|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by With the recent shootings at Virginia Tech, gun control is once again a topic of conversation. This huge political issue divides our society. On the one hand, gun control advocates cite all of the incidents (like the recent one) that have occurred, and blame it on our lack of laws. On the other, you have numerous more vocal 2nd Amendment advocates who cite that it is our freedom of owning guns that keeps the government in check and keeps foreign invaders off of our soil.
Pennsylvania has proposed legislation on gun ownership that will require owners to register all of their guns annually and pay a $10 fee per gun. The law also provides for fingerprinting and background checks, and makes the final determination up to the State Police as to who can own guns. The contents of this bill can be read here.
Pennsylvania's solution goes too far, and amounts to yet another tax on citizens of this state. Some locations ban certain types of guns, such as handguns, yet handgun deaths still occur. Personally, I believe that it is not the gun that does the killing but the person. In nearly every instance of 'mass shootings', the shooter(s) are mentally unbalanced, using mind altering substances, or the shooting occurs during a moment of uncontrolled rage.
Outright gun bans are not the answer to this growing problem. Hunting is a passion for a large number of US citizens. In the last published report from the US Fish and Wildlife agency, hunters averaged eighteen days hunting and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport. What do OmniNerds think? How do we protect the 2nd Amendment, while protecting citizens too?
Add a Comment (118)
Email This
Message Author
Just to get this part out of the way now ... "Everyone should just have nano-robots implanted in their heads to control them."
The actual text was something more like this comment.
Another "Eye.of.sage" issue?
Back to the main subject. Gun is only a tool for these madman. If They can't find a gun, they will use a knife. If they can't find a knife, they will use a stick with nails on it. The important thing is to watch every one's mental health.
I agree - he who wishes to do violence, will do violence with whatever tools are made available. I have no problem with people owning personal firearms. On the flip side, I do question what purpose someone has for owning a .50cal, an uzi or similar weapon. If you can't do the job with a pistol ... you're going to do even worse with something with more power.
I wonder though about making extra precautions - like building safeguards for watching mental health. What sort of criteria would flag somebody? And what would that flagging mean? It's very much like the "Minority Report" in a way ... punishing somebody for a crime they might do. I think we just need to get over ourselves and accept that crap happens.
At the very least, I'll be happy to quit hearing those Columbine kids whine now that they're tale has been diminished in gruesomeness.
Didn't they say on the news that Cho Heung-Shi had shown multiple signs of odd and threatening behaviors? The teachers knew, the students knew, yet nothing was done.
I still stick to my original idea. Cranium Implants.
On the flip side, I do question what purpose someone has for owning a .50cal, an uzi or similar weapon. If you can't do the job with a pistol ... you're going to do even worse with something with more power.
You're showing a bit of ignorance on the subject of firearms here. The reason is a little something called stopping power. Now, this isn't the ability of a firearm to kill an attacker, rather, it is the ability of a firearm to stop an attacker - render them incapable of continuing his attack. The caliber of the weapon, the type of bullet used, the speed at which it can be fired - all of these are factors.
Something like 20 or 30 years ago, there was an incident in my home town where a man on PCP attacked a couple cops. They shot him a total of about 40 times with their .38's before he finally went down. It would have taken a LOT less shots (and time) with a .500 S&W Magnum.
Of course, it would have only taken one shot with a sawed-off 12 gauge.
You're showing a bit of ignorance on the subject of firearms here.
I'm not ignorant of firearms. But your average "I need a gun to protect myself person" generally cannot handle their small caliber weapon, let alone something with more power. One to the chest. Doubletap to the face. If you can't control your weapon to do that, it doesn't matter that you have enough power to stop your lamp, sofa and television while you're firing away hoping to hit the intruder. So I stand by my original position - "if you can't do the job with a pistol ... you're going to do even worse with something with more power."
In Texas, where the concealed carry permit is rapidly becoming ubiquitous, problems like this are less likely to occur. Of course, you can't carry on school grounds, but it certainly narrows down the target areas that a psycho can go rampaging in. The bottom line is that there are far more murders in DC than there are in Dallas, and DC only recently had their gun-control policy dashed by the courts. The more non-felons that can legally carry their guns on the street, the less likely a criminal is to actually attack a target. Criminals, like terrorists and insurgents, like to hit soft targets. If there's a 10% that any one person you might try to rob/murder/rape is carrying a sidearm, the average cowardly criminal is going to think more than twice. (10% is based on a 20 million population of Texas and more than 240,000 CHLs issued.)
On a completely unrelated note, they can take my guns out of my cold dead hands.
A friend of mine is from Houston, and she heard on the radio that Houston is among the least "honked at" cities in the US. The dj speculated that its because a high number of the other drivers on the road are carrying guns.
An armed society is a sign of a failed state everywhere else in the world. Why not here?
Although I am an advocate of the second amendment, I would have to argue your point on one basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
I accept your argument as valid. However, this could have happened in any of the countries that have condemned our constitutional rights in America - Whitman used neither assault rifles nor automatic weapons (ok so the M1 carbine is semi-auto, but it remains "ok" under the old Brady Bill specifications). Unless you utterly ban all firearms, this isolated incident remains a potential reality. Additionally, from the article:
Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as turrets, which allowed him to continue shooting while largely protected from the gunfire below, which had grown to include civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police.
I personally am a huge fan of private citizens being able to assist law enforcement with police consent. Unless we want our society to sit by idly when a psychopathic predator emerges, we need to have the ability to protect ourselves. And the bad guys will always be able to get guns - look at Washington DC. Fight or flight? I'll fight.
Hmm...
Your phrasing indicates that you are arguing against the lessening of gun controls, however:
You are arguing from a single incident (one that occurred over 40 years ago, at that) and bears little resemblance to the situation in VA (Wandering around the halls of the school vs. sniping from a tower)
And there is something else that I noticed in the referenced article: "Ramiro Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman's threat, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit."
It seems to me that the cited article actually provides evidence in favor of armed citizens, rather than against.
Well, I meant to point out that it is indeed NOT less likely to occur in TX because of loose gun laws. Although I am not a fan of gun control, I don't think any measure is going to stop a nutbag from killing people.
I live in Texas and, they will have to pry my guns from my cold, cold hands! Don't forget the one's in my boots, leg straps, Sam Brown, shoulder harness, the little one in my hat and the 30/30 in the rifle rack by my Rebel flag in my pickup! LOL!
" Of course, you can't carry on school grounds"
For the same reason you should not be able to take guns anywhere where people are going about their peaceful business.
Your final comment - that tired old NRA cliche about "cold dead hands" indicates that you consider yourself a potential gun killer.
Now, refresh my memory. Why is it that I should be happy about you having guns?
Because someday, when you're being skull-dragged across an intersection by someone that understands Machiavelli and human nature, I might just shoot him to save you. Then again, maybe all you anti-gun folks are just natural selection at work and I should just sit back and let you all get killed by the criminals and terrorists. I wonder what it is in my psyche that makes me want to protect the weak?
And a note. I am a gun killer. Doesn't bother me a bit, the world is a better place without the people that I've punched holes in. Try not to vacate your dinner on the keyboard.
No, I would simply say you are very probably a paranoid, homicidal, sociopathic, potential mass murderer. Please see your psychiatrist urgently. Having a fantasy about killing people in the street is a sign that your mind is in real danger.
If you are hearing voices, don't listen to them, just take your medicine, and ask the police to look after your guns until you get better.
Machiavelli was advising a prince how to rule against diabolical political opposition. He had nothing to say about street shooting - that was probably your relatives in the Cosa Nostra.
No, the Pennsylvania bill does not go nearly far enough. It is a brave small step in the right direction, and much better than doing nothing, but this is a national problem and it requires strong federal legislation and enforcement.
The object should be more profound than to reduce gun violence. It should be a statement to our society that this fascination for firearms has gone on long enough. We need to show our law enforcement officers (and our students) that we are trying to do our best to protect them while they risk their lives to protect us. Perhaps it will turn out only to be a futile gesture, because guns will always be around and in the wrong hands, but we have to do the best we can and at least make it illegal to own a firearm of any kind without a legitimate excuse for holding that particular kind of weapon. There should be no reason accepted that includes the possibility of ever aiming them at people. There should also be no acceptable reasons for owning a hand gun or a military weapon of any kind.
I am deeply ashamed of my love for guns and for shooting timid creatures who are only trying to survive in the wild. I can make up plenty of justifications for keeping my guns: from of the Constitution; self defence; sport; etc. but they are all so feeble that I can't believe them, and I am amazed that anyone can take them seriously.
I want my government to demand that I surrender all my guns. I don't need them, and the idea that I might need to defend myself by killing another human being is totally repugnant, and a reflection on our society. Self defence is not accepted as a reason for gun carrying in civilised parts of the world, unless one is a security professional.
Yes, some citizens without guns will die because they cannot defend themselves against an armed offender, but I suggest that there will be fewer of these than of the innocent citizens who are being killed under our present stupid gun laws. Beware of NRA statistics about other countries with saner gun laws than us - they have a record of distorting the truth. No other country wants to copy our gun laws.
Those who want to restrict gun ownership with better laws are presently only a small overall MAJORITY but they are opposed by powerful interests who have managed to convince our legislators that they can harm them if they listen to this majority view. They can do this, but this is a democracy and we must urge these politicians to have the courage to stand up for us.
I don't care if a big minority believe this won't work! We should do it anyway because it is the right thing for sane people to do.
Whatever man. Spare me your ridiculous guilt-trip. American culture didn't kill those people. "Gun culture," whatever that is, didn't kill those people. Cho did. Get over yourself and this self-flaggelation.
Ban guns. That's as ridiculous as arguing we should now ban emo kids, though I'd be way more in favor of that.
Yes it did cause their deaths indirectly.
Our country has a third world attitude to guns and it will never be great until we can change our gun culture.
I am not blaming myself as you suggest, I am blaming all of us who tolerate the prevailing stupid attitude towards guns. Banning guns only seems ridiculous to people who are so immersed in the culture that they can't see what it is doing to them. It is perfectly practical. Most countries have done it already.
Does the existence of bats cause baseball? No, of course not. Don't be stupid. Like I said, get over yourself and all of this self-hatred. What the rest of the world does means very little just because they do it. America is great, because it stepped away from what the rest of the world does. And I love that I can't see how I'm wrong because of the "gun culture."
Seriously, if you hate America and its long-standing traditions, values and measures to ensure our unique attachment to freedom, go to France or Italy and enjoy their gun-free paradise living.
We certainly don't have guns to ensure our freedom. We will have our freedom only when we don't need to have guns.
America is great because it once had a strong economy - that's all.
The title of this thread segment was deliberately constructed to provoke gun supporters into a crazy reaction that demonstrated the weakness of their case.
It worked on some nerds, but others were too smart.
We had a good discussion even though I had to take the burden of the opposing case and state some extreme views. I hope we all learned a bit about why we feel the way we do.
I did. Thanks.
Realistic Aims by guyvia :: NR5 :: on 18 April 2007
Despite your stance on whether or not guns should be legal, I think it is important to agree on our aim - lowering gun violence.
After that, the discussion on gun control can begin. Regardless of the law, I think people who want guns will get them. Plenty of minors in my high school had handguns, none of which are legal. When I refer to this, I am not speaking of ones that their 'father owned' and they 'used when hunting or at the range'. I mean they bought them illegally and would carry them (not *in* the school, but it probably could have been done).
Also, a good point I heard on the radio today was that the largest mass murder in American History was accomplished with box cutters. In all reality, psychopaths are going to be violent. I promise you that the reason America has more school violence is because the American media goes so overboard with every tragedy plaguing the country, and it allows a psychopath to accomplish his goal. Had he known going in that the end game would be a death in obscurity, I don't know if his massacre would have proven the point he intended. Anyway, I digress.
I think looking at gun culture is a mistake, and we should our time looking at how we define and identify those with a persuasion towards this kind of violence (now that the news is reporting that no one found Cho's involvement to be surprising). I think working hard to identify and help treat those who pose a threat will be much more effective.
RE: Realistic Aims by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 18 April 2007
I agree this is the crux of the issue. The problem is there are thousands of kids who write gory poetry, are socially withdrawn, have obsessions with classmates, etc - and are really of no harm to anyone. Cho (who should have stayed in his country of origin where no one has guns) displayed enough disturbing behavior to warrant counseling - and such was given. What, beyond that, could the school have done? Kicking him out of school wouldn't have prevented the shooting - it may even have promoted it. Social acceptance may have turned away his wrath, but it didn't appear he wanted any of that. It's possible a persistently concerned classmate could have become his friend and exerted influence in his life, but that can hardly be the officially promoted response by the university.
I know this may be insensitive of me, but I wonder how he was able to kill an entire class of 30 people. I guess everyone just ran around screaming hoping Cho would off himself before he pointed the gun at them. If the whole classed would have rushed him, there's no way he could have shot them all. Maybe society as a whole needs to be more assertive and able to react in emergency situations.
It's also interesting that if one of the other students was packing heat and was able to effectively wield it, the death count would no doubt have been less.
Lastly, I think someone needs to develop a security system that will instantaneously debilitate everyone in the room/plane/etc and notify the authorities. Electric shock is probably the most obvious way, but maybe some sort of gas could be used. In any case, the system could be triggered by remote... or by the sound of a gunshot... or by screams. Or, there could just be a few big emergency buttons scattered throughout the room. The person pressing them would be debilitated, too, and those doing so without reason could be fined, so I can't picture it being activated as a prank. Is cost the only reason not to implement something like this?
RE: Realistic Aims by guyvia :: NR5 :: on 18 April 2007
As for the treatment given, the reports I have read indicated he was seen a few times by psychologists for after various events, but nothing that would be considered serious counseling.
Also, modern humans have the fight aspect of fight or flight largely deprecated, since we so rarely face real threats like Cho. Although the correct response is to fight back, for someone that has never tried that before in their life, under less stressful situations (like a bully), it is hard to cope with such an extreme condition. It is easy to say to fight back as a group, but how do you coordinate it when there is a shooter in the room. Yelling 'Get him!' is a guarantee to be next. I think you are also downplaying the unbelief that comes with something horrific like this. Not there, it is easy to say you would react well and sacrifice yourself for the others. Remember, the only passengers that fought back during 9/11 were the ones that knew how it would end via cell phone, and they had the advantage of suprise on their captors.
As to your suggestion of the security system, I think that is an idea that sounds great on paper. Would you install one in your house, in case a gunman made entry?
RE: Realistic Aims by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 18 April 2007
I wasn't saying I expected those in the classroom to react better, only that since there is a reaction they could have taken that would have prevented many deaths, we - as a society - should prepare ourselves to take that action in the future.
Heck yes I'd install one of those in my house. Why do you ask?
RE: Realistic Aims by guyvia :: NR5 :: on 18 April 2007
We will have to agree to disagree on the gas system, since just as much as your reaction is 'heck yes', mine is 'heck no'.
In addition, the mischievous side of me is already trying to devise ways to set it off in abstentia in the houses of people I don't like...
RE: Realistic Aims by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 18 April 2007
Actually, I was leaning towards the electric shock system. Not only is it likely to have less HSE effects, it would take out robot intruders, too. :)
You're right, though - the system would need to be secure. I haven't thought about it a ton, but it seems the best way to do this would be to require the system be set off only by someone within the reach of it's effect.
RE: Realistic Aims by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 18 April 2007
I'm not quite understanding the "electric shock" system. How would that be implemented in a classroom situation, or any building full of rooms?
What would be electric?
As far as the knockout gas goes, why couldn't the next disturbed person just add a gas mask into his plans?
RE: Realistic Aims by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 25 April 2007
I thought of the gas mask, which is why I was thinking electricity would be the way to go.
I'm not sure what the best way would be to disable everyone in the room with electricity... I can come up with lots of conceptual ideas (electrodes shooting out of the walls, for example), but nothing that I think would be financially feasible. Any ideas?
RE: Realistic Aims by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 26 April 2007
Despite the fact that it would just be really cool to have some sort of device that could disable an attacker, I just can't get around the pure logistics of how it could be implemented on a wide scale. Just think of how many colleges and high schools there are in the U.S. Not only would the rooms have to be protected, but the hallways and other common areas also. Then there's every other place that people gather that would be the next target. (Stadiums?) The shear numbers and expense as you mentioned would probably keep it as nothing but a pipe dream even if the technology did exist.
Electricity, especially in the high voltage range needed to bridge an air gap is very unpredictable as far as aiming goes (think of lightning zigzagging across the sky), and could have widely varying effects on each person if it even hits them in the first place. According to this table, current as low as 20mA can stop a persons heart. The physical effects listed from lightning, which of course is what "electrodes shooting out of the walls" would have to really be, would be enough to never let the project get past the lawyers. Another way electricity is used these days to disable people, is with a TASER which either shoots a dart connected to the gun with thin wires, or operates at close range as a "cattle prod". I don't see how automatic projectiles would be reliable enough to either disable everyone, or just an attacker on a 100% basis; which is what it would have to be to be worth implementing at all. All of these then would have to be activated somehow. Being triggered by a gunshot is an interesting idea until someone's motorcycle backfires or something.
All in all, the knockout gas idea (theoretically) has more merit for implementation, except there are also probably more ways to bypass the effects.
All of the above is just rumination on ideas that won't go anywhere soon. I guess in a way, it's a bit of a comic book sort of dream to want to be able to thwart something so deadly and evil either with super-human means or "ultra-technical" means. How many of us have imagined ourselves in one of the afflicted Virginia Tech classrooms; half fearing and half fantasizing what we might have done in the same situation? (I imagine myself picking up a desk or chair and rushing at him blocking bullets all the while... Yeah. Right. Maybe.)
In the end we have to devote our energy into social systems that catch these guys early if we ever want to stop it from happening again. Getting someone on "the list" who needs to be would be a good first step.
RE: Realistic Aims by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 26 April 2007
I was thinking more about this and I realized it would only have taken one or two students packing heat to save most of the lives. Of course, this isn't allowed on college campuses, so I have to suspect Cho knew there was really nothing anyone could do to stop him. He had made bomb threats in the weeks leading up to the shooting, so he knew how the police would react and how long they would take - and they were the only hope the students/professors had of self defense.
What if the room could be filled with fast-hardening foam, like the car in Minority Report? Or, what if there were lots of readily accessible tazers in classrooms?
RE: Realistic Aims by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 27 April 2007
I suppose having some sort of disabling weapon in an alarmed "break-glass-to-access" type of receptacle might have at least helped for the classroom next door to be ready for him. It still relies on a "hero" though.
Fortress of Solitude Boy by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 19 April 2007
I know this may be insensitive of me, but I wonder how he was able to kill an entire class of 30 people. I guess everyone just ran around screaming hoping Cho would off himself before he pointed the gun at them. If the whole classed would have rushed him, there's no way he could have shot them all. Maybe society as a whole needs to be more assertive and able to react in emergency situations.
Man, what planet have you been on? Do you have a fortress of solitude or something that has allowed you to circumvent the 24/7 news media coverage of this event?
I ask because it is quite obvious that you have learned little of the details of this event. The shooter didn't shoot 30 students in one classroom, he entered multiple classrooms and shot randomly. Several professors and several students were shot at and many killed preventing the shooter from entering classrooms by barricading doors with their bodies. The death count would have been certainly higher had it not been for a great number of peoples actions. People "didn't run around screaming" in those classrooms but rather took cover and sought to prohibit further entry into rooms. If someone busted in on your office unannounced and just started shooting your first instinct is to get cover... you will find it hard to suddenly coordinate a unified rebuff of an attack with loud gun fire muffling your voice.
I'm surprised at how few facts you have heard from this event. Please do share with us the location of your fortress of solitude so we may all speak as though we are aware of the situation but not have the burden of having to actually read or watch a news report.
RE: Fortress of Solitude Boy by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 19 April 2007
Haha. Dang, Anon, I somehow got under your skin quick.
I watch very little TV, so what I know of the event I've read online - three articles, if I remember correctly: one right when I heard, one later with more details, and one after they had more information on Cho. None of them went into detail about the location of those killed (other than saying it was in one building), nor the actions of those killed. Thus, you'll notice I the qualifier "I guess..." appended to my statement.
In any case, thanks for the information (and the humor). I'd even like a link to more, if you have it.
RE: Fortress of Solitude Boy by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 19 April 2007
And there's no way I'm telling you the location of my fortress. Once people knew, it'd be much too difficult to keep them out - and that wouldn't make for a very effective fortress of solitude, now, would it?
RE: Fortress of Solitude Boy by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 19 April 2007
It must be somewhere in the foothills of Utah ...
Fortress of Solitude Boy by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 19 April 2007
I know this may be insensitive of me, but I wonder how he was able to kill an entire class of 30 people. I guess everyone just ran around screaming hoping Cho would off himself before he pointed the gun at them. If the whole classed would have rushed him, there's no way he could have shot them all. Maybe society as a whole needs to be more assertive and able to react in emergency situations.
Man, what planet have you been on? Do you have a fortress of solitude or something that has allowed you to circumvent the 24/7 news media coverage of this event?
I ask because it is quite obvious that you have learned little of the details of this event. The shooter didn't shoot 30 students in one classroom, he entered multiple classrooms and shot randomly. Several professors and several students were shot at and many killed preventing the shooter from entering classrooms by barricading doors with their bodies. The death count would have been certainly higher had it not been for a great number of peoples actions. People "didn't run around screaming" in those classrooms but rather took cover and sought to prohibit further entry into rooms. If someone busted in on your office unannounced and just started shooting your first instinct is to get cover... you will find it hard to suddenly coordinate a unified rebuff of an attack with loud gun fire muffling your voice.
I'm surprised at how few facts you have heard from this event. Please do share with us the location of your fortress of solitude so we may all speak as though we are aware of the situation but not have the burden of having to actually read or watch a news report.
Never miss an opportunity. by Occams :: NR6 :: on 29 May 2007
Outside VA Tech on the following day:
LINDA MCGUIRE, TOMMIE ZITO MINISTRY EVANGELIST: Well, we came here today to encourage, but most of all the reality is that some of those students that were shot are in hell today. And I wanted to come and let the other students know that we didn’t, they didn’t - some went to hell but they all didn’t have to go there. That we have a choice. That we can say to Jesus because he is the only way into heaven.
RE: Realistic Aims by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 18 April 2007
This is exactly what I'm talking about--Guns themselves are not the problem, people are--I stated that in my posting, tho not quite as succinctly.
The shooting in VA has once again thrust Gun Control into the limelight; what I'm searching for is an intelligent means to control Gun Violence (really all violence), while at the same time protect the 2nd Amendment.
As to why students in the classrooms he assaulted did not rush him while was reloading, I can only think of one reason: Fear, most likely of death. For me, the choice is obvious; I personally do not have fear, I know where to turn that over to. Quoting Star Trek II: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." But then, too many of us are more 'self-serving', than are 'serving-selves'.
Brandon's suggestion of 'knock out gas' has merit, but what type of system can we use that will be both safe (we don't want any accidental deaths due to allergies, etc.---think litigation here) and effective. Not only that, but some kind of 'cost effectiveness' (maybe a reduction in the cost of liability insurance?) needs to be built in as well as incentive to businesses, schools, or any other place that would need to install it. There is also delivery system(s), who has the panic button access, and how effective the system is (think Big shopping mall, like Mall of America). Also, what do you do if you have a Tower Sniper, ala Charles Whitman?
Most states have laws 'protecting' the mentally ill. It is difficult to have them placed under care unless one can prove they are a danger to themselves or others. While Cho's writing indicated he was an *extremely* disturbed young man, nothing really could have been done under the law.
Do the laws need to be changed?
RE: Realistic Aims by guyvia :: NR5 :: on 18 April 2007
You personally do not have fear? I believe strongly in a God that controls my fate, but I still feel fear, whether I think I should or not. Fear is not optional. Some people are able to act amongst fear, but most of the time they were strengthened by previous high stress situations.
Have you ever been robbed at gunpoint? It is much scarier than you may think. As easy as it is to say that you would attack from your cube or office, it takes a special programming of the brain to actually keep cool in high stress situations like this and make a rational choice. Victims of violent situations almost always say the same thing: 'I couldn't believe it was happening to me.' Even amongst martial artist and returned soldiers that fight back against an attacker say they experienced detachment and disbelief while they were reacting, but that the previous training came through even though their 'mind wasn't doing it'. I think it is vain to say 'I would have done this or that' - it is not simple.
As for the 'knock out gas' suggestion, I pose to you the same question: Would you install one in your house, in case a gunman broke in?
As for the status of the mentally ill - I don't know. I think it is reasonable to say that it is in the best interest of the country to spend a significant amount of money and effort to understand what makes someone snap to such ends. I do not think that massacres will ever be able to fully be prevented no matter what lengths we take - after all, 1/4 presidents has had his life attempted at, and 1/10 have been slain (if my counts are right), and they have damn good protection. If we take all the guns away, there is always another way for a crazy to kill people. We need to first understand this kind of insanity, and then learn how to identify it (and hopefully one day cure it).
RE: Realistic Aims by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 18 April 2007
but I still feel fear, whether I think I should or not.
I do not have fear. I feel it, certainly, but I do not allow it to control me, ergo I do not have fear. Like you, God controls my fate, so my fear is turned over to Him. (and that is *all* I'm going to say about religion in this thread, sorry Scottb).
Have you ever been robbed at gunpoint?
Yes I have. I worked in a location that was robbed in College. The robber wanted the combination to the safe which I did not have. A .38 revolver was less than 6 inches from my face, I simply told him to shoot me because the safe combination was only known to the managers, and they weren't here. He left with only the register ($200) cash in his pocket, but was apprehended. Oddly, back then I had no faith, but I remained calm. I have no 'special training', I was an electronics geek on a submarine. I'm just not prone to panic. I like to believe I would have reacted as Todd Beamer and the rest of the passengers on Flight 93; and I probably would have given the situation.
The knockout gas comment was specifically for public situations, such as schools, etc. I'll be honest, I don't own a gun personally. I don't hunt and don't feel the need for one for 'personal protection'. But, that's a personal opinion of my own.
We need to first understand this kind of insanity, and then learn how to identify it (and hopefully one day cure it).
Agreed--and we've done little in the last 20 years to assist the mentally ill--the 'borderline' were released due to budget cuts way back in the Reagan days. I heard today that the gunman in VA actually had been admitted in 2005 to a mental hospital.
I think you're correct in assuming we will probably never eliminate this type of violence; but how do we mitgate the effects without subverting the 2nd Amendment?
RE: Realistic Aims by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 18 April 2007
Darn, everything I was going to say, guyvia already said.
I agree with the fact that if guns are removed from society, some crazy human will be still be sitting somewhere, brooding in the dark, planning for some other way to wipe a bunch of us out. Timothy McVeigh of Oklahoma Federal Building fame did. The problem with trying to recognize and prevent this behavior is that it is actually so rare in a statistical sense. (Not rare enough though.) I think the same "It can't be happening" mentality applies to the dangerous mental illness diagnosis part of this story also. Even though he presents himself as disturbed, unless he actually is exhibiting dangerous behavior, everyone brushes it off, because to be "pre-accusing" everybody all the time will eventually lead to paranoia on a grand scale. In other words, unless something presents itself in a obvious way, most of us who haven't lived dangerous lives, tend to think the best of any given situation, sometimes to our demise.
RE: Realistic Aims by guyvia :: NR5 :: on 19 April 2007
Have you taken time to read 'Richard McBeef'? They have it over on the smoking gun. Anyway, I would disagree with the psychologist that released him as not a threat to others. Sure, many *teenagers* do writings like this, when their angst is getting the best of them during puberty, but few continue with it into their twenties. I would argue that such writings show an obvious disconnect with reality, a violent streak, and present a threat when exhibited by a twenty three year old, simply due to the strengthened resolve of an older person.
RE: Realistic Aims by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 19 April 2007
As time goes on, and more details come out…… 'Richard McBeef'. Yes. Thank you for that. (I think.) At the risk of sounding like 'Frank Barone'; "Holy Crap." If that writing alone was not enough of a cry for help for anyone who read it, then nothing could be. It reminds me of the classic case where children are asked to draw pictures of their families. Most kids draw normal everyday pictures of family life, but then once in a while a child draws violent pictures, bruises, blood, a pair of scissors sticking out of someone (or something); and it sets alarm bells off in a big way these days, where any teacher involved says," Something's wrong!" If this guy was in and out of treatment as much as they are saying, then it really seems like that system is where the failing was; at least in the last few years. The thing is, and I am not trained in any of this stuff, but when I read "Richard McBeef'', I was struck by how absolutely uncreative it was, with the violence as its only object. This sort of writing could probably be a template for the kind of thing to watch out for in the future.
The allusions to bullying, which takes many forms is of concern also. Since Columbine, many school systems have adopted "Bullying Programs", because they seem to be finding a common thread in that bullying seems to be at the root of many school shootings. That and being a little unhinged to begin with, maybe.
RE: Realistic Aims by guyvia :: NR5 :: on 20 April 2007
Unhinged is our 21st-century euphemism for being bat-guano loony now?
RE: Realistic Aims by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 20 April 2007
I suppose that was a little soft.
This from thesaurus.com
unzipped? Touched?
RE: Realistic Aims by Occams :: NR6 :: on 05 May 2007
Realistic Aims?
I think we should give all our firearms to the poor kids in the ghettos who need them much more than we do.
Well, what do you expect? I am a nerd after all.
RE: Realistic Aims by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 06 May 2007
I thought nerds were smart.
RE: Realistic Aims by Occams :: NR6 :: on 07 May 2007
Good one. I think that comment should have scored much better on the nerdiness scale. It epitomised nerdy unworldliness. Perhaps you were marked down for anonymity.