Gun control

7

798686

Guest
1. Tougher gun laws. It's more difficult to adopt a dog from a shelter than to buy a gun

2. Mental health services (and better legislation for family who can see someone's gone off the deep end but can't do anything about it)

3. When you put out games where the object is to kill as many people as possible do we REALLY wonder why young people are desensitized to violence? Its on TV and movies and video games. Violence is fun!

I don't really care to debate politics about this. There are a lot of grieving parents today who just want something to be done.
YES! :smile: <3
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Fuzzy is on the fence about gun control. There is so much conflicting information that points in either direction. Gun ownership rates in the US are the same now as in the 60's, and yet there weren't mass shootings back then (Kent State was in the 70's). Countries like Sweden have high gun ownership and low gun-related deaths, while Japan has very low gun ownership and low gun-related deaths (2 gun-related deaths in 2006 for the whole country). It seems to be more about attitude than access.

Having said that, assault guns are obviously not a good defense. They only make mass shooting easier. It makes sense to outlaw them. Outlawing long guns (rifles or shotguns) in general doesn't seem to be as justified. As for hand guns, Fuzzy's still on the fence there too.

One thing that Fuzzy believes is that "arming the citizenry" seems like a horrible reaction akin to 9/11 syndrome. Imagine if everyone in that theater had a semi-automatic gun to "fight back" with.

Neocons are claiming that the school would have been safer is the teachers were armed or if the schools had prayer and co-opt this tragedy. Liberals are trying hard to not say, "I told you so."

As violent crime has steadily decreased since the early 90's, Americans are generally feeling safer than they have since the (National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) began in 1973... and probably long before then. Unfortunately, media outlets are competing to show the gory details and feed the fear mongering that can make people feel less safe. does the media shove it down their throats or is the media simply giving the consumers what they demand? Fuzzy is trying to avoid victimology jargon because it seems to kill threads, but it's safe to say that in a rich society with lots of leisure time, people are fascinated with crime... and often become obsessed and over-react. They are perfect prey for reactionary legislation pushers and gun sellers. These busy bodies may also be quicker to point fingers and isolated incidents of violence spark waves of panic. In these instances, people get less trusting and more fearful of "folk devils."

Folk devils are scapegoats for public outrage. This is the other tragedy of these shootings. As Fuzzy has so often mentioned on this site, young males with psychosocial problems are going to be further problematized, demonized and criminalized. Since it's often ostracism or marginalization that exacerbates their rage against society, the public's increased fear of them is only going to make matters worse. Access to mental healthcare and inclusion programs are a good start to prevent these at-risk guys from believing that mass killing is the best revenge. The media may have some culpability here, but that might be best left for another thread.

Edit:

2. Mental health services (and better legislation for family who can see someone's gone off the deep end but can't do anything about it)
Education and training can help too. Counselors in many high schools have suicide checklists that include situational stress, suicidal thoughts and "availability of means." Means can include firearms. Here is a PDF of one such checklist.
 
Last edited:
7

798686

Guest
You gonna tell that to Joll, who wants to change US laws?
You don't think they need changing? I wonder if the parents whose kids were killed yesterday would agree?

The US feels free to lecture us on eurozone debt problems (and they absolutely have a point) - so if we see a problem that needs mentioning, we're not going to keep quiet either.

You need to address the problem!
 

MichiganRico

Superior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Posts
2,801
Media
0
Likes
4,058
Points
258
Location
SW Michigan
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
It's far too late to talk about truly meaningly gun control. This country is awash in firearms and there are no remedies that would meet Constitutional muster to change the status quo. All we can do now is "tamper around the edges" of the issue. A return to the assault weapons ban that expired in 1994, limitations on large-capacity magazines for both rifles and handguns, limitations on "cop killer" bullets, closing the gun show registration and background check loophole, and possibly providing mental health professionals and college administrators the same type of liability immunity we give to persons reporting possible child abuse cases, so long as you report "in good faith" a person who they believe is too unstable to acquire access to a firearm.

I am still deeply troubled that the perpetrators in the Giffords and Aurora theater shootings were both banned from their respective college/university campuses for threatening behavior, but were not reported to law enforcement or added to a firearms purchase exclusion list. Even the Virginia Tech shooter displayed obviously signs of mental illness to the extent that his creative writing teacher tutored him privately since he was unable to interact appropriately in a regular classroom setting and Nikki Giovanni expelled him from her poetry class. We know that psychosis frequently manifests in late adolescence and the early twenties. And yet we appear fearful to call "crazy" out and take affirmative steps to get these individuals connected to mental health services and reported to law enforcement.

So, in my opinion, we need at least a two front approach: mental health services enhancement/reporting and some constructive prohibitions on weapons acquisition. But even these two interventions can't protect us and our children from a defective psyche bent on murder. They may, however, be able to thwart some individuals from committing these heinous acts. And curbing just some of these psychopaths may, sadly enough, be the best we accomplish under the circumstances.
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,311
Media
0
Likes
2,103
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,311
Media
0
Likes
2,103
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
So, in my opinion, we need at least a two front approach: mental health services enhancement/reporting and some constructive prohibitions on weapons acquisition. But even these two interventions can't protect us and our children from a defective psyche bent on murder. They may, however, be able to thwart some individuals from committing these heinous acts. And curbing just some of these psychopaths may, sadly enough, be the best we accomplish under the circumstances.
Sad to say that those suggestions may be the best options.
A good post, MR.
Tnx.
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
Because I believe more gun control is not right for the US.

Then argue for it with facts, reasoning, and of course your opinion. Why are you always so confrontational? The topic of this thread is an important one. In the past, threads about this very subject have been closed because people like you constantly try to stir up shit. You are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone. If you're not capable of voicing your opinion without being a dick then don't voice it.
 

balsary

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
1,805
Media
4
Likes
66
Points
193
Location
Indianapolis (Indiana, United States)
Gender
Male
It's far too late to talk about truly meaningly gun control. This country is awash in firearms and there are no remedies that would meet Constitutional muster to change the status quo. All we can do now is "tamper around the edges" of the issue. A return to the assault weapons ban that expired in 1994, limitations on large-capacity magazines for both rifles and handguns, limitations on "cop killer" bullets, closing the gun show registration and background check loophole, and possibly providing mental health professionals and college administrators the same type of liability immunity we give to persons reporting possible child abuse cases, so long as you report "in good faith" a person who they believe is too unstable to acquire access to a firearm.

I am still deeply troubled that the perpetrators in the Giffords and Aurora theater shootings were both banned from their respective college/university campuses for threatening behavior, but were not reported to law enforcement or added to a firearms purchase exclusion list. Even the Virginia Tech shooter displayed obviously signs of mental illness to the extent that his creative writing teacher tutored him privately since he was unable to interact appropriately in a regular classroom setting and Nikki Giovanni expelled him from her poetry class. We know that psychosis frequently manifests in late adolescence and the early twenties. And yet we appear fearful to call "crazy" out and take affirmative steps to get these individuals connected to mental health services and reported to law enforcement.

So, in my opinion, we need at least a two front approach: mental health services enhancement/reporting and some constructive prohibitions on weapons acquisition. But even these two interventions can't protect us and our children from a defective psyche bent on murder. They may, however, be able to thwart some individuals from committing these heinous acts. And curbing just some of these psychopaths may, sadly enough, be the best we accomplish under the circumstances.

Excellent post and probably the most reasonable approach mentioned so far.
 
7

798686

Guest
Excellent post and probably the most reasonable approach mentioned so far.
Oddly enough, I agree. Rico has a history of great posting.

The last paragraph is particularly good. Multi-faceted approach - mental health and restrictions. I do agree it's going to take a hell of a lot to change things, but a gradual and step-by-step approach may yield results?

Good luck anyway. :)
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
I am still deeply troubled that the perpetrators in the Giffords and Aurora theater shootings were both banned from their respective college/university campuses for threatening behavior, but were not reported to law enforcement or added to a firearms purchase exclusion list. Even the Virginia Tech shooter displayed obviously signs of mental illness to the extent that his creative writing teacher tutored him privately since he was unable to interact appropriately in a regular classroom setting and Nikki Giovanni expelled him from her poetry class. We know that psychosis frequently manifests in late adolescence and the early twenties. And yet we appear fearful to call "crazy" out and take affirmative steps to get these individuals connected to mental health services and reported to law enforcement.
Fuck yes. Thank you for that. It seems to obvious to Fuzzy that gun control won't address the real issue of mental illness and subcultural acceptance of guns.

We can fear the "weird kid" next door or we can ask him to paint our porch for $100. There are formal NGO inclusion programs (and transitional offender programs) that have been shown to work but they don't do much good after the fact. We need to address their needs and provide support. We can all do our share in keeping society safe by including and not excluding possible "young offenders."

A mentally healthy young guy sitting on a mountain of guns is no more dangerous than an unbalanced young guy in a padded cell.

So, in my opinion, we need at least a two front approach: mental health services enhancement/reporting and some constructive prohibitions on weapons acquisition. But even these two interventions can't protect us and our children from a defective psyche bent on murder. They may, however, be able to thwart some individuals from committing these heinous acts. And curbing just some of these psychopaths may, sadly enough, be the best we accomplish under the circumstances.
Loughner finally got the mental health care he needed, but only after he killed a group of people.

There are many ways in which we can keep young, at-risk males involved in society or regularly checked for illness. Sometimes just a few questions are all that's needed. A Judge will often order mental illness treatment for a young offender, which is wonderful, but doesn't help those who haven't yet committed a crime... or the fact that most crimes go unreported.

It's hard for us to reach out to a kid who is in his bedroom playing COD all day, but this is where his parents can step in and get him the help he needs as soon as possible. As with the Virginia Tech killings, parents sometimes refuse to accept the obvious signs. Public education on signs of mental illness and what to do when they are spotted could help.

We can't arrest our way out of a crime but we can tackle the risk factors that lead to it.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
A mentally healthy young guy sitting on a mountain of guns is no more dangerous than an unbalanced young guy in a padded cell.

...

We can't arrest our way out of a crime but we can tackle the risk factors that lead to it.

This is one of the most reasonable statements I've seen in this thread, or any gun control thread on this site. Thank you for this.

It's nice to see someone blame, not the gun, but the person who wields it.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Criminals mock society's laws. More laws mean that they'll just break more of them.

What I posted was my opinion. Nowhere did I say that he has no right to post.
i would confirm, just new gun laws wount have a big effect on the everyday crime... but it would defenetly have some effects on attacks like they happened yesterday.
and if you dont wanna chagne the laws, to protect students or cinema guests. then you are as guilty as the attacker, when its about the number of victims
 
Last edited: