So let's have a conversation...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

When I first heard of the murders in Newton CT I was angry. In fact, "Angry" doesn't even really begin describe it,

I was incandescent...

First there was the news itself. It takes profound evil or profound sickness to do what he did. That such a thing exists/allowed to exist makes me sick to my stomach. The thought of children dying, calling out for their parents, for protection, and not receiving it enrages me beyond words. Then there's the thought of what must come next.

I don’t want to think about, or deal with politics right now. But that’s precisely what I'm doing because my own convictions have been called into question. People are looking for scapegoats and I can not allow that to pass unchallenged.



The "usual suspects" are engaged in their typical hand wringing about too many guns, to much freedom, too few cops, too few cameras, etc... This infuriates me, because it does nothing address the root cause, or prevent this sort of thing from happening again. As the bodies were cooling in Connecticut, a similar scene was unfolding in China.

Now the usual suspects will assert that it is better for children to stabbed than shot but that is a choice I refuse to countenance. If that's really the conversation we're having then our society is more broken than I thought. There's only one thread that links Columbine to Utøya and every other mass killing ever. It is the profound evil/sickness of the killer.

The short term solution (to me at least) is obvious. You don't overcome evil by hiding from it, or trying mask it's effects. You confront it head-on and eradicate it. When seconds count help will always be minutes away, so rather than giving a killer time to work his evil before going out in a blaze of CNN, ensure that potential victims have the power (should they so choose) to strike him down.

In the long term we need to look at where such evil comes from, and that involves asking uncomfortable questions for which there are no easy answers.

But that's not the conversation that the usual suspects seem to want.

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

911, Falwell: God removed his protective hand because the US was getting too liberal/immoral.
911, Lefties: It was our foreign policy. (and that's why they decapitate people for dancing too)

And more on topic, you could point out that there are more restrictions on guns, not less, than there was 30 years ago when this type of thing rarely happened.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

You have to remember that the worst school massacre in U.S. history didn't happen recently, but back in the 20's. Firearms weren't used, but explosives where so it doesn't count when news articles cite "worst school-shootings".

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the right reverend Huckabee had the same inane comment about yesterday as Falwell did about 911.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually 9/11 was just a larger version of ongoing terrorist acts, including a bombing of the WTC complex, that were not deemed worthy of starting a war. Oh, and 30 years ago, in 1982, there was a school shooting in Littleton, Colorado. In addition during the 1980s there was one school shooting in 1983, one in 1984, six in 1985, two in 1986, four in 1987, three in 1988, and one in 1989. This decade saw a suicide bombing of US troops on a Middle Eastern misadventure, a rogue state shooting at US ships with highly advanced missiles, a terrorist state within a state lobbing rockets into Israel, the Iran Hostage Crisis, and a number of other things.

So you can take the nostalgia and stuff it, as it has no relevance to reality.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

No, let's NOT have THAT conversation because that's as much as a fantasy as the idea that just the right mix of bannings and licenses will eliminate spree killers. You know this. When the bullets start flying in a chaotic situation, the smart move is to hit the deck because drawing and firing when you don't know what the hell is going on is not going to make things better and will most likely only add to the chaos and get you shot by the responders. There's a reason why crisis response is a speciality and that most cops are not even trained in it.

Defend the right to keep and bear arms on realistic terms. Most defensive use of firearms do not even include them being discharged and certainy do not involve deterring an assailant as armed as most spree killers. Spinning superhero fantasies only keeps the conversation in the stupid and tit for tat partisan level.

So let's have a conversation on honest grounds: even if we magically created a series of rules and regulations that could eliminate spree killers, we would salve our sense of shock and horror....and stop maybe 100 deaths out of thousands upon thousands. Our REAL gun violence problem lies in this statistic: if everyone in our society died by gun violence at the same rate as African Americans, our death by gun rate would be nearing 65,000 a year. So while we are rightly shocked and sickened and saddened by events like yesterday, we should chastise ourselves for not being constantly shocked and sickened and saddened that there are communities in our country with violent death rates that rival war zones.

So let's talk about guns. But let's also talk about mental health care for people so full of rage and despair that they seek to annihilate themselves and others in spree killings. And let's talk about the drug war. And let's talk about a Marshall Plan for urban education and ending the achievement gap once and for all. And let's talk about how to give a new generation of young black men hope for the futures and respect for their dreams. And let's talk about the community and family resources in our cities. And let's talk about violence in relationships. And let's talk about spreading gun safety in the home.

But let's not talk about fantasies. We've had enough of those on both sides of the debate.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So let's talk about guns. But let's also talk about mental health care for people so full of rage and despair that they seek to annihilate themselves and others in spree killings. And let's talk about the drug war. And let's talk about a Marshall Plan for urban education and ending the achievement gap once and for all. And let's talk about how to give a new generation of young black men hope for the futures and respect for their dreams. And let's talk about the community and family resources in our cities. And let's talk about violence in relationships. And let's talk about spreading gun safety in the home.

Sounds like long term solution-type thinking to me, can't have that. ;)

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

You know this. When the bullets start flying in a chaotic situation, the smart move is to hit the deck because drawing and firing when you don't know what the hell is going on is not going to make things better

It would make things a lot better if you hit the shooter. And adding to the chaos doesn't sound so bad either, as the shooter would now have chaos to deal with, instead of going about shooting people who hit the deck one by one.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Hmmm I detect yet another person who probably has no experience with firearms at all, and thus thinks they are some kind of verboten, terrifying, Ark of the Covenant ermahgerd it'll melt your face off kind of things that only the most trained, dedicated, professional people like Our Kind and Benevolent Government regularly employs can responsibly handle.

Am I correct about this, malasadas, or not? What is your personal experience with firearms, if I may ask?

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

Yeah I have noticed what you said. I also notice that some of these people are pointing to responsible gun owners to fix this, yet they ignore suggestions. Now is not the time to call for more or less guns. It is not the time to point fingers, it is not the time to say we need more laws, less laws, or even better enforcement of laws that exist. I have my thoughts, and as such I feel that we do not need to view this as a gun control vs. gun rights argument. We need to solve a bunch of problems.

1. We need to fix our healthcare system, while it has improved slightly it is still broken. Many people are unaware that Whitman had an inoperable, fatal brain tumor that was pressing against the amygdala, which caused him to become violent. It is also not well known that he sought help because of his behavioral changes, and commented that he often felt like climbing a clock tower with a deer rifle. I do not have the answer to fixing the healthcare system, outside of possibly a single payer option system. Mental health has been and will always be a problem, until we can make changes that allow for someone who is mentally ill to be committed and forced into treatment. While some will frown on this, many mental disorders are genetic in nature, therefore the traits are passed onto their children.

2. We need to change how we view our economy. As it stands profit at any cost increases poverty, and socioeconomic strain, which increases stress. This stress increases chances of mental illness, and if someone is already mentally ill, this stress will make symptoms worse. Again, I do not have the answers on solving this problem, but I would start with better education, and job training (plumber, welder, electrician, etc.).

3. We need to stop with the religious over activity. Religion is a good thing, do not get me wrong, but we need to remember that it has its place in our lives, it is not something to be worn on our sleeves, and used to brow beat people with. I hear people saying that God did not stop this last school shooting because he is not welcome in school. How about this school shooting occurred because a mentally ill man, killed his mother, stole her guns, and took out his issues on a bunch of children (see point 1).

Will these suggestions stop gun violence, or mass shootings. Absolutely not. Nothing will, because we will always have people fall through the cracks, we will always have people who will brake or bend laws. The goal should never be to complete end anything, because it will not always happen as we plan it, and it will lead to other problems that may be worse in nature (rather than a school shooting we may have a repeat of the Bath School attack). What we need to do is reduce the violence, reduce the frequency of these shootings, and move from there.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

"China stabbing spree hurts 22 schoolchildren"

Not that similar.

[thebigbadbutch.livejournal.com]

Right, given the choice I'd rather have 22 children live than be murdered. Actually, that doesn't seem like a choice that should be difficult for anyone.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

From a purely clinical standpoint, I think we have our evidence that knives are less deadly than guns and therefore gun control actually does in fact reduce fatalities from messed up social systems. I'd really rather we look as to why people think the thing to do is go murder children though.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Or, if guns aren't available, rampage killers move to a more effect weapon such as fire or explosives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster). But, yes I agree with you that the mental health issue should be examined here.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As I said in the other thread I think a starting point would be to screen people who fit into the psychological profile of spree killers and that subset of those people actually likely to *be* spree killers (as simply meeting the profile is not a guarantee and a democracy must protect the rights of the innocent over punishing the guilty). I think that this would both address the mental health issues and ensure people with these issues have no legal access to firearms.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

It is my understanding that the background check program still has not incorporated mental health history, only criminal records. And that may be difficult to do, due to doctor-patient confidentiality. So, just another good example of how complicated a seemingly simple thing can be.

Back when I was on the politics community, I remember a similar discussion after the Aurora shooting. Over there, people were adamant about claiming that mental illness has no ties to higher violent tendencies. Were you in that community? Do you remember those comments from people?

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Certainly, there are many ways of killing someone. I think the injuring of children in China by a knife-wielding maniac is comparable to what happened here. Except for the fact that the Chinese children were not killed. The killer here had weapons with the capability to cause multiple wounds in a short amount of time - killing, not wounding the victims.

But I agree that stopping the problem at the source - mental illness - is a better answer than banning firearms.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I said my piece in the last gun post (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1625404.html?thread=130070588#t130070588). It stands.

This doesn't explain the mechanism behind the violence, but certainly suggests a direction for further research. Still, just as a fever gives us a notion that something is amiss, we can start by treating the symptoms, even if we don't know the cause.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

Yeah but if you know you have a fever, you know you have a problem, it is not always wise to treat the symptoms without knowing what you have. You may take something that makes matters worse. In the case of gun violence we know what the causes are, mental illness, economic problems, etc., but no one wants to tackle those problems, most would rather tighten laws, ban this or that, expect the problem is solved, and then are surprised when it happens again.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Well, this is obnoxious. Your manly nobility is noted, I suppose, but this rhetoric is childish.

Really, this question should be answered on the basis of empirical evidence. It does us no good to try to solve the problem of spree killings by making it a matter of standing up for ones' "convictions" and refusing to countenance trade-offs that might be unavoidable in the real world. Simply put, your "convictions" don't matter when we're trying to solve problems. What matters is what works, and it's precisely because you prioritize principle before any evaluation of how the real world works that I know you're not serious about finding a solution here.

Here is the empirical evidence we need: We need some understanding of the relationship between gun-related violence and gun control measures. We can think of a plausible explanation for how strict gun control measures might increase deaths due to gun violence (by limiting people's ability to defend themselves when gun violence occurs). But we can think of a plausible explanation for how strict gun control measures might decrease such deaths (by limiting the aggregate number of violent incidents involving guns, even if they're more deadly when they do occur). As far as I know, there's no clear record on this, and the evidence that there is might well cut either way - we won't be able to open the journals, for example, and find the perfect gun control solution. As far as I know, neither side on this issue has much of a leg to stand on, when they advocate for their respective positions.

But here's the thing. Gun control advocates don't have anything against guns; they have a thing against gun deaths. They want to do what it takes to cut down on the number of them that occur. They might think that stricter gun control measures will accomplish that, they might even be pretty sure about it, and they might base that on a plausible but completely theoretical account of the relationship between their desired measures and outcomes. They're essentially just guessing. But because they are outcome-oriented, if you had some solid empirical evidence that freer traffic in guns would result in fewer gun deaths, I think most of them would have to come around to that position.

You don't get anything like that impression from the "other side," though. Like here - we're all making "scapegoats" and assaulting your "convictions," so you've now decided to "stand your ground" by posting your very own post on the topic. If empirical evidence were to show that the best way to cut down on gun deaths was to get as many guns as possible off the street, would you change your mind? Would you say, "Well, I guess my theory on how armed schoolteachers could cut down on spree killing in schools was not sufficiently based on evidence?" I am highly skeptical that you would - but feel free to say otherwise.

No, what I expect instead from you (and others) is some nonsense about "Second Amendment" this and "natural rights" that. That's not to say I don't appreciate the importance of values or freedom or the limits they put on real-world legislative solutions. But it is preposterous to allow, in these discussions, one set of potential solutions to be pushed off the table just because they don't jive with some incoherent lay-philosophy.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Well you can compare societies with similar levels of violence (Australia, UK. In fact I think UK might be higher) and then look at the rates of death in those countries. Now there are differences between the US and the UK, and AUS (Universal Health Care for one) but one big one is strict gun control.

As really no-one sane can argue that, outside of some odd circumstances, it is easier to kill someone with a blade than a gun.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

You HAD to give in to her, didn't you?

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

It's been two days. By god, #todayIStheday. Or something.

[omnot.livejournal.com]

This list of arguments saves time by covering a lot of nonsense pro-gun arguments up front:

1) Prohibition of alcohol didn't work -- avoiding the fact, based on strong evidence, that restricting guns DOES work in country after country.
2) Cars (used for transportation) are dangerous -- therefore there should be unlimited access to machines, the only purpose of which is killing. (This is like saying, since car transport is dangerous, we should allow cigarettes in closed spaces. Huh?)
3) The Oklahoma City bombers didn't use guns. In other words, "Because handfuls of people sometimes commit terrorist acts, acts that take long-term planning, we want to make sure it's legal to shower America with guns so that spontaneous acts of violence are common and the killing can be done with great efficiency on the spur of the moment."
4) "a well-regulated militia" means making sure any random person can get semi-automatic weapons.
5) A nut in China injured school children with a knife, therefore in America we want to make sure a similar person can kill -- not injure -- kill -- and kill easily and, if they choose, kill in large numbers, on the spur of the moment, whenever someone flies into a jealous rage or psychotic state.
6) It's about insanity not guns -- this argument is apparently based on the hypothesis that Americans are a lot more insane than the British, Australians, French and the people of many other developed countries where guns are restricted and far fewer people die from guns.
7) Teachers and (some have actually said this!) children should have guns in school -- despite the fact that the Connecticut killer's mother apparently owned the semi-automatics that the killer used to kill...his own mother and so many children -- and -- the mother worked at the school where the killing occurred.
8) Dictators from an earlier time used gun control, therefore the success of gun control in modern democracies should be ignored.
9) Mike Huckabee says it's because we don't have prayer in school which is as intellectually strong as arguments 1 through 8.
10) Finally the classic: it is disrespectful to the children who died to discuss methods of preventing similar killings. (Huh?).
Where are the arguments based on logic and reason that address the success of gun laws in major democracies like Germany, France, Spain and Australia? Meanwhile, every week, individuals are killed in some jealous rage in far greater numbers than in other industrialized societies -- with the use of machines designed for the efficient and spontaneous killing of humans. -- Sean Faircloth, Dir. of Strategy & Policy.

I was raised on a farm in Oz and I think that guns are good and useful things under the right circumstances. But I did not disagree with the gun control measures which were implemented here after a particularly awful shooting spree killed 35 people at an historical tourist attraction.

This report of the impact of the gun buy back scheme shows that removing guns as a means of killing (one's self or another person) does not result in the would be killer substituting another means of killing as often as pro-gun folk are fond of telling us. First point: in the decade before the gun laws were changed, there were ten mass shootings, and in the decade since, there have been none. (Can you imagine how wonderful that would be in America? I know, it's more complicated etc, but I can dream...)

Anyway, the report (linked below), among other things, has this to say:

"In all, total suicide (all methods including firearms) increased by an average of 1% per year before the introduction of the gun laws and decreased by an average of 4.4% per year after the introduction of the gun laws, whereas, total homicide (all methods including firearm) was essentially steady (decreasing by an average of 0.1% per year) before the introduction of the gun law and decreased further by 3.3% per year after the introduction of the gun law. The ratio of the pre‐law to post‐law trends reaches statistical significance for both total suicide (p<0.001) and total homicide (p=0.01; table 3​3)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/

It's not hypothetical. Fewer guns = fewer murders and suicides.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

1. there are restrictions on guns in the US. and no, you can't prohibit guns in the US.

5. when someone walks into a classroom full of small children and opens fire on them, yes its about the state of that persons mind.

violent crime is actually down overall (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/index.html). but these specific kinds of acts appear to be increasing. so the issue that needs to be addressed, is what social factors are driving people down this path of self destruction?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This could actually be a profound statement if you included the 'we need MORE guns!' people with the usual suspects. This way, of course, you are referring exclusively to the left-wing viewpoint on gun control.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

By the way, it's kind of hard to look at underlying causes if you ignore correlation-based evidence, because psychology is a science of correlations, unless you just have a double standard for certain strong correlations over others.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Being injured with a knife is just as bad as being killed with a gun. Got it *nods*

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Being killed probably is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932011%29

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Any discussion is obviously too late and the gun factories made their profit off of those weapons. They functioned quite well. I don't know what else we expect.

ensure that potential victims have the power

That is exactly what that family did. They trained him to "have the power" and he used it to kill 20 kids.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Gun rights advocates never have anything to offer the victims of gun violence.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

What do gun control activists offer?

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Sorry while I agree with the points of this post, unless one believes in a universal standard (i.e. one that
has universal application and the unquestionable right to be The Standard, such as
some monotheistic deity, then the moment one goes around carelessly using
psychodramatic words like "evil" it really lowers the objectivity standard for me. It may not matter to
the larger tragedy but it can save discussion from sinking into tired political
manipulation rather than trying to remain objective.