Another School Shooting: The Gun Violence/Mental Illness Debate Continues

by jp1692 105 Replies latest jw experiences

  • Queequeg

    It's pretty clear that getting either the far lefty or far righty types to set aside politics isn't going to happen.

    They are not capable. They are not reasonable I really think that people who have become polarized like this lower their IQ. These people are destroying the U.S.

    As others have pointed out, the similarity to cultlike thinking is undeniable and scary.

    Regarding guns, I have quite a few friends who are greenie, granola eating scientist types. I've started asking them if they have guns. So far I've been shocked, every one of the lefties so far has said that they have a gun. In fact, the most Trump hating unabashed socialist friend has a sniper rifle (I can't wait for some moron to try to make me define "sniper rifle", well dipshit, all I know is that's what the SNIPER called it!) because he was a sniper in the Marines during Desert Storm. None of these people want to ban guns.

    On the other side, I have Trump voting, gun collecting friends. One of these friends (an NRA member who was buying an AR15 every few months during the Obama presidency (yeah he can afford that)), wanted to take me shooting with him but didn't want to take me to a local shooting range because, "when you see all the dumb fucks there who don't know how to handle a gun safely it might turn you into an anti gun guy."

    Often, I think the reasonable people in these issues get drowned out by the brainwashed blowhards on either end of the spectrum. I'm really sick of it.

  • Finkelstein

    It should realized and accepted that mental illness is a unfortunate fact among a small minority of the general population and sometimes these individuals are influenced by themselves to created violence upon others through emotive haltered and retribution.

    So yes a deranged person can kill with a single knife or single shot gun or a rifle used for hunting. .

    What may be of interest to those who are concerned about public safety, is what types of guns should there be openly available to purchase so when these people go off on violent attack that the damage they produce is restrained to a lessor amount in the event.

    That's why most countries ban semi-automatic assault rifles for public sale in their countries with that endeavor in mind.

  • OneGenTwoGroups

    Ubiquitous large mags and ubiquitous semi-autos means?

    What we are seeing in America today.

    Even bump stocks are legal.

  • jwundubbed
    Of course it's about mental illness. But it is also undeniably about gun control. Because a mentally ill person had open access to guns and no one stopped him, 17 people are dead

    What mental illness did the perpetrator have? I haven't been able to find a single article that can name his mental illness or if he even had one. I have heard that the person was in and out of mental health facilities... but even that doesn't mean that he was actually mentally unstable or hase a mental illness.

    He definitely had a gun that was made to kill people. So there is definitely going to be a discussion about gun control.

    He may or may not have had a mental illness or been mentally unstable. We don't know that yet. It is not 'of course about mental illness' when no one seems to be able to name any mental illness at all.

  • Simon

    Things are labelled mental illness when it's because people have never been disciplined.

    Teachers aren't allowed to discipline anymore and many parents don't so they live their life never learning what is and isn't acceptable - they do whatever they want and just get special attention and treatment as a result.

    These people aren't mentally ill and it's unfair that the mentally ill get tagged with their crimes.

    They are criminal assholes who grew up needing a good slap but never got one.

  • truth_b_known

    The first thing we must do is stop referring to these horrible events as "school shootings". These are mass murders. We must ask ourselves "Why are people targeting our children for murder and why in a school?" Then we must ask "What can we do to deter people from doing this?" Deterrence rather than "stop" because in the end, we cannot prevent people from committing murder.

    Yesterday I listened to young Emma Gonzales speak in front of the crowd protesting for "common sense gun control" in Florida. It didn't strike me until 3:45AM this morning, but one of the statements this young lady said is a common statement on this topic. Gonzales blamed the firearm. Gonzales stated that if the perpetrator did not have a firearm this would not have happened. Gonzales then countered the argument from the other side of the aisle in regards to the fact that these mass murder tragedies are committed with instruments other than firearms. Gonzales countered it be stating: 1. But he did have a firearm and 2. If he used a knife there would not be as many victims (side note: the highest death count of a single school attack was over 300 dead. The instrument used was fire and explosives. The highest in US history is still the Bath Township Massacre of 1927. A time bomb made from material purchased at a hardware store was the instrument used).

    It was item #2 that woke me. Gonzales continued by stating if we could reduce the number of victims of each of these tragedies it was worth banning firearms. That's the spark that lit the fire in me.

    I have brought 2 children into this world and raised a third that I adopted. My biologic kids are still in school. I have a great deal of anger with the sentiment of Ms. Gonzales that she seemed to be parroting. My discontent is that the idea expressed actually sounds like this to me -

    "Our children will still be targeted for murder in school and will continue to be murdered in school, but at least guns are banned from private citizen ownership, so at least your child's murder will be carried out by some other instrument."

    Sorry, Ms. Gonzales. Sorry to all who parrot that belief. Not good enough.

    Based on that idea if the death count was cut in half, from 17 to 8, Ms. Gonzales would feel good about herself because she could tell the parents of the 9 children who were saved - "See, we saved your children's lives!" Well, what about the parents of the other 8 children who were cut down in cold blood by a knife, a bomb, a fire, a truck, etc.? What do you tell them?

    The other thing that angered me was Ms. Gonzales stating that the "good guy with a gun" theory is a fallacy, or, in her own words, "BS." This is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. I promise you the moment the first gunshot rang out in that high school there were over a 1,000 students and teachers dialing 911. Why? To get law enforcement there as fast as possible. Yes, police officers or deputy sheriffs. You know, good guys. With guns.

    Friday night CNN interviewed 3 young men. All 3 were 17 year old students of the high school and who were friends of one of the victims. The news anchor started out by saying these 3 young men already refused to answer questions about gun control. In spite of this, the news anchor tried his best to bait them into it. Finally they were asked how they thought it was best to prevent such tragedies. One spoke up. He stated that his school had one police officer in it and, even though he believed that the officer was capable of stopping the threat, that one was not enough due to the size of the school. He continued that if there had been more police officers regularly posted in the school that the event would not have happened.

    People object to the idea of armed and trained first responders being posted inside our school. It makes them squeamish. However, they have no problem crying for help when their child's school is under attack to have the same first responders to get the school and stop the attack. Its common sense - stop the threat before there are any victims. If a disturbed 19 year old walks onto his old high school campus with a shouldered rifle (or a butcher knife, an axe, a bomb, 5 gallons of gasoline and a lighter, etc.) its pretty clear what his intent is. If that same 19 year is immediately greeted by 2 or 3 first responders with shouldered rifles of their own I promise you that there is only 1 person leaving the school in a body bag that day.

    The bottom line is this - Do we want to do something about stopping mass murders in schools or do we just want to push our political party's agendas? Do we want to take steps to protect our children while they are in school or do we just want to protect them from being shot in school?

  • flipper

    SIMON- I totally agree with your statement " There are criminal assholes who grew up needing a good slap but never got one. "

    Exactly. Think of Ted Bundy as one example of that. A psychopathic killer who everybody thought the world of and just coddled him and pampered him until he murdered all those women. Not one person ever called him on his shit. You are correct- more people in the lives of these mass murderers need to be more adept at noticing symptoms of anger and rage and then making sure these threats to society are either put into serious counseling or if need be an institution, or disciplined by authorities of some kind to prevent them from murdering and taking more innocent people out

  • FedUpJW

    Do we want to do something about stopping mass murders in schools or do we just want to push our political party's agendas?

    After reading the many pages of mostly drivel from the fanatics on the left I can answer that. No...and Yes!

  • MeanMrMustard
    the call for gun control is NOT intrinsically "anti-gun" or an "anti-gunowner" agenda. It just isn't. Get over it.

    These debates go off the rails because of lack of clear meaning. If by “gun control” you mean “keeping guns out of the hands of people who would like to shoot up schools or movie theatres, etc.”, then everyone is on board. Period. Everyone wants this.

    But that is the easy part. Now, how should we do that? The argument gets heated. And always for the same damn reasons. Someone throws out “gun control”. Then someone else says, “ok well, what do you mean by that?” Now what follows is usually an unclear definition, or something that would equate to a ban. So the argument goes on and on.

    Even talking about “mental illness” and guns - which everyone agrees is a bad mix - we should really define what we mean by “mental illness”. Who gets to decide? How? What process?

    These are not obfuscating questions. They are real questions, especially for those who want another law. Law runs on specific language with specific meaning.

    So how about this. What gun control law would you propose? Write it out below. Just say it. And if someone asks, “what do you mean by <insert term here>”, don’t take it as being in favor of kids getting shot up.

  • nonjwspouse

    How is a person protected from either a criminal with a gun, or a government intent on controlling the people against their will? ( What is the first thing a dictator does to take control when taking over a country? Look it up.)

    Evil or bad people kill other people. Not the methods alone used by those people.

    Bad people wanting guns WILL get them. They also have plenty of other devices at their disposal.

    Mental illness, evil personalities ( either organic or raised to be), and brainwashing are the enemies that produce such chaos and death.

    Our government does have a responsibility to try to handle the mental illness.Leaving them in homeless camps to fight to survive is allowing time bombs in our midst.

    But guns are not the problem, it is the mindset behind the gun, the bomb, the deadly chemical, the knife etc etc... that is. How are these killers taken out before they do more damage? They are usually shot.

Share this