Connecticut School Shooting

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
How are we in society supposed to weed out the Adam Lazzy's from the normal people? How do we know who's crazy and who's not?

There seems to be a fair amount of misunderstanding here. I'm willing to guess this guy was not outright nuts. He might have been, but so far there is no indication of it.

He had a mental illness. It is very likely there were signs of it. (No, perhaps not outward signs he wanted to take 20 people out, but signs that he had mental issues)

No, we can't find everybody in the world who might be unstable, but we can at least try to do what we can. You simply can't ignore the root cause of why things like this occur.

[Neil4Speed]

Originally posted by Kloubek


However, as cliche as it sounds by this point- it is true that guns don't kill ... mentally unstable people kill. Someone doesn't often do something like this without there being clear signs that he was having issues. Something failed in the system and he obviously didn't get the help he needed. We can talk about gun control and making changes would possibly help reduce the amount of people killed in situations like this. But why not focus on the real issue which is someone who is unstable and desiring to cause this much death in the first place? He very likely would have killed his mother at some point regardless, and even one death is too many.

Just talking about your first point, of course Guns don't kill people with guns kill etc, but lets be serious here, Guns are extremely efficient killing machines - you obviously can't deny that.

The same day in China 22 kids were stabbed by a mentally unstable man in a primary school. Zero deaths.

I am thinking that you are trying to emphasise the importance of diagnosing mental health issues before incidents like this occur, and this is true, but this area of medicine is extremely complex (you can't just fix him, like a poster above said). For this reason mentally unstable people are always going to be more susceptible to incident, the severity of their actions is absolutely dependent on the resources available to them.

The sad issue is that a person would have no problem walking into a clinic and asking a doctor for codeine for some back pain, but the stigmas and possible consequences of telling your doctor that your not feeling very well, depressed and getting pills is prohibitively frightening to most people.

Originally posted by Kloubek

He had a mental illness. It is very likely there were signs of it.

Just to further to this point, but the medical scope of 'mental illness' is so ridiculously huge, it has become almost a moot point statement. Any act outside of the scope of accepted behavior is considered to be mental illness. It almost seems the term is thrown around for out of acceptable behavior characteristics to help justify actions.

[AndyL]

Originally posted by Kloubek

He had a mental illness. It is very likely there were signs of it. (No, perhaps not outward signs he wanted to take 20 people out, but signs that he had mental issues)

Well there are currently reports that he was diagnosed with aspergers - however, in context of hindsight - the diagnosis should likely have been sociopath.

But it's easier to tell a parent their kid has a trendy disease than the truth... In the past autism spectrum disorders were misdiagnosed as sociopathic, now the sociopaths are being tagged autistic/aspergers...

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Neil4Speed
Guns are extremely efficient killing machines - you obviously can't deny that.

That's certainly correct. And to Toma's point about it making people feel powerful, I agree with that too. I'll even add to it as to say that shooting someone from a distance is less personal than taking a knife and cutting their throat. I did say that I felt the US gun laws should be more like Canada's... screening, handling requirements and courses all need to be manditory.

I am thinking that you are trying to emphasise the importance of diagnosing mental health issues before incidents like this occur, and this is true, but this area of medicine is extremely complex

Of course it's complex. And it isn't black and white either.... one depressed person isn't going to shoot up a school whereas another might. There are a ridiculous amount of disorders out there, and a mentally ill person might be part or all of them. Treatment requires trained and educated individuals, and even assessment needs some training, and should be provided to care workers, teachers, etc in addition to those who actually treat the mentally ill.

Look, I'm not claiming that everyone can be caught before they do something drastic. Sometimes signs are very subtle, sometimes there are not people around to see it. But I can guarantee that this guy showed signs of depression or aggression which were ignored by others and this may have been preventable if he was properly assessed and received treatment. Similar to your statement that I cannot deny that guns are efficient weapons, you cannot deny that this guy was mentally unstable in order to do something like this. Someone suggested when someone "snaps"... that's what happens when someone reaches their breaking point, but they don't go from perfectly happy to a mass murderer overnight.

Originally posted by AndyL

Well there are currently reports that he was diagnosed with aspergers - however, in context of hindsight - the diagnosis should likely have been sociopath.

You added this before I finished my reply. I didn't realize this. You know what is odd? I have a fair amount of knowledge about mental illness but am anything but a professional. But I knew a guy in the past who I felt was a sociopath, and found out recently that HE was diagnosed with Aspergers as well. In my opinion, he was misdiagnosed as well.

From what I understand, Aspergers is the inability to express emotions and feelings properly, whereas Sociopathy is the inability to have those emotions and empathy at all... or at least, to the inability to properly apply such emotions.

I think you hit the nail on the head though... that he should have been disagnosed with sociopathy instead. Clearly, someone who does something like this has difficulty having emotions for others. Proper diagnosis for mental illness can be exceptionally difficult though... like I said, someone can have multiple disorders, and at the end of the day they make decisions and apply their own thoughts into the mix. We can never know for certain what is going on in someone's head.. it isn't like a broken leg where you take an Xray and say... "Yup... there it is". This is also why, unfortunately, there will never be an end to messed up people like this. The best we can do is reduce the instances.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by Kloubek


There seems to be a fair amount of misunderstanding here. I'm willing to guess this guy was not outright nuts. He might have been, but so far there is no indication of it.

He had a mental illness. It is very likely there were signs of it. (No, perhaps not outward signs he wanted to take 20 people out, but signs that he had mental issues)

No, we can't find everybody in the world who might be unstable, but we can at least try to do what we can. You simply can't ignore the root cause of why things like this occur.

Anyone who shoots up 20+ little kids is nuts, the good that we all have in us doesn't exist in that guy. We've still only scratched the surface of the human mind and what it's capable of and the illnesses that can come with it. I know gun legislation won't stop all of the worlds problems but it's a start.

Modelexis had mentioned personal freedom, I'm all about freedom but the least free societies in the world have the most guns, the most free have the least guns.

I think those posting about gun laws and criminals don't understand the type of people who commit these types of crimes. These aren't gang related shootings, gangs and repeat criminals can get guns anytime they want, they are involved in a scene with people that most of us know nothing about. To them it's a life and a job and they will continue to get guns with or without legislation. These shootings almost always involve "normal" individuals who have no prior criminal history and who just one day snap. The guns that they use seem to always be legally registered and are easily attainable to them. They aren't criminals and aren't involved in the criminal life until the day that they snap and kill everyone.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
Anyone who shoots up 20+ little kids is nuts,

See... there you go again. He most likely wasn't "nuts". If he was entirely insane we would have heard stories about it by now. He wasn't "nuts".... he had a personality disorder, and was at the very least a sociopath as already mentioned. Very possibly even a psychopath.

We need to stop labelling people with mental illnesses as "nuts". There is a reason why there is such a stigma still about mental illness, and statements like this do nothing to help the situation. I know in a case like this it is so easy to pass this guy off as crazy, but doing so does nothing to help those who need it... and in fact, such attitudes may very well perpetuate such violence because of the inability for people to come forward and admit they have a problem.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Sorry I guess I don't see "nuts" as being derogatory, it's just a quick short word to describe someone who isn't all there. I think we can both agree on that.

[Kloubek]

It isn't derogatory as much as it's inaccurate for the application, imo. I think most people would associate "nuts" with "insane" and I'm pretty sure he wasn't insane. You say he isn't "all there", well I suppose that's what you mean by that statement. His empathy for others was certainly lacking - but I'm guessing his ability to make decisions and function day-to-day was at least mainly intact; something someone who is literally crazy simply cannot do.

Whatever... it's all semantics at this point. The fact remains that the US (and Canada for that matter) need to do a better job of assessing potential risks before it costs lives. I think gun control in Canada is generally acceptable but it certainly does need work in the US. I also don't think that banning guns altogether is not the answer (someone mentioned prohibition and I think that's a good comparison) - although banning military-style rifles wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Z_Fan]

I think gun control is actually a pretty major problem in the United States.

Some say it isn't. And there are lots of responsible gun owners. No doubt. There are far more who are responsible than those who are not. But unfortunately that is totally irrelevant to the actual problem.

The problem is the sheer volume of guns and gun owners in the United States of America. It's actually very alarming. I totally agree that it is highly unlikely the mother of the murderer here had any real need or reason for having these weapons. Fear. Fear she's going to get her house broken in to perhaps. Perhaps she justified it that way. Need to protect yourself - and hell, who can blame her. Everyone has a fucking gun (or 3) in the great USofA.

The FBI reported 154,873 background check requests on Black Friday. [with respect to gun purchases] So that's just one fucking day! Totally out of control if you ask me.

The truth is, gun control is a major problem in the USA and will continue to be. As their government gets closer to passing new gun laws, more and more US citizens are going to run to their local gun shop to purchase firearms before whatever new laws are passed. It's a cirlce. Got to have a gun because everyone else has a gun.

No really.

Everyone else HAS A GUN!

[Modelexis]

I think if you want to set an example for gun control as a nation you have to start with your military and police.

The government should start by disarming their military and police and try and make the case in a tangible way that guns are dangerous and the risk is not worth the security or sporting nature of them.

Just because your enemy might have a gun does not necessarily imply that you should be allowed to carry in response... right?

There are many non lethal weapons police could use instead of guns.

But to say you are going to threaten me with a gun in order to prevent me from owning guns does not solve the problem.
You can't solve the issue of guns in the hands of man by hiring men and arming them with guns and having them threaten people with death if they don't surrender their guns.

I don't think Toma would support having me shot to death for refusing to surrender my personal guns.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Modelexis
The government should start by disarming their military

Uh... what? How could anyone thing that is a good idea. How are they supposed to defend themselves.... let alone invade for oil. What are they supposed to use... harsh language?

I can see your point on the police I suppose. But even then, there are so many guns in the hands of criminals already that it would cause a severe lack of ability to do their jobs... along with having police officers killed.

So - bad idea on both accounts.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
Got to have a gun because everyone else has a gun.

No really.

Everyone else HAS A GUN!

With the number of nations who have a dangerous hatred for the USA, it's probably for the best though. Any invasion attempt would be futile, you'd have to nuke the entire country, and that would exactly bode well in the aftermath in rest of the world.

I think it's ridiculous too, but at least they're fairly safe from other nations, or even they're own future over oppressive military. If our government became Nazi Germany state like... we'd have no protection from them.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok

If our government became Nazi Germany state like... we'd have no protection from them.

You seem to forget the level of support Hitler had from the German people.

[SKR]

Originally posted by Toma


Holy fuck, another retard without a clue. Remember the rule "You never go FULL retard!"

Yeah, what's easier, "fix and identify every deranged lunatic out there." or make it reasonably difficult to obtain a weapon to murder with?

Craigslist, forums, the internet. You could put me in any city in the US without ID, and within half an hour I could have an illegal gun.

THAT'S RETARDED!

You could put me in any city in the US without ID, and within half an hour I could have a knife. And I could kill someone with it, and I could do it again and again before I was stopped. And if I did, it would be because I was a pyschopath. What makes that different than if I did it with a gun?

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2


Team Saskatchewan needs to come back down to reality.
How are we in society supposed to weed out the Adam Lazzy's from the normal people? How do we know who's crazy and who's not? If by some miracle we do manage to track down every single crazy person in the world, how do we give them care and attention to help them? How do we know the treatments have worked? How do we know if one day, a once normal person, snaps and turns into a Lazzy? How do I know you're not crazy because you sure sound like you are lol.

It doesn't matter if it's a hard problem to solve. It is the problem, and it needs to be solved.

Originally posted by maxomilll


it's easier. Gun's exist, for the soul purpose of killing and destroying.
Sure, someone could probably kill 20 kids with a spoon. Maybe push them down some stairs, unleash a tiger in the class room...
All of those things have other meanings to life.

I agree that the problem is with the user, and helping the mentally ill is the priority.

It is however, undeniable, if the shooter didnt have access to firearms, 20 humans would have not been killed in a matter of minutes.

No, it might have been one or two people. Or it might have been more, over a longer period of time. Why is that okay? Taking guns away doesn't make him uncrazy. It means he has to find another way to be destructive.

And no, guns don't exist for the sole purpose of killing and destroying. There is a thread in the sports section of Beyond. Read it. You might find some other uses for guns there.

Originally posted by StreetRacerX


Efficiency.

Two psychos have 1 minute to kill or maim as many people as they can, one has a gun, the other a knife, who do you believe would kill or maim the most people in one minute?

Like I've alluded to above, why is it acceptable for the guy with the knife to kill even one person? You need to stop the problem at its source, and that's with the people who are doing this.

Someone else brought up the knife attack in China. Nobody died, but 22 kids were injured. Taking guns away would have done nothing to stop that. Taking the attacker out would have definitely stopped it. Crazy people are going to find a way to be crazy.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Uh... what? How could anyone thing that is a good idea. How are they supposed to defend themselves.... let alone invade for oil. What are they supposed to use... harsh language?

I can see your point on the police I suppose. But even then, there are so many guns in the hands of criminals already that it would cause a severe lack of ability to do their jobs... along with having police officers killed.

So - bad idea on both accounts.

If it's a bad idea to disarm the military and police it's also a bad idea to disarm law abiding citizens.
You cannot trust one human with a gun and use the threat of death to prevent another human being from owning a gun, it doesn't make sense. Police and military members are just humans, they aren't super human and there is nothing from preventing them from killing innocent people with guns, the military does it all the time. There is no innate difference between a guy wearing a plaid shirt and a guy wearing a police uniform, the laws of physics don't change between two different color bowling balls.

If guns are a good way to protect yourself from a threat, you should allow people to own guns for their own protection, if guns cause more harm than good and the good is not worth the harm, no one including the police need guns.

I could use all your examples to favor the support for guns in the hands of regular citizens.
"How are they supposed to defend themselves"
How is a regular citizen supposed to defend themselves against a deadly threat?

"What are they supposed to use... harsh language?"
What are regular citizens supposed to use... harsh language?

" there are so many guns in the hands of criminals already that it would cause a severe lack of ability to do their jobs"
It would cause a severe lack of ability to defend their property against a deadly threat

"along with having police officers killed."
along with having citizens killed.

Freedom is the ability to defend yourself in the absence of an external protection, it's the ability to call 1911 if the threat cannot wait for a squad car.

What if the one US soldier per day to commit suicide were to harm others on their way out, according to the propositions in this thread, if it can be prevented with guns being removed from citizens it should be done.

If your only goal is to avoid murders committed with guns that would have been harder to accomplish without guns we should disarm the military and police for the same reason.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
I think gun control is actually a pretty major problem in the United States.

Some say it isn't. And there are lots of responsible gun owners. No doubt. There are far more who are responsible than those who are not. But unfortunately that is totally irrelevant to the actual problem.

The problem is the sheer volume of guns and gun owners in the United States of America. It's actually very alarming. I totally agree that it is highly unlikely the mother of the murderer here had any real need or reason for having these weapons. Fear. Fear she's going to get her house broken in to perhaps. Perhaps she justified it that way. Need to protect yourself - and hell, who can blame her. Everyone has a fucking gun (or 3) in the great USofA.

The FBI reported 154,873 background check requests on Black Friday. [with respect to gun purchases] So that's just one fucking day! Totally out of control if you ask me.

The truth is, gun control is a major problem in the USA and will continue to be. As their government gets closer to passing new gun laws, more and more US citizens are going to run to their local gun shop to purchase firearms before whatever new laws are passed. It's a cirlce. Got to have a gun because everyone else has a gun.

No really.

Everyone else HAS A GUN!

People agree with you, but not for the reasons you give.

"Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun."

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.

[Toma]

Some info and stats

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

[SKR]

Originally posted by kertejud2


People agree with you, but not for the reasons you give.

"Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun."

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.

That's just as as stupid as saying we should take all guns away.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Modelexis


If it's a bad idea to disarm the military and police it's also a bad idea to disarm law abiding citizens.

Perhaps it is? I feel quite comfortable having a gun, and wouldn't be happy if the government told me I had to release it. I hope never to use it, but if an armed guy comes into my house I'll sure be glad I have it.

Just because soldiers and police are humans just like regular citizens doesn't mean that you have to assume the same restrictions should apply to all. People are individuals with individual needs and their work roles are entirely different. Other countries are not going to put down their own arms because the US decided to abolish weapons for everyone. Criminals aren't going to either if the police no longer carried weapons.

You paint an entirely idealistic image of the situation as if guns we never in possession of individuals who choose to perform evil with them... but that simply isn't reality. Watch the US get rid of all guns and you'll first see criminal activity escalate to unseen levels... shortly before you see tanks from another country roll in because the soldiers are trying to defend US soil with rocks and broomsticks.

[streetarab]

HOLY SHIT...I was just looking up some shit to post here, statistics or whatever, and got on this one page and starting reading the comments there. Basically it was an argument between atheists and people from churches about Mike Huckabee saying this happened because there's no more God in schools.

This discussion is so much more educated and down to earth; it has really been brought into perspective. I was gonna get mad at some people for being totally ignorant about mental illness (I've got a degree in this shit) or talking about buying black market guns when it's doubtful they've ever even held a gun but fuck it. This discussion is just fuckin fine.

Carry on...