Thread: Connecticut School Shooting

After Columbine we sympathized with the shooters? What alternative reality are you living in?

Once we've cooled off, our desire to make difficult changes and face powerful special interests might be mitigated...

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

After Columbine we sympathized with the shooters? What alternative reality are you living in?

Once we've cooled off, our desire to make difficult changes and face powerful special interests might be mitigated...

Much of the dialogue post-Columbine is that these were bully victims seeking revenge. While that was a small part of the issue, it was not even close to the central motivator, but it put them in a victim light themseleves was more sympathetic.

I'm not suggesting we let our emotions die, but we don't let them drive the boat completely. It's not like gun control or changes to the mental health system are going to be easy. We could just as easily cause even more harm out of this if we aren't careful. (Especially since the shift is going towards mental health now)

Columbine, Bullying, and the Mind of Eric Harris | Psychology Today

Since you have clearly forgotten what happened in the aftermath there.

Honestly, who cares about being right about the central motivation of the mass-murderer of the month; rather we need to look at all the possible motivators as well as the ease with which these murderers carried out their plans and the mental health issues that may have prevented such an act. It's a tall order, but asking people to clam up--as if any discussion about preventive measures is necessarily emotionally motivated and dismissable--doesn't help.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Columbine, Bullying, and the Mind of Eric Harris | Psychology Today

Since you have clearly forgotten what happened in the aftermath there.

Ugh. You are impossibly snide. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the discussion surrounding Columbine being more than about bullying. This point in particular is a petty one; just drop it. It's like your own pet straw man. And for the record, again, bullying probably is an important part of the mental health issues that face adolescents--but that's certainly not my take from Columbine. Jesus.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Honestly, who cares about being right about the central motivation of the mass-murderer of the month; rather we need to look at all the possible motivators as well as the ease with which these murderers carried out their plans and the mental health issues that may have prevented such an act. It's a tall order, but asking people to clam up--as if any discussion about preventive measures is necessarily emotionally motivated and dismissable--doesn't help.

I'm sorry...what exactly is your aim here? You have yet to accurately take the content of anything I've said into account in your replies. Your tone is that of someone who just had their dog kicked. I'll try one more time, but if your little routine here is going to stick it's not worth it.

One....I never said the only thing discussed out of Columbine was bullying. I said it was "central" and "much of". Talk about straw-man arguments. The problem, which I've clearly outlined for everyone not trying to have a problem, is that rash initial judgements paint the wrong picture of the situation and make real solutions difficult. You can't hit the target if you don't know what you're aiming at. Public discourse, driven by the media, creates these irrational moving targets. After Columbine, as the link I posted suggested accurately in a reputable source, is that we started looking at every mass murderer as a victim themselves rather than actually considering the situation for what it was. And, out of Columbine and that ridiculous emotional response that made the figures more sympathetic, we had the largest rash of these kinds of killings. Out of the well-intentioned care to end bullying we, in fact, caused more of them to happen by our ham-handed response.

Here we present with the same risks. We don't know the picture here and a rush to make changes to the mental health system DOES present serious risks to those with mental health issues and those without them. Gun-control has sensitivity with it as well (not as much, but certainly some) Best intentions or not it is a worthy endeavor to arriving at solutions that don't cause more harm out of a tragic situation. The discourse at the top levels of the government is appropriate - it is focused on police responses and the difficulties of law enforcement - not on rash diagnoses and assumptions about what the quiet and shy are capable of doing. We should be more prudent as civilians that we don't take tragedies and make them worse. Simple as the point is. I look forward to your next twist to it though, I'm sure it will be entertaining.

The first step to a solution will be learning to fight the problem instead of each other.

Originally Posted by glunn

The first step to a solution will be learning to fight the problem instead of each other.

The first step to a solution is to address the means, now, and then work on the whys. This is what happens ... people talk and talk and talk, debate and argue, and nothing happens, nothing changes.

Originally Posted by glunn

The first step to a solution will be learning to fight the problem instead of each other.

For many in this country it seems like their "right" to have guns like the AR-15 is the most important issue here.

Originally Posted by Musk21

For many in this country it seems like their "right" to have guns like the AR-15 is the most important issue here.

I feel that my shotgun is ample for home defense, and I would not want to lose my "right" to defend my home against criminals who may be armed. On the other hand, assault rifles seem excessive for home defense and more dangerous in the hands of a madman than a shotgun.

Originally Posted by glunn

I feel that my shotgun is ample for home defense, and I would not want to lose my "right" to defend my home against criminals who may be armed. On the other hand, assault rifles seem excessive for home defense and more dangerous in the hands of a madman than a shotgun.

The majority of people agree with this. Hopefully, something gets done. There's a minority of people who actually believe they have a 'right' to such weapons. Boo-hoo for them.

To change the subject just slightly, it will be interesting to see what the geneticists discover with their research. Was the guy wired wrong from birth, a product of his environment, or both? And as far as weapons are concerned, I agree that assault weapons (as least in the hands of civilans) seems absurd. I have yet to see your average hunter out in the field utilizing such a weapon for game (at least I don't).

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

The majority of people agree with this. Hopefully, something gets done. There's a minority of people who actually believe they have a 'right' to such weapons. Boo-hoo for them.

The problem is, the weapons identified as assault rifles are not that different than those used for hunting. If by assault rifle you mean a fully automatic rifle then we would all be in agreement (but those are already banned). People seem to want to ban so-called assault rifles because they "look mean". The rifle used by Lanza was about the same caliber as one I used as a teen to hunt squirrels. Are we going to ban .22s now?

There is absolutely no nuance in the gun control debate from leftists like Feinstein who want to register every single firearm in the USA. That's why people are pissed off. I don't agree with bans on semiautomatic rifles, nor do I agree with bans on limiting magazine capacities, mainly because they won't do anything. None of these proposed weapons bans will have any effect at all on the next mass murder. You know it and I know it. So let's stop pretending like politicians like Feinstein are trying to help keep people safe here. She and her ilk have a philosophical issue with people owning guns at all.

Apparently the father claimed the body, which just goes to show that no matter how estanged you are from your children or how wicked their actions, you are still a parent first and foremost.

Originally Posted by Reginald Maudling's Shin

The problem is, the weapons identified as assault rifles are not that different than those used for hunting. If by assault rifle you mean a fully automatic rifle then we would all be in agreement (but those are already banned). People seem to want to ban so-called assault rifles because they "look mean". The rifle used by Lanza was about the same caliber as one I used as a teen to hunt squirrels. Are we going to ban .22s now?

There is absolutely no nuance in the gun control debate from leftists like Feinstein who want to register every single firearm in the USA. That's why people are pissed off. I don't agree with bans on semiautomatic rifles, nor do I agree with bans on limiting magazine capacities, mainly because they won't do anything. None of these proposed weapons bans will have any effect at all on the next mass murder. You know it and I know it. So let's stop pretending like politicians like Feinstein are trying to help keep people safe here. She and her ilk have a philosophical issue with people owning guns at all.

Very true. I don't get this "assault rifle" nonsense. As you said, most of them are little more than a tarted-up hunting rifle (and most actually use smaller calibre rounds than, say, a deer rifle). Banning them accomplishes nothing and is the worst kind of turd polishing Washington can devise.

Mental health support, better screening processes, conceal/carry law revisions, and a long hard look at handguns are where we should be starting. Not ****ing "assault rifles". As usual, Feinstein has her head up her ass when it comes to guns. We need real solutions, not token gestures so all the Dems can go home an tell their constituencies that they "fixed" the problem because they banned a bunch of black matte rifles that are the similar size, shape, and calibre to a typical hunting rifle.

But you'd still be able to go buy that same hunting rifle. Derp.

Reg (or anyone else) I'm no gun expert.....so care to share thoughts on what Obama presented today?

I'm curious to see the details on the two mental health provisions that are executive orders, I haven't seen much about what that entails so far.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Very true. I don't get this "assault rifle" nonsense. As you said, most of them are little more than a tarted-up hunting rifle (and most actually use smaller calibre rounds than, say, a deer rifle). Banning them accomplishes nothing and is the worst kind of turd polishing Washington can devise.

Mental health support, better screening processes, conceal/carry law revisions, and a long hard look at handguns are where we should be starting. Not ****ing "assault rifles". As usual, Feinstein has her head up her ass when it comes to guns. We need real solutions, not token gestures so all the Dems can go home an tell their constituencies that they "fixed" the problem because they banned a bunch of black matte rifles that are the similar size, shape, and calibre to a typical hunting rifle.

But you'd still be able to go buy that same hunting rifle. Derp.

I have always been a shotgun guy. But it seems to me that an AR-15 would be more maneuverable in close quarters than a hunting rifle.

I have a Bushmaster AR-15. The barrel weighs a ton, its very unwieldy in my opinion. I mounted a by-pod to it with a 30x scope and use it to hunt prairie dogs and coyotes.