hospital, but the insurance company denied it. And yet he had an assault weapon. |
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,402
|
Post by katybee on Jul 24, 2015 16:47:47 GMT
I have yet to hear anyone against stricter gun control measures answer this question:
Why do other developed countries not have the same number of mass shootings that we do? I know there have been a few… But probably if you add up all those together, they still would not equal the number of mass shootings that we have here in the US. It is a travesty.
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 24, 2015 16:50:14 GMT
...I could go find all sorts of reports of crimes and deaths being committed that didn't have anything to do with guns, too-- it doesn't really prove anything statistically, to me. What we have here is a perfect example of deflecting from the subject at hand. let's say she is deflecting, but she also has a point. Guns can kill more in less time, but are hardly the only murder weapon out there. There are strict gun control laws in some areas, they still have gun crimes. There are laws that felons are not allowed to own guns, but just like the guy with a suspended license who drives, gets a gun anyway. I'm not anti all gun control, but what is sensible? Why is that particular law going to help? And I think you are deflecting from the mental illness angle. If you need emergency medical care, a hospital has to provide it. It isn't the same for mental health. They have closed down so many facilities and affordable access to care is laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jul 24, 2015 16:51:14 GMT
[quote source="/post/682583/thread" timestamp=" Gun control laws will not stop mass killings. They'll just find other ways. If that were true then countries like UK and Australia would regularly see mass killings by means other than guns but we don't.... yet we certainly have many people suffering with mental illness just as the USA does. Dont get me wrong, I'm not anti gun control laws. I think you should have to take a course and get a license to use any gun, even a rifle. And frankly, stupidity ought to preclude you from owning a gun. Especially if your going to have children. I'm tired of dumbs gun owners who can't muster the intelligence to secure their weapons around children. But, we all know everyone will freak out if that was ever mentioned! If You want the mass killings to stop, your going to need to do something about the root causes the 2 highest root causes are mental health issues and terrorism. Correct me if I'm wrong but, I think that the UK does have somewhat better mental health care than we do no? NHS covers some care no? Our government won't cover mental health care until after you've murdered someone. Not sure what good that does, the horse is already left the barn at that point. |
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 24, 2015 16:52:54 GMT
I have yet to hear anyone against stricter gun control measures answer this question: Why do other developed countries not have the same number of mass shootings that we do? I know there have been a few… But probably if you add up all those together, they still would not equal the number of mass shootings that we have here in the US. It is a travesty. I believe it is cultural. It is the way people in the us are raised. Similar to why do our schools get vandalized, but don't in japan type thing. It isn't because we have more access tons pray paint. |
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,402
|
Post by katybee on Jul 24, 2015 16:59:45 GMT
I have yet to hear anyone against stricter gun control measures answer this question: Why do other developed countries not have the same number of mass shootings that we do? I know there have been a few… But probably if you add up all those together, they still would not equal the number of mass shootings that we have here in the US. It is a travesty. I believe it is cultural. It is the way people in the us are raised. Similar to why do our schools get vandalized, but don't in japan type thing. It isn't because we have more access tons pray paint. I agree. We are the crazy gun culture that I just don't get it. They are glorified in romanticized. And certain organizations have done an excellent job of instilling such fear in people, that they feel they have no recourse except to get a gun to protect themselves from all the other people that have guns. And don't kid yourself… This is a multibillion dollar industry. They want you to be afraid. Because then they are going to make more money! |
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
|
Post by happymomma on Jul 24, 2015 17:06:28 GMT
Honest question: can someone please define what these other countries who are not having shootings (and from the vibe I get here, no other avenues of this sort of tragedy, making them much safer than the USA) are doing differently in regards to gun control?
I don't know the legalities of these other safer countries. We do have measures in place here, but they are obviously not working. What different laws do the other countries have that we don't? And how are these countries being successful in getting everyone to follow them? Because if everyone here followed the existing laws, we wouldn't have these problems.
I always see calls for stricter gun laws, but no solution on how to make sure people are following the ones we already have in place. Yet other places say they don't have killings or as many. What are they doing different, specifically?
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Jul 24, 2015 17:20:19 GMT
I think it is silly to compare countries while looking at only ONE aspect of its culture.
The US may have more mass killings per capita, I will just have to take others' word on that.
The US has more kids on ADHD meds than France. Why?
The US has fewer female circumcisions than African nations. Why?
More people chew gum in public here than in Singapore.
Kenya has fewer breast cancer diagnoses than the US.
There are cultural differences between the US and other countries, and it doesn't just come down to glamorizing guns. If we look at how we raise our children here, compared to other countries, we might find better answers.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:28:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 17:20:37 GMT
While the NHS does cover some mental health care, it is still sadly lacking in many areas. People can wait months for an assessment of their needs, resources are extremely over stretched.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 24, 2015 17:21:18 GMT
... katybee, thank you for responding. From what you posted, it seems like you're saying there are already reasons those individuals shouldn't have been able to have access to guns. So the issue is the existing gun laws and safeguards WE ALREADY HAVE in place were NOT followed. If that is the case, why do people always seem to espouse that adding more laws and controls is the answer? Why not advocate for ENFORCING the laws we already have, and work to make it easier for the various agencies to share information so these laws and restrictions can be followed correctly? |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jul 24, 2015 17:23:31 GMT
Honest question: can someone please define what these other countries who are not having shootings (and from the vibe I get here, no other avenues of this sort of tragedy, making them much safer than the USA) are doing differently in regards to gun control? I don't know the legalities of these other safer countries. We do have measures in place here, but they are obviously not working. What different laws do the other countries have that we don't? And how are these countries being successful in getting everyone to follow them? Because if everyone here followed the existing laws, we wouldn't have these problems. I always see calls for stricter gun laws, but no solution on how to make sure people are following the ones we already have in place. Yet other places say they don't have killings or as many. What are they doing different, specifically? It goes back further than that. A fundamental difference is that you have this right in your constitution to bear arms. We don't. Guns just aren't part of our psyche. Largely speaking we don't want them. They're not commonly owned so no one feels they need one because everyone else has one. Its so different in a way I thinking that its hard to explain. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 28, 2024 2:28:07 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 17:26:17 GMT
Exactly that. I've never seen a gun being carried by anyone in the UK, I don't know anyone who wishes to own a gun or would even know where to get one if they did want to. Guns are a non issue for most people here.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,402
|
Post by katybee on Jul 24, 2015 17:32:32 GMT
... katybee, thank you for responding. From what you posted, it seems like you're saying there are already reasons those individuals shouldn't have been able to have access to guns. So the issue is the existing gun laws and safeguards WE ALREADY HAVE in place were NOT followed. If that is the case, why do people always seem to espouse that adding more laws and controls is the answer? Why not advocate for ENFORCING the laws we already have, and work to make it easier for the various agencies to share information so these laws and restrictions can be followed correctly? No… Our laws are not working. Our laws are completely ineffective because they are a mishmash of half-assed attempts to pacify people. There are so many loopholes it is beyond ridiculous. They are a joke. The rights of gun owners will trump the right of people to not get shot every time. |
|
