Cause of Mass Shootings Mental Health?

by blondie 150 Replies latest jw friends

  • minimus

    I know I don’t need an assault weapon. I do think people especially younger ones are CONDITIONED to kill from games and movies. It is amazing how Hollywood stars will rail against guns yet the same Hollywood stars will make millions of dollars because of their pretending to kill people

  • peacefulpete

    I completely agree. The movies are just ridiculous. The heros are shooting up buildings and threatening innocent bystanders at gunpoint to take their car or get them to cooperate in some way. Some heros. In real life you go to jail if you unjustifiably point a weapon at someone. Sadly people have a craving for it apparently. I'm not endorsing censorship but it would be nice if the industry would collectively make an effort to be more responsible. Probably not likely as long as millions of dollars are feared lost.

  • Simon

    A certain segment of people don't seem able to cope with any form of hardship (lack of constant praise) without lashing out and hurting others. They have never been taught any accountability - everything in their life has been declared not their fault or out of their control. Anti-social behavior is "treated" with drugs instead of consequence and some work ethic to teach them any sense of purpose and achievement.

    It's labelled "mental illness" but it isn't really - the truly mentally ill are rarely dangerous, someone who's poor mental state is entirely self-inflicted (through behavior or substance abuse) is not a victim of mental illness, they are just plain bad human beings.

    Guns obviously make shooting people easier, but there is no way to remove guns from the equation without creating many more victims so give that up if that is the only plan as it isn't workable.

    It's the difference between a goal and a system. The goal may be to have fewer shooting and "have fewer shootings" isn't any sort of plan to achieve that, just as "make more money" isn't any sort of plan to address lack of income.

    What is needed, among other things, is to remove the desire and the need for guns. That requires more lawfulness and less excusing and turning a blind eye to crime.

    Unfortunately, the democrat ticket is currently "import more thugs and don't prosecute anyone for any crime" so don't expect anyone to feel like they need guns less anytime soon.

    If the state doesn't want to protect you (and they don't) then you need to protect yourself and your family and the best way to do that in the US is to be armed or to be rich enough to live in a gated community that hires other people to be armed (and why the elites lecturing people about guns is hypocritical).

    Everyone should give up your arms when Obama et al give up theirs. Until then, lock and load because the state refuses to apprehend violent thugs.

  • rickroll

    Not true at all.Anyone who shoots to kill just for the enjoyment of it is by definition mentally ill. Just because they were not diagnosed with something that has letters does not mean they are not mentally ill. Just because they do not get off on an insanity defense does not mean they are not mentally ill. Charlie Manson and Susan Atkins did not get off on being insane but they were most defiantly mentally ill. The Federal Government shut down funding for the asylums decades ago and the streets became full of the mentally ill. Ted Kennedy car has killed more people than my guns have. If a person wants to kill they can use a truck and run over large groups of people, Pressure cookers become bombs and gas becomes Molotov cocktails. We have a second amendment that does not grant but declares that the right to arms is by nature not granted by the gov. Another issue is diversity is not good. The most happy countries are places like Japan, and Switzerland where there is little diversity. The culture wars going on today in America and Britain are due to the letting in of cultures that do not assimilate to but instead work to convert the host country to their way of life. When I went to school the school had several shot guns and 22lrs that we all would shoot at the school forest and no one ever thought of shooting up the school. Times have changed and not for the better in most cases. But the left likes to think if they banned all guns we would all sit around roasting marshmallows and singing kumbya. England is a good example, they let in many Muslims and now they have no guns but are having a rash of knife attacks. So much they have blue boxes like goodwill drop boxes that say save a life drop your knife and in Londumb they don't sell kitchen knifes in many stores. This is where liberalism leads. Destruction.

  • Simon
    Anyone who shoots to kill just for the enjoyment of it is by definition mentally ill.

    What you are saying is that no one who does a mass shooting could ever really be guilty, which I consider ridiculous.

    It's amazing how contradictory the democrats messaging is - on the one hand they claim that the police are evil and racist, even nazis ... next they want people to hand over their guns and trust in the police for their safety.

    Uncontrolled immigration of low-IQ people from cultures that have less respect for human rights and law and order often bring sharp increases in violent crime.

  • rickroll

    First off an assault weapon is a select fire, meaning it can shoot fully automatic or single shot depending on what the selector is set on. Next it will use an intermediate cartridge. That is not a full on battle rifle round like the 7.62 Russian or 3006 or 308 but in the case of the AK47 a 7.62x39 and in the case of the M4 or M16 223 or 5.56. These have a lot less power then the standard battle rifle rounds. The so called Assault weapons was developed late in WW2 by the Germans. The STG44 took the standard 8mm battle rifle round and made is less powerful than the full battle round by shortening the case. The "assault " rifle can also not be chambered for a pistol ctg like the Thompson, MP5, Sten, MP40 ect. An AR15 is not an assault weapon. Its a semi automatic rifle. This is why the 94 crime bill that banned "assault " weapons was a failure. Because many hunting rifles and C&R guns are semi auto they had to describe and assault rifle by its looks. A gun that had a bayonet lug, pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable box mag ect. This was easy to get past by making things like thumb hole stocks, taking off the bayonet lug, and flash suppressor. The Ruger mini 14 shoots a 223 5.56 just like the AR15 but looks like a standard hunting rifle and was exempt even though it works no different than an ar15 and takes a box mag. Even the California laws have had a hard time banning them by saying the mag has to have a tool to take out, and wallah the bullet button was born. The second amendment has been defined by the SCOTUS as an individual right just as all the 10 amendments are. There is no collective freedom of religion, or collective freedom of the press. As far at the founding not seeing AKs and ARs well they could not see the internet and TV and Radio but that does not mean that only the guy ringing the bell yelling out the news or standing on the soap box is the only kind of press and speech that is considered free. The bigger issue is the world is too many people. Too many people chasing an ever dwindling resources. Too many people who want to destroy their host countries instead of assimilating. And the left has kept eroding moral values so now some guy and pee dressed as a tranny next to your 12yo daughter while spanking the tranny next to him/her.

  • rickroll

    Not at all Simon, you are creating something I never said. I did not say they were not guilty, I said they were mentally ill. The definition of someone who is not guilty by insanity is one who did not know right from wrong. Someone who say thought they were saving the world by killing someone they thought was an Alien who came to earth to kill the world. You can be mentally ill and know you are evil or doing wrong. Even if you are so mentally ill you think you are not doing wrong, IMO it is better to put them to death and end their suffering. The idea that all life is worth saving is stupid. Charlie Manson is one who should have been hanged after his trial along with Atkins. Just like Bundy.

  • iwantoutnow

    I think Mass Shootings have to do with GUNS.

    That's why it's not called a Mass Knifing, or a Mass Hanging, or a Mass.

    Anyone trying to say (trump) that it's not (one of the stupidest excuses ever) "it's not guns that pull the trigger, its people that pull the trigger", is ingenuous. As if that's it, we wash our hands.

    Sad we live in a society where so many:
    A. People are so afraid of their government that they need guns just in case they have to defend themselves against the 4th armored division.

    B. Afraid of the people around them that they feel the need to be armed to keep themselves safe.

    C. Just love guns more than people.

    It's just sad.

    Do you know that since 1968 more americans have been killed GUNS, than have died in ALL wars combined :( 1.5 million!!

    I wonder how many gun owners who if they had the change to trade their right to have a gun in exchange for the lives of the 1.5 million people back, would take that?
    Maybe if it was your mom, or kid, or wife who was killed, it would make a difference?

  • stan livedeath
    stan livedeath

    i dont live in america. thank you god.

  • GoUnion

    I happened to read this article I thought it was interesting. Not political either which is rare when discussing mass shootings.

    4 commonalities were found:

    1. Childhood trauma and exposure to violence.

    2. They had reached an identifiable crisis in the weeks or months before, like a change in job status.

    3. Most had studied other shooters.

    4. All had the means to carry out their plans.

    Worth a read I think.

Share this