I find it amusing that people generally agree that the state of mental care is poor in the US. It's like yeah, let's continue to flood the populace that's apparently plagued with mental issues with more deadly weaponry.  

Posted by Crono

I find it amusing that people generally agree that the state of mental care is poor in the US. It's like yeah, let's continue to flood the populace that's apparently plagued with mental issues with more deadly weaponry.

I think its the amount of public awareness of poor mental care is pretty misleading.

Yeah everyone is going to be like "Well of course he did it, he was not right in the head." but apart from that, nothing more will be done about it.

Being aware of the lack of attention given to those with mental health problems is one thing. Actually doing something about it is something else entirely. When it comes to these sorts of situations, people tend to avoid approaching complicated human emotions and focus most on inanimate objects or ideals. Yes, these things are related wit one another in these situations but everyone just wants to get tunnel vision on just one aspect.

I find it ironic how people will go for the "easiest target" in terms of aspects to these situations. Its easy enough to just point the finger at one thing and call it a day. Kinda like how these crazed killers will go after easy targets like schools.  

Posted by 5hift

I find it ironic how people will go for the "easiest target" in terms of aspects to these situations. Its easy enough to just point the finger at one thing and call it a day. Kinda like how these crazed killers will go after easy targets like schools.

It's not really hard to grasp the simple concept that such crimes are easy to commit when you have an abundance of deadly weaponry. Couple that with poor mental health and you have a problem.

It obviously goes beyond guns, and I totally agree with that point, but is the US really fit to continue to dump more into circulation?  

Posted by MrSimons

Do you believe that the American populace could actually fight back against the US military? Small arms are pretty ineffective against aircraft and armored vehicles, which is the real strength of the military.

Yes, and that's an argument for not banning assault weapons. The government won't simply bomb everyone if they attempted to oppress the populace. They would have no one to oppress and therefore no real authority if they killed everyone. Any seizing of guns would be on the ground and would require soldiers to go door to door. Also a population of millions of armed people could infiltrate an oppressive government's headquarters if need-be. That's how coups happen. The government has the military, but that doesn't mean they always win against the populace.

Posted by MrSimons

I think another important point is how large the US is, and how a lot of gun owners live in remote areas of the country. If the government wants all the citizens of Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, or so many other states to give up their guns; what can the government realistically do about it?

Well yes, it would be implausible to take every gun away. Too many unregistered or illegal guns that the government doesn't even know who all has guns or how many they have, let alone the means to get them from millions of people across the country.

Posted by MrSimons

Most "common sense" gun control arguments I've seen really are not common sense. A lot of the arguments I've seen are made by people with no understanding of firearms, or even the statistics behind gun crime.

I mean I see the danger of universal background checks because then the gov. knows who has what guns but at this point in our country, universal background checks seems like common sense. When people start talking about banning all assault weapons or semi-automatics and call that common sense, then that's just becoming a political debate rather than actual common sense reform.

Posted by MrSimons

Totally agree with mental health care reform. If the government isn't going to do anything about firearms; and school security is proving to be ineffective then the obvious solution would be to minimize threats before they develop.

It's crazy when you see how many parents have kids with mental problems and they can't get any help. They take them to the hospital when it gets really bad and the hospital has to kick them out after 24 hours. The gov. offers help but usually requires the parent to give up custody of their kid. There's no real treatment available to poor people and there's a stigma that makes people not want to seek help when they need it. We imprison the mentally ill and they only come out worse and more unstable. The mental health crisis even goes far beyond kids shooting schools.

Posted by Crono

It's not really hard to grasp the simple concept that such crimes are easy to commit when you have an abundance of deadly weaponry. Couple that with poor mental health and you have a problem.

It obviously goes beyond guns, and I totally agree with that point, but is the US really fit to continue to dump more into circulation?

Focusing on the guns is not going to solve the problem. It may minimize loss of life to an extent, but attacks will still happen. Don't have a gun? Use a car. Don't have a car? Use a knife. What needs to be addressed is the actual cause of the violence, not simply the tool used to commit it.

Also, a lot of gun crime you see in U.S. statistics is in cities where there's a lot of gang violence. It's the cliché that the criminals will still have guns. I think guns are an important part of security for the people against the government and just banning or reducing guns doesn't solve the actual problem. These people aren't tryung to kill people because of guns. Yes, guns allow for more loss of life, but the problem is that America doesn't care to tackle the real problems that cause these events to happen in the first place.  

If anyone wants to see a great description of why I think we have mass shootings like this so frequently, check out the last episode from Legion on FX (season 2 episode 8). It had a spectacular segment at the end describing the allegory of the cave, and how technology is the cave and the people we communicate to online are the shadows. We reject that those people are real, and we also reject the real world for the one that we have come to know as real, but is really just shadows. That segment was some of the best and most relevant television I've ever seen.  

Posted by PigParty

Focusing on the guns is not going to solve the problem. It may minimize loss of life to an extent, but attacks will still happen. Don't have a gun? Use a car. Don't have a car? Use a knife. What needs to be addressed is the actual cause of the violence

I’m always a little perplexed by the argument that says “if they don’t have a gun they’ll use something else.”
Because, yeah, isn’t that the point? Guns have much more killing potential than other weapons (knives, cars). You said it yourself... let’s minimize the loss of life. Shouldn’t we make it harder on killers to access weapons that can kill with such potency? I understand the argument of stopping government oppression, but to me the issue of people dying so constantly seems to outweigh our rather archaic need to be armed as citizens. I don’t believe weaponery to even be the most important tool in fighting your own government... strikes (gas stations, hospitals, food production, ect) would be far more potent, without the loss of life. We, the general populous, are what drives society forward... if we wanted to halt the entire country we could just stop going to work. We don’t need guns to do that.

Our other issues, to me, seem like a much more complex challenge to solve without drastic changes and (likely) would not be solved in a timely fashion.
(1) If we cannot solve the multitude of issues causing this violence quickly, what should/would we do then? Should we just let this continue, and hope for some good fortune? This doesn’t seem like a problem where we can just wait and pray for regression to the mean.

(2) What do you think would be actual solutions for tackling the reasons behind violence? What do you think are the real reasons that we are seeing all of this violence? You said that America is struggling to tackle the real problems causing the violence, but notably left off what these problems are. To be able to debate with you I need to know what you’re suggesting instead.  

Posted by Areo

I’m always a little perplexed by the argument that says “if they don’t have a gun they’ll use something else.”
Because, yeah, isn’t that the point? Guns have much more killing potential than other weapons (knives, cars). You said it yourself... let’s minimize the loss of life. Shouldn’t we make it harder on killers to access weapons that can kill with such potency? I understand the argument of stopping government oppression, but to me the issue of people dying so constantly seems to outweigh our rather archaic need to be armed as citizens. I don’t believe weaponery to even be the most important tool in fighting your own government... strikes (gas stations, hospitals, food production, ect) would be far more potent, without the loss of life. We, the general populous, are what drives society forward... if we wanted to halt the entire country we could just stop going to work. We don’t need guns to do that.

It's not about whether or not removing guns will lower loss of life. For argument's sake, let's say that banning guns will completely eradicate mass killings. America is founded on principles and sometimes those are challenged, but we never back down from them. It's also about what is necessary to reduce mass killings. If the same outcome of banning guns can be achieved another way, then America is obligated to use other means. It's like the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech protection. We could greatly reduce the amount of violence and threats in the country if we controlled what everyone said. But we don't do that because we shouldn't. It's fair to question the Constitution and current interpretations of it. The Supreme Court used to rule that the Constitution does not guarantee any rights to women and people of color. But I see the 2nd Amendment debate as a bigger debate. The 2nd Amendment serves the purpose of protection the country. Loss of life shouldn't be the "fog of war" because it doesn't have to be, but for now it sadly is.

Posted by Areo

Our other issues, to me, seem like a much more complex challenge to solve without drastic changes and (likely) would not be solved in a timely fashion.
(1) If we cannot solve the multitude of issues causing this violence quickly, what should/would we do then? Should we just let this continue, and hope for some good fortune? This doesn’t seem like a problem where we can just wait and pray for regression to the mean.

(2) What do you think would be actual solutions for tackling the reasons behind violence? What do you think are the real reasons that we are seeing all of this violence? You said that America is struggling to tackle the real problems causing the violence, but notably left off what these problems are. To be able to debate with you I need to know what you’re suggesting instead.

That's the problem, though. We can't just say let's violate rights because it would take too long to fix a problem. Why can't we use that same logic to argue that terrorism is a major threat to America, and most terrorists claim the Muslim faith, so let's violate the 1st Amendment and ban Islam from America? Every action of such a magnitude as altering the 2nd Amendment or it's interpretation causes precedence to be set that can be dangerous in certain situations.

As for what the problem is, I already explained what I believe the problem is. To me, it's cultural. It won't be fixed by government. Technology is the problem. It dehumanizes and radicalizes people. That's why mental health care is so important now. Technology is causing the problems. It's actually funny when I hear people say video games and movies make people go on killing sprees and I'm thinking that it's stuff like facebook and Twitter that make people go on killing sprees. There's a whole separate world online. Back to me plugging the great show - Legion on FX. The last episode had a great segment that pretty much makes my entire argument about technology.  

Posted by PigParty

It's not about whether or not removing guns will lower loss of life. For argument's sake, let's say that banning guns will completely eradicate mass killings. America is founded on principles and sometimes those are challenged, but we never back down from them. It's also about what is necessary to reduce mass killings. If the same outcome of banning guns can be achieved another way, then America is obligated to use other means. It's like the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech protection. We could greatly reduce the amount of violence and threats in the country if we controlled what everyone said. But we don't do that because we shouldn't. It's fair to question the Constitution and current interpretations of it. The Supreme Court used to rule that the Constitution does not guarantee any rights to women and people of color. But I see the 2nd Amendment debate as a bigger debate. The 2nd Amendment serves the purpose of protection the country. Loss of life shouldn't be the "fog of war" because it doesn't have to be, but for now it sadly is.

That quote there - “America was founded on principles...” - is something I don’t agree with too much. When the principles we are founded on are challenged we should reevaluate them, not just refuse to back down from them. Theoretically we could say the same about other principles regarding oppressive laws in other countries... they were founded with those principles, so they shouldn’t back down from them when public opinion begins to change? We should be willing to look at any of our laws and look at their validity for today’s society.

Comparing the first and second amendments is like comparing apples and oranges. One of these is not just a pillar of our country, but a pillar of most modern societies (there are some exceptions, but we tend to view these countries with disdain... as we should, I think). Free speech is seen as important by most societies, so it’s importance is well displayed. However, the latter does not have nearly the same presence outside of the United States (in this case the freedom to own guns, of course interpretations and wordings differ), which makes me much less confident in it. I think one of the reasons you and I don’t really see eye to eye is that I am unconvinced of the value of the second amendment. You say it’s meant to protect the country... which is plausible, but I believe it to be a rationalization. I don’t think the citizens could actually win a war against the government, regardless of the rifles they could have, and I believe it’s pretty unrealistic to imagine a coup of millions of people storming against the government. Besides this, even if 5 million people decide to rally against the government, they likely wouldn’t represent the people. If the only defense for leaving the 2nd amendment untouched is rising up against the government, then I feel pretty good about saying we should change it to save lives, because that ideal doesn’t seem valuable in comparison to people’s lives. Of course, we may be able to change other things such as mental health to improve things, but I don’t see the value in people having rifles/dangerous firearms regardless, so I’m still in favor of changing the 2nd amendment, loss of life factored in or not.

Posted by PigParty

That's the problem, though. We can't just say let's violate rights because it would take too long to fix a problem. Why can't we use that same logic to argue that terrorism is a major threat to America, and most terrorists claim the Muslim faith, so let's violate the 1st Amendment and ban Islam from America? Every action of such a magnitude as altering the 2nd Amendment or it's interpretation causes precedence to be set that can be dangerous in certain situations.

As I said in an earlier part of my post; we can’t defend ideals and rights just by saying they are ideals and rights. We have to show they’re value, and continue to show they’re value for as long as they are exist. As I said earlier, comparing the 1st and 2nd amendments is not a valid comparison. I understand creating precedent is dangerous, but this could also be setting the precedent that people’s lives are of the upmost importance and we, as a country, are willing to make changes to that end.

Posted by PigParty

As for what the problem is, I already explained what I believe the problem is. To me, it's cultural. It won't be fixed by government. Technology is the problem. It dehumanizes and radicalizes people. That's why mental health care is so important now. Technology is causing the problems. It's actually funny when I hear people say video games and movies make people go on killing sprees and I'm thinking that it's stuff like facebook and Twitter that make people go on killing sprees. There's a whole separate world online. Back to me plugging the great show - Legion on FX. The last episode had a great segment that pretty much makes my entire argument about technology.

Okay, yeah, I won’t deny that a lot of societies problems are cultural. But what can we really do about that? We can try to provide people with help, but we can’t force people to get help. Providing help is only as good as people being willing to use what’s provided, and I don’t really think a lot of killers would seek out psychiatric help. Besides this, what sorts of ways would we limit Facebook and twitter (whomever) to improve mental health? Do we want to regulate those people when we may not even understand how they’re exactly impacting mental health? I’m all for working on social media and it’s bad impacts on the human psyche, but I think that it’s simply not enough. I just haven’t really been convinced that firearms carry much value at all to the average person, and until that changes I (personally) won’t understand not restricting access.  

Posted by Areo

That quote there - “America was founded on principles...” - is something I don’t agree with too much. When the principles we are founded on are challenged we should reevaluate them, not just refuse to back down from them. Theoretically we could say the same about other principles regarding oppressive laws in other countries... they were founded with those principles, so they shouldn’t back down from them when public opinion begins to change? We should be willing to look at any of our laws and look at their validity for today’s society.

Comparing the first and second amendments is like comparing apples and oranges. One of these is not just a pillar of our country, but a pillar of most modern societies (there are some exceptions, but we tend to view these countries with disdain... as we should, I think). Free speech is seen as important by most societies, so it’s importance is well displayed. However, the latter does not have nearly the same presence outside of the United States (in this case the freedom to own guns, of course interpretations and wordings differ), which makes me much less confident in it. I think one of the reasons you and I don’t really see eye to eye is that I am unconvinced of the value of the second amendment. You say it’s meant to protect the country... which is plausible, but I believe it to be a rationalization. I don’t think the citizens could actually win a war against the government, regardless of the rifles they could have, and I believe it’s pretty unrealistic to imagine a coup of millions of people storming against the government. Besides this, even if 5 million people decide to rally against the government, they likely wouldn’t represent the people. If the only defense for leaving the 2nd amendment untouched is rising up against the government, then I feel pretty good about saying we should change it to save lives, because that ideal doesn’t seem valuable in comparison to people’s lives. Of course, we may be able to change other things such as mental health to improve things, but I don’t see the value in people having rifles/dangerous firearms regardless, so I’m still in favor of changing the 2nd amendment, loss of life factored in or not.

If you look at what the 2nd Amendment actually says, it kind of proves that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect society from government. People argue that the 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted all these years because of if saying the 2nd Amendment applies to well regulated militias. It was so that the population can have their own citizen militia that is capable of fighting the government if need be.

Even if we were able to repeal the 2nd Amendment, guns are so integrated in American society that it will be the prohibition era all over again. There is legitimacy to the claim that banning guns won't get rid of guns. Ban alcohol, it just goes underground. The government loses any ability to regulate or tax it, meanwhile everyone (including cops back then lol) were consuming alcohol.

America isn't the type of society that says a few ruined something for the rest of society. People are individuals. We could easily compare this to murder in general. Way too many people die each year from street violence. We don't simply say all of America loses their right to privacy because the need to catch offenders is so great that it outweighs the right to privacy. The same goes with guns. Just because a select few use guns to commit murder doesn't mean that we outright ban guns. Honestly it all comes down to whether or not a supermajority of America opposes guns. Until that happens, the 2nd Amendment will remain unchanged.

Posted by Areo

As I said in an earlier part of my post; we can’t defend ideals and rights just by saying they are ideals and rights. We have to show they’re value, and continue to show they’re value for as long as they are exist. As I said earlier, comparing the 1st and 2nd amendments is not a valid comparison. I understand creating precedent is dangerous, but this could also be setting the precedent that people’s lives are of the upmost importance and we, as a country, are willing to make changes to that end.

That's where we differ the most. I view the Constituion in a broad way. I look at how these rights and laws affect the big picture. Sometimes there's a price to pay with that way of looking at things, and sometimes it costs people their lives. We would all agree that if the government could see and hear us 24/7 that crime would be drastically reduced, but we choose to accept higher crime rates for privacy. There's always a cost and people are emotional when it comes to guns (rightfully so) but I don't think many people view it in the big-picture.

Posted by Areo

[Okay, yeah, I won’t deny that a lot of societies problems are cultural. But what can we really do about that? We can try to provide people with help, but we can’t force people to get help. Providing help is only as good as people being willing to use what’s provided, and I don’t really think a lot of killers would seek out psychiatric help. Besides this, what sorts of ways would we limit Facebook and twitter (whomever) to improve mental health? Do we want to regulate those people when we may not even understand how they’re exactly impacting mental health? I’m all for working on social media and it’s bad impacts on the human psyche, but I think that it’s simply not enough. I just haven’t really been convinced that firearms carry much value at all to the average person, and until that changes I (personally) won’t understand not restricting access.

I won't claim to know the solution. I believe the issue and society is so complex that dozens of things must be done in many aspects of society to adequately tackle this problem. I'm also not even sure that government can solve this problem. I think mass killings are a human problem rather than a societal problem. Humans are always fighting other humans. The reason the human race is so unsuccessful compared to the creatures we share the planet with is because we are corrupted and get in our own way.  

an attempted school shooting today happened in Indiana. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/25/acti...le-school.html

Results: 2 Wounded (So far)

I believe no one died I might be wrong I think more info will come out soon.  

Another school shooting by the way. This time it was in Indiana.  

Not surprised