Gun ownership and mental health (psychological) screenings
Fuck you if you think this is an appropriate solution to gun control.
If people have a right to defend their homes with weapons, then it follows that PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEIR HOMES WITH WEAPONS! So for those that think mental screenings would be an appropriate solution to gun control and gun violence, tell that to the person with social anxiety or the mentally handicapped who you think don't deserve to defend themselves because you think criminality is the result of an insanity. ...That is all. |
Not to mention its not very logical, the guy got his guns from his mother's arsenal, and the Columbine shooters didn't buy their guns legally either.
|
Finally, someone said it. We can't forget the bodies of the deceased are barely cold and this political and religious crap is being sounded off on various boards at the moment. With someone with personal ties to the situation, fuck all of you for trying to make it so.
|
Bourbon... I'm afraid you may have missed my point.
My thread WAS a political point in response to how people are scrambling to try and find solutions to what has just gone down. This isn't a thread calling people to shut up and have a moment of silence for the deceased. I apologize if I led you to think it was. |
Sorry AshleyO. I'm just overrun with emotions because I have cousins who's kids go to that very school, not to mention one of my uncles is a part of the first responders that arrived shortly after it happened and as far as I can tell, he's still there helping with the clean up. If anything, I should have sat down and waited for at least a day before saying anything after I calmed down.
|
Don't apologize to me. There's no reason to.
You may as well say what you're going to say. Everyone else is, aren't they? I just didn't want to confuse anything. |
Yeah, everyone's going to say what they're going to say, but they should at least self edit like I normally do, except I didn't this time. I never meant to confuse anything myself and would prefer to try to keep the discussion going as the one who started the thread intended. I've just had a rough day and sometimes it's hard to read sarcasm in written word.
|
Quote:
|
With gun control? Oh sure. I can see in other ways why someone would want to limit gun control. The Mulford Act was a reaction to The Black Panthers becoming publicly militant.
Sorry. It's late and I could think about it, but I'd probably hit it on several points from different perspectives. I could dissect it all day tomorrow though. There are some lines of dialogue as far as gun control that I don't think I've ever seen because most of the dialogue is between liberal pacifists and a bourgeois understanding of property defense from conservatives. Especially the conservatives. You start introducing the idea of grassroots political parties finding it necessary to arm themselves, they'll sing a different tune about who gets to own guns. Case in point with The Black Panthers. |
Damn it... I was perpetuating this sort of mental illness/mass shooting connection. Exploring the idea further showed a whole world of science and fact that doesn't back it up. If mental illness were a solid factor, wouldn't there be more women and people of color who do this sort of thing as well?
My jury is still out on gun control, I've been having to re-evaluate the stance I was force-fed from birth. |
Ape. I almost... I ALMOST want to agree with you. That mass shootings such as this could be likely the result of white middle class discontent.
But even I'm not quite ready to make that leap even though so far as I have seen, most of the shooters of the past few decades seem to have been white and middle class. But we must also take into consideration that other kinds of crimes are under-reported or even reported differently. So I want to say you're on to something, but even I don't think there's enough evidence to draw a conclusion of mass shootings based on class and race. |
Mentally healthy individuals do not gun down 26 people.
The de facto restriction of health care (it's expensive thus hard for people without much money to get) means some people are not getting the help they need. It's entirely possible that something like that coupled with the perception or reality of desperate conditions create an atmosphere of crushing despair that can push people to awful places. It's all speculation at this point until more information comes out. |
Quote:
Holy. God. Damned. Shit. You know... it actually took me a while to understand how oblivious you actually are. Admittedly, I could sort of get it, but this is crystal clear. God forbid any mentally healthy individual ever finds it necessary to disturb your precious peace or they ever find it necessary to have to gun down 26 people in self defense. Fuck you, Jon. You don't know people. This shit right here ^... this is YOUR standard and YOUR expectation of people. Well fuck you. It aint that simple. |
Quote:
It's like you see my name on a post and you can't step on your dick fast enough to straw man me. Shut up, AshleyO. |
FUCK. YOU! This is not what I'm talking about. I already know that you don't support some blanket ban.
Let me try to clear this up for you. Violence... in all of its manifestations... do not necessarily come from unhealthy minds. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW? You short-sighted doughnut. |
In order for a human being to pull the trigger on 20 kids + 6 adults, one of whom being the guy's own mother, something really wrong has to happen.
Ever read http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psycho...dp/0316040932? It's fascinating. The book discusses how much mental conditioning is required to get professional soldiers to fire on other professional soldiers. People have an extreme natural aversion to violence and killing. To circumvent that, requires either a deliberate process to wear down the aversion, or an emotional and/or chemical (same thing it's all filtered through meat) imbalance, triggered by any number of stimuli. |
...violence and mental instability are NOT completely connected. Mental conditioning is not the same thing as having a mental instability.
Holy shit. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And even if its mental illness, mental illness manifests itself in cultural ways. Someone in Florida is not going to get ice madness, and a Canadian with social anxiety disorder or agoraphobia isn't going to be diagnosed as a Hikikomori. When mass killings seem to be a social disease, we should really look for cultural reasons why this happens. As for the army thing, the thing is, yes, I think generally when we live in comfort, we have an aversion to violence, but we also have a fight or flight response like every other animal. The best way the army gets soldiers to fight is to instill a feeling of fraternity, you look out after your own. Even when people get turned onto violence, they might not shoot if they don't feel like people are depending on them. During the GI Revolt in Vietnam, soldiers who would frag officers were still being violent and still had that sense of fraternity, but they still has a conscious to try and end the violence with the Vietnamese. In times of anomie, anybody can do horrible things. In times of war, everybody can do horrible things, even civilans with no army training (like what often happened during the collapse of Yugoslavia or civilian Nazi supporters). Quote:
|
Quote:
Looks like Saya already touched on this... it makes sense that she would as thinking more deeply about her points in discussions related to a shooting earlier this year. Its like ****-culture, taken to a deadly extreme. |
In some patriarchal societies the men are given overt power of life and death over other people who are not men. One example is ancient Rome, fathers were given the right to kill their children, even if their offspring were well into adulthood.
There other examples if one cares to put a little time and research into it. Also, if we recall it wasn't that long ago (in the us) that white dudes used to kill poc just to assert their dominance over them as they felt they were entitled to do. The same sense of entitlement remains, it just seems that the folks who feel it are less and less discriminating about who they target. |
Quote:
Doing more to make treatment options not only available, but also doing more to remove the stigma attached to it can make it more likely for people to get the help they need, and hopefully head off as much heartache as possible. If someone is likely to be a danger to themselves or others, then I don't think it's a good idea for them to have weaponry. However, if they are that much of a danger, then they really should be getting help anyway. The people that aren't dangerous to themselves or others... aren't dangerous to themselves or others and should be considered outside the scope. Furthering the military comment, there were many accounts of Civil War soldiers repeatedly loading weapons. They wouldn't fire, even in the setting of a battlefield were other people were shooting at them. They'd pantomime the actions expected of them, and found after the fact lying next to their rifle loaded with multiple shots, without once having actually fired. It's an amazing contrast between some of these people, being put in the place were violence was not only allowed but actively encouraged and rewarded, and to see the unwillingness to engage in it, set against how easily it seems others can resort to it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think it would help the stigma. My sister is a bartender and was telling me her regulars were trying to argue that autistic people should all be registered and forced into getting some kind of help. Its not helping stigma if its turning into scapegoating and witch hunts. Quote:
Now a big problem with that is not necessarily all veterans were so filled with love for all of God's creatures that they couldn't shoot; I'm not too too familiar with the American Civil War, but in WWI you have to understand that the fatality rate was huge. To shoot was to give away your position and very likely get shot. Self preservation has a lot to do with it as well. Not only that, but I don't think soldiers are the only ones getting trained in times of war. Didn't we condone it? Didn't we send them off to kill for us, and changed our tune when it turned out we were wrong and we weren't helping? Romney never served in the army, but he was far more violent than lets say John Kerry, who was a combat veteran and a member of Vietnam Veterans Against The War, Romney was arrogant enough to get out of the draft and yet push and protest to send others to die in his place. A civilian warmongerer is worse than a soldier who's plenty capable of knowing what's going on. Versus could talk more about this, but I don't want to ask him to, so he is more than welcome to tell me I'm wrong, but soldiers just aren't turned into mindless sadistic killers. Some become more violent that "good" soldiers are supposed to be, but we should be very aware and we've known a very long time that exposure to combat causes some degree of psychological harm. There's also the fact that you don't have to go through training to be one of most! people who are willing to cause harm because an authority figure told you to. |
Quote:
I do agree that access to health care is not the whole story - people can fall through or slip through the cracks. The best health care in the world is useless if it isn't taken advantage of, but it is extremely difficult to utilize something that isn't widely available. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures." 'Normal' people can be encouraged/pushed to do awful things, but there are definite mental and physiological consequences. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:02 AM. |