View Full Version : another horrible mass shooting
flowerseverywhere
9-16-13, 4:03pm
hearing the events today unfold in DC was sickening. Innocent people trying to make a living. Nothing to say, really except how horrible it is.
Sadly, it's like the news is recycling:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/location-of-newest-mass-shooting-revealed,33877/
He lived in my neighborhood in 2004. Tragic for everyone, including his family.
Well, at least we don't have to go through yet another phony hand wringing 'conversation' about what we can do...If 20 dead children didn't cause a blip in the 'actual gun control' effort, I doubt a dozen naval personnel will. And, as Wayne LaPierre would say, 'More Guns!'
I mean, sheesh! Just how many times can we be expected to go to that phony 'I wish there was something we could do..' well?
We can move right into the "I love my guns and here are nifty pictures of them" portion of the posts. Along with the requisite 'responsible gun owners...if only they were all armed...George Zimmerman...blah blah blah....
It might pay to remember that this event, and the others like it, are no less tragic through the eyes of responsible gun owners than they are to those who would ban guns. It would be nice (and maybe even helpful) to start the conversation from that point for a change of pace.
Well, at least we don't have to go through yet another phony hand wringing 'conversation' about what we can do...If 20 dead children didn't cause a blip in the 'actual gun control' effort, I doubt a dozen naval personnel will. And, as Wayne LaPierre would say, 'More Guns!'
I mean, sheesh! Just how many times can we be expected to go to that phony 'I wish there was something we could do..' well?
We can move right into the "I love my guns and here are nifty pictures of them" portion of the posts. Along with the requisite 'responsible gun owners...if only they were all armed...George Zimmerman...blah blah blah....
Peggy, you said it perfectly!
And you still allow that everyone can buy weapons? When will stop this?
The crimes took place in a gun-free zone (a military base, with entrance security) wrapped inside a gun-free zone (the city of DC).
So lashing out at gun owners and the NRA hardly seems reasonable. But carry on.
I mean, sheesh! Just how many times can we be expected to go to that phony 'I wish there was something we could do..' well?
This might be helpful. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379438907&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime
flowerseverywhere
9-17-13, 1:41pm
no one who has made up their mind on guns is going to change it based on what anyone writes here. I am just terribly sad that another tragedy has happened right here in our country.
no one who has made up their mind on guns is going to change it based on what anyone writes here
That's true. The problem is, we see another example of one person's depraved inhumanity toward others and we immediately focus on his methodology, as if violence could not exist without particular appliances.
Gardenarian
9-17-13, 1:54pm
It seems like gun laws and regulations are completely ineffective, so I don't see the point in debating whether there should be more gun control.
There are countries (Canada, for example) where there are just as many guns but far less crime.
I've always seen the U.S. as a country of extremes, but why we have so many psychos is a mystery to me.
There seems to be a pervasive rot in this country.
This might be helpful. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379438907&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime
:laff::laff::laff:
A book by a...wait for it..Fox News guy! Humm, gee, I wonder what HIS take on it will be! I'll bet he has a forward by 'ol Wayne himself.
Now for some reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/09/16/Shocker-States-More-Guns-Have-More-Gun-Deaths
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/guns-kill-more-people-tha_b_3353338.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-kill-with-guns-more-than-any-other-weapon
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite
"One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed during an average day, and 609 are killed every week". (source: CDC)
There seems to be a pervasive rot in this country.
I rather see it as a lack of political courage. Courage to stand up to the armed thugs who keep recycling the BS that there isn't anything we can do about it. They threaten, recall any politician who dares to go against them, and call for more guns! Cause that's the answer you know. That's the answer to everything. More Guns!
And this is what it comes to.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kids
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-killed-more-americans-terrorists-did-year
But, well, carry on...
I rather see it as a lack of political courage. Courage to stand up to the armed thugs who keep recycling the BS that there isn't anything we can do about it. They threaten, recall any politician who dares to go against them, and call for more guns! Cause that's the answer you know. That's the answer to everything. More Guns!
In my state, two representatives who voted for and supported gun control legislation were recently recalled and removed from office. Democrats in a Democratic county. Regardless of my opinion of the perfect world, guns are here to stay. There might be some vacillation over clip sizes or assault type weapons or registration, but the sentiment of the public has spoken a number of times recently in a number of ways. Realistically, it is going to take a different solution.
I'm not sure why you would want to deny a blind person the ability to have a useful self-defense tool. Sure, it makes a great news story for the uninformed and emotional: "Guns for the Blind, OMGZ!". However, getting all worked up about that simply shows you know nothing about the subject.
I actually had a conversation with about 15 blind people on this subject just last Friday night, in the deepest heart of liberal Seattle, they were all outraged that sighted people, unaware of their capabilities and limits, would presume to dictate to them what they could and could not do.
(I'll give you a hint though - a lot of defensive firearms uses occur at contact range, or nearly contact range. And often in dark environments.)
I've trained more-than-a-few people over the years who had trouble with their sight or hearing, and they could usually come up with something that works.
As to getting worked up about rifles designed for children, again that shows a lack of knowledge about the shooting sports. I got my daughter a similar rifle at a very young age. Smaller rifles are essential for the young or small shooter to develop proper skills - if the stock is too long, or the reach to the controls too long, or the controls too heavy, it is much much harder for the student to learn. Shooting is a sport - my daughter is a quite competitive target shooter. To make it to the Olympics, or the National Matches, it is good to start early, just like gymnastics, or ballet, or most any other subtle physical skill.
But again, what wonderful fodder for cultural warfare.
I rather see it as a lack of political courage. Courage to stand up to the armed thugs who......
...who enlist children to distribute their poison on the streets? ...who kidnap and enslave children in prostitution and pornography? ....who convince people with no opportunity and no hope that a life of crime and violence is the only alternative?
You're absolutely right peggy. Our political elite doesn't have a single ball between them. Not enough guts in all of Washington to generate the hope and change it would take to turn around a failing grade school, much less a country. Address all those issues and my guess is there wouldn't be much need to debate guns. Of course I could be wrong. Let's try it and see.
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 4:12pm
Well, at least we don't have to go through yet another phony hand wringing 'conversation' about what we can do...If 20 dead children didn't cause a blip in the 'actual gun control' effort, I doubt a dozen naval personnel will. And, as Wayne LaPierre would say, 'More Guns!'
I mean, sheesh! Just how many times can we be expected to go to that phony 'I wish there was something we could do..' well?
We can move right into the "I love my guns and here are nifty pictures of them" portion of the posts. Along with the requisite 'responsible gun owners...if only they were all armed...George Zimmerman...blah blah blah....+1 Peggy, on this one I'm with you 100%.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 4:14pm
There seems to be a pervasive rot in this country.+1 And even scarier, our rot seems to be getting exported to other countries, too.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 4:23pm
It seems like gun laws and regulations are completely ineffective, so I don't see the point in debating whether there should be more gun control.
There are countries (Canada, for example) where there are just as many guns but far less crime.
I've always seen the U.S. as a country of extremes, but why we have so many psychos is a mystery to me.I have a theory on this. Before I start, let me state here and now I have nothing scientific to back this up with, it's just my opinion based on what I have experienced growing up on the wrong side of the tracks in this country. It may go against what is socially approved of, please take note of this.
I believe personally one HUGE reason that does not get faced as to why there is so much violence in the US - we have a culture of winners and losers. Those who are not successful, a designation getting ever more impossible to achieve, are looked down upon as loosers. In some cases this is subtle, in others it's in your face blatantly. Couple this need to be considered successful in a declining economy with easy availability of weapons, and hormones raging in men of a certain age - though this is not always the case, sometimes this affects men middle aged and older, too - and you have a recipe for such events.
Why can't we just have a public discussion and ADMIT that this country's great days are behind it and how should we prepare for the future? In Portugal right now the country is advising it's young to flee to Brazil.....maybe we should be honest with our youth from a very young age and tell them they may be better off elsewhere? Seriously. To be out of this culture that looks down on those who are not successful but yet makes it harder every year to be successful - priceless.....Why can't we have an honest public discussion in regards to this? I have the courage to do so, why can't others? Rob
Gardenarian
9-17-13, 5:09pm
I believe personally one HUGE reason that does not get faced as to why there is so much violence in the US - we have a culture of winners and losers. Those who are not successful, a designation getting ever more impossible to achieve, are looked down upon as loosers. In some cases this is subtle, in others it's in your face blatantly. Couple this need to be considered successful in a declining economy with easy availability of weapons, and hormones raging in men of a certain age - though this is not always the case, sometimes this affects men middle aged and older, too - and you have a recipe for such events.
Your theory makes sense to me, at least in explaining an underlying rage. There is a lot of discrimination against those who make use of what little safety net the U.S. offers. I've been pretty disgusted with the reactions to the America's Cup race; it seems to be just a big status pageant.
I'm not sure it explains why most of the world's serial killers and other crazies are born in the USA.
I don't think that there is no hope for young people here, but many people may need to reset their values.
I read a story the other day about two innocent people who were randomly stabbed by a guy as they left a soccer match in Seattle. One of them, the male, died. He was trying to protect his partner who was attacked first -- last I read she had survived.
Personally I think there should be stricter controls on guns, but in many of these cases the real underlying issue is mental illness. While I don't think anyone would want to go back to the days when thousands of people were locked up in state mental institutions, the sad reality is that many of the people in our society who most need intensive help -- the seriously mentally ill and the addicted -- are not getting it. They cycle in and out of jail, and are typically well known to both ER staff and local law enforcement, but are stuck in a groundhog day cycle of inability to get treated.
I find it interesting that here in China incidents like these regularly provoke public discussion about what to do to better diagnose and support people with mental illness, discussions that have actually led to some policy changes. Again, maybe it is cultural -- the US is so focused on the individual that maybe these things are seen as personal failures or shortcomings rather than a bigger societal issue.
lhamo.......you're sort of saying what I've been saying for a long time........and that is the U.S. is all about individual rights, regardless of how it affects the whole society. Nobody wants to appear to be stepping on anybody's toes.......even if their toes should be smashed! .......well, at least stepped on.
But our illness is so complex........our lifestyles, our consumerism, our population, our values, our education, etc., etc., etc. We're sick. :(
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 6:59pm
lhamo.......you're sort of saying what I've been saying for a long time........and that is the U.S. is all about individual rights, regardless of how it affects the whole society. Nobody wants to appear to be stepping on anybody's toes.......even if their toes should be smashed! .......well, at least stepped on.
But our illness is so complex........our lifestyles, our consumerism, our population, our values, our education, etc., etc., etc. We're sick. :(I wish there was a button here to plus one million, as I could not agree with you more here, Cathy. Rob
the U.S. is all about individual rights, regardless of how it affects the whole society.
Innocent until proven guilty. How many people have walked under that standard to the detriment of society? Free speech. It might make you feel good but if you hurt lots of peoples' feelings maybe we should be able to prevent you from speaking.
How much safer would people be from crime if the police didn't need search warrants thatbprotect an individual right to privacy?
Involuntary commitment. To what extent should the state be able to lock you up even though you have not done anything wrong? Clearly many of the shooters exhibited symptoms. Go back to the good old days?
http://www.volokh.com/files/bernardharcourt-volokh_graph.1.JPG
DocHolliday
9-17-13, 8:44pm
"One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed during an average day, and 609 are killed every week". (source: CDC)
Of course the part left out of that tidbit is 50+ of those 87 are suicides...the gun control supporters seem to forget that in their claims of "gun violence".
iris lilies
9-17-13, 9:00pm
Of course the part left out of that tidbit is 50+ of those 87 are suicides...the gun control supporters seem to forget that in their claims of "gun violence".
And no one is going to crow that Dept of Justice stats showed recently gun deaths are on a major decline because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative. Yossarian can post all of the charts and graphs he wants, but (paraphrasing a poster in the global warming thread) people just know what they know, no steekin' charts or facts need be considered.
Firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1993 to 2011, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.
For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002. The number of firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006 and then declined through 2011. Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s.
found here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 9:08pm
And no one is going to crow that Dept of Justice stats showed recently gun deaths are on a major decline because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative. Yossarian can post all of the charts and graphs he wants. but (paraphrasing a poster in the global warming thread) people just know what they know, no steekin' charts or facts need be considered.
Firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1993 to 2011, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.
For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002. The number of firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006 and then declined through 2011. Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s.
found here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfmIris, Iris, Iris.....let's say that all this is true 100% - and I'm not even saying it isn't - are you still OK with what happened yesterday in DC? Is the loss of life in such events less important than the right to bear arms? LOL I have been here since 2005 as one of the more liberal posters, especially since so many of the old crowd have moved on - you know what my answer is going to be.....I'd be glad to scrap that constitutional amendment - in fact I'd find much hope in it being scrapped and perhaps a bit of faith in the US - if scrapping it and doing something about controlling guns would indeed minimize situations such as yesterday's. My belief is that human life is more important than that damned constitutional amendment - how I wish it could be easily scrapped!!!!! Rob
iris lilies
9-17-13, 9:13pm
Iris, Iris, Iris.....let's say that all this is true 100% - and I'm not even saying it isn't - are you still OK with what happened yesterday in DC?
Insulting quesiton, not even worth answering.
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 9:31pm
Insulting quesiton, not even worth answering.My apologies. I meant no offense.
My point, and maybe I did not make it well (?) is that with ease of access to firearms, such events are going to happen in a society as competitive and inequitable as ours. Once again, my apologies. Rob
Obama's called for tougher background checks (again) for firearms purchases as a result of this shooting, but what does he consider "tougher"?
This guy (Navy Yard shooter) now appears to have had significant mental health issues. There was an incident at a hotel in RI in early August, where he called police to report issues with "voices."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-shooting-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Police in Rhode Island apparently reported Alexis hearing voices to the Navy. Yet who knows if they did anything with the information.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-navy-shooting-20130916,0,7505707.story
The question I have, is short of court-ordered hospitalization for mental health issues, how does a record of someone showing "signs" of mental illness (without a court-ordered hospitalization) "get into the system" in such a way that it would show up on a background check for firearms purchases and on other background checks, such as the one for a security clearance? And how is that to be done without significant privacy violations? There have been reports that doctors are now telling patients they are required to ask about firearms in the home. With the new electronic medical records under Obamacare, I guess it would be easy enough for a doctor to record "concerns" about a patient's mental state and the patient reporting the presence of firearms in the home. But who is to stay a GP or internist is qualified to put comments in a patient's permanent records that combine guns/mental health issues, such records possibly having a negative impact upon the patient's life, if the "concerns"are unfounded, rather than someone trained in mental health issues?
I'm sure some in Congress would have no issue with a person's medical records, including mental health records, to be linked up in such a way that they are accessible when the NICS background check is run when someone attempts to purchase a firearm. Do I? No way. Medical records are private and they shouldn't be readily available.
This link has information on how mental health-related information is submitted to the FBI NICS database.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/nics-index
I don't know how serious a concern about someone's mental health issues are before authorities submit the information on the mental illness to the FBI for inclusion in NICS.
I live in Illinois. As I've mentioned before, you need to have a FOID (Firearm Owners ID) card to possess ammo or rent a gun at a range, let alone buying a gun/ammo. FOID cards are issued by the state police. The local courts are required to report determinations of someone being a "mental defective" to the Illinois State Police. In recent years, only 3 of the states 102 counties were found to be doing this reporting. The number is now up to 39 of 102 counties, but there is still a long way to go.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-10/news/ct-met-chief-justice-mentally-ill-guns-0510-20130510_1_illinois-supreme-court-chief-justice-illinois-house
Authorities are reporting that the shooter only had a shotgun when he entered the Navy Yard. No AR-15, aka "assault rifle," as originally reported. The two handguns (semi-auto, I'm assuming) he used are believed to have been taken from people he encountered inside (cops? Navy security?). The shotgun was legally purchased in Virginia. Long guns are generally easier to purchase than handguns. Illinois has its own "cooling off" period for firearms purchases - 24 hours for long guns, 72 hours for handguns.
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 10:22pm
I had heard about the voices being heard by the Navy Yard Shooter and I understand he was granted some kind of security clearance (?) in spite of these issues. Ouch! My guess is that there will be some large lawsuits against (not sure who) pending soon. What a mess all the way around. Rob
Is the loss of life in such events less important than the right to bear arms?
Yes.
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 10:38pm
Yes.Well, Bae, with all due respect I am going to agree to disagree with you. I just don't agree with your answer above and you obviously don't agree with me so let's just let this one be I guess. I do think it's great that on this board we get to have such divergent viewpoints and that is tolerated here. Rob
Rob, I read an article on CNN.com at lunch today, which said people are often granted a "medium" security clearance while the background check is being done.
This guy had run-ins with the police in Seattle, Texas, and Georgia as a result of firearms related incidents. The Navy knew he had issues. He also reportedly had some contact with the VA for possible mental health care services. There are multiple documented instances of erratic behavior.
As Mark Levin, a conservative talk radio host, said at the beginning of today's show, many people knew this guy had issues. But nothing appears to have been done about it. "It's not about gun control," he said. "It's about nut control."
Just found this article - the shooter passed TWO background checks to buy the shotgun, the NICS as well as a Virginia state one.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-easily-passed-two-background-checks-b/
DocHolliday
9-17-13, 10:51pm
Just found this article - the shooter passed TWO background checks to buy the shotgun, the NICS as well as a Virginia state one.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-easily-passed-two-background-checks-b/
So after the usual suspects (CNN, Dianne Feinstein, NYTimes, NYDaily News, MSNBC) told us he used an AR-15 and are calling for another ban on them, we find out today he didn't even use one. CNN went so far as to claim he used an AR-15 shotgun...the absolute ignorance of the media today is astounding.
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 10:52pm
Rob, I read an article on CNN.com at lunch today, which said people are often granted a "medium" security clearance while the background check is being done.
This guy had run-ins with the police in Seattle, Texas, and Georgia as a result of firearms related incidents. The Navy knew he had issues. He also reportedly had some contact with the VA for possible mental health care services. There are multiple documented instances of erratic behavior.
As Mark Levin, a conservative talk radio host, said at the beginning of today's show, many people knew this guy had issues. But nothing appears to have been done about it. "It's not about gun control," he said. "It's about nut control."
Just found this article - the shooter passed TWO background checks to buy the shotgun, the NICS as well as a Virginia state one.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/aaron-alexis-easily-passed-two-background-checks-b/Tradd, I find this so disturbing that there were apparently documented issues about this individual and yet he was allowed a medium security clearance AND allowed to buy firearms via passing two background checks.
In my perfect world - which I understand is not going to happen - there would be no automatic right to bear arms. Once again, I get that this is not a realistic option.....So my concern is - what can we do? If we don't make drastic changes, fine - then what can we do about these kinds of events? How do we prevent them? Are we to accept them as a by product of the right to bear arms and the ease of acquiring firearms?
For me personally, I can't accept the potential loss of life as a side effect of the right to bear arms. Good luck on changing anything here, though, and I get that that's not going to happen. Rob
PS I came back to add - I think it's possible that some on the edge of committing such acts may be able to get some needed mental health assistance once ObamaCare kicks in, but I also know from doing my own research that young men that need such care are the least likely to voluntarily seek it.
For me personally, I can't accept the potential loss of life as a side effect of the right to bear arms. Good luck on changing anything here, though, and I get that that's not going to happen. Rob
How do you weigh that risk against the potential loss of life as a side effect of *not* having a right to bear arms?
Rob - do you believe you have any "right" to defend yourself against violence?
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 11:05pm
How do you weigh that risk against the potential loss of life as a side effect of *not* having a right to bear arms?
Rob - do you believe you have any "right" to defend yourself against violence?This is a hard question for me, Bae. I don't have any guns at home in the house I co-own with my cousin. Were someone to come at me with a weapon and fire quite likely I would be dead, yes. And if I had a gun, I would say in this situation it is justified to shoot and fire.
Where I think we diverge in opinion is that I worry about guns getting into less than stable hands as I have so often posted here. I am willing to take the risk to my safety if it means fewer guns getting into less than stable hands. I'm guessing that may sound radical (?) to the pro gun crowd out there, but this is my stance. I could go on and on about my experience with my drunken father pulling a gun on my mother back in the mid 70's - but why repeat this? The only new takeaway here is my admission I am willing to take this risk if it means fewer guns in less than stable hands.
This I think is one of those issues like abortion or immigration or a few others that really rile people up.....and also this is an issue where it's very hard to change anyone's stance.....but it's cool to try to understand other people's takes on it, yes. Rob
ToomuchStuff
9-17-13, 11:07pm
I just read the title to this whole mess, everyone seems to be arguing in, and I find it an interesting moral premise you all are starting from.
another horrible mass shooting
OK, so I must have missed the one that wasn't horrible?
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 11:08pm
I just read the title to this whole mess, everyone seems to be arguing in, and I find it an interesting moral premise you all are starting from.
another horrible mass shooting
OK, so I must have missed the one that wasn't horrible?Good point! +1 Rob
I read something months ago at the time of the Colorado movie theatre shooting that made some sense.
In the Middle East, disaffected young men turn to a radical flavor of Islam and become suicide bombers. In the U.S., they commit mass shootings.
I find it a rather jarring juxtaposition that the shooter was apparently a Buddhist.
gimmethesimplelife
9-17-13, 11:46pm
I read something months ago at the time of the Colorado movie theatre shooting that made some sense.
In the Middle East, disaffected young men turn to a radical flavor of Islam and become suicide bombers. In the U.S., they commit mass shootings.
I find it a rather jarring juxtaposition that the shooter was apparently a Buddhist.Agreed. The shooter being Buddhist seems to play against type. And I think you raise an interesting point - this disaffection of young men. How do we as a society address this in an economy with such fewer opportunities for young men due to globalization? No easy fix on any of this do I see. Rob
I read something months ago at the time of the Colorado movie theatre shooting that made some sense.
In the Middle East, disaffected young men turn to a radical flavor of Islam and become suicide bombers. In the U.S., they commit mass shootings.
I find it a rather jarring juxtaposition that the shooter was apparently a Buddhist.
Without trivializing the faith of 1/6th of the people on earth it seems that radical Islam mirrors gangs in the US when it comes to courting disenfranchised and disaffected young men. The problem lies in the disenfranchisement, not in the tools used to carry out their motives.
By recent accounts the shooter was a Buddhist who heard voices being broadcast into his body from several other people via microwave. I think his right mindedness got short-circuited well before any enlightenment kicked in. And when it comes to individuals with an illness that is beyond their control the ability of society to 'guide' their actions is, and should be, somewhat limited. The ability of society to offer help to those individuals is limited only by political will. As we continually discuss, there is effectively no such will in the US.
I find it interesting that no one, repeat: NO ONE, I've seen has calculated how many such instances have NOT occurred thanks to the current laws on the books requiring background checks, waiting periods, age limits, etc. Obviously there is no way to know for sure, but I don't see any way to deny that hundreds, maybe thousands, of such events did NOT occur because of limited access to firearms/chemicals/explosives/etc. Yes, one shooting is one too many, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the notion that single disturbed individuals lashing out automatically means the entire system is failing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.