Discussion on:

WHAT THE "F" IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE

http://www.cbsnews .com/8301-201_162-57559261/children-gunman-dead-in-conn-elementary-school-shooting/

(Remove space between cbsnews and the .com)

I'm sitting here crying my eyes out... Seriously, what the h3ll is wrong with people? Have we no hope left in this world????

My sympathies and prayers to the friends and families of those involved

I saw it on a g/f's fb while I was picking up my 8 yr old daughter from school; it's just sickening. There can be no serious sane reason for anyone to go off at a school!!!! My heart is breaking for the poor parents that are getting the worst, most gutt renching news a parent could ever get. May God give you all strength through this horrible time :'(

if publicizing these tragedies does more harm than good, if it motivates those with an incomprehensible desire for the attention that results from a so-called 'blaze of glory' finish. I guess it's news but really, what's the benefit to the public of trumpeting it, especially those outside the local area?

Maybe I've just become too callous to be affected any more.

of fame, and that's the worry you raise. The media should report it, but not make the huge song and dance that they do.

But am not sure how to avoid that.

The challenge is how to keep weapons out of the hands of crazy people. That's not an easy puzzle to solve.

I believe one important factor here is violent video games. Just as the Sept 11 hijackers used flight sim software to help them learn to fly, all the incredibly realistic first-person-shooter games are no different.

If there is ONE thing I would hope that comes from this, it would be to have a grown-up discussion about guns in our society.

The kneejerk reaction is to ban everything, but we ban drugs, and we banned alcohol...how did those things work out?

When cars were first invented, on a percentage basis, fatalities were very high. So with driver training, licensing, and technical improvements, this problem was addressed. There are many more cars today and far fewer fatalities, as a percentage of the number of drivers and registered vehicles.

If America can put a remote-control rover on Mars, surely we can all figure this out....

There's almost no politics involved. No one asks the rover's position on abortion, or wants to know if returning capsule has immigration paperwork.

As you noted, complete bans have been ineffective. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, just that we've never managed anything similar in the past. Other countries obviously do it, but there are the questions of size of the US, existing stock and possessions, etc.

However, I don't think violent video games have much of an effect. They're just the latest in a long string of boogie men going back through violent movies, televised wrestling, comic books, etc. In Salem they though playing witch was a sure fire path to ... sure fire. I imagine someone's parents berated him for peeking through Coliseum walls at gladiatorial games.

No need to 'check it's papers'

I live in a part of the country where young boys are really 'into' guns. They play 'airsoft' with full camo gear, using VERY realistic weapons that shoot pellets in full auto mode (drives the dog nuts).

These same kids spend hours playing 'Call of Duty' as well as 'Metro' and whole host of hyper-realistic FPS (first-person-shooter) games. These are not like duck-hunt on Nintendo, these are 3D 'go for the headshot' simulations that give you a small taste of the adrenaline rush that (I imagine) you would have in an actual combat situation.

For ANY of these kids, if you put a locked and loaded MP5 in their hands, other than the heft of the weapon, they would be completely at ease and, maybe I'm reaching a bit here, if hopped up on drugs or a kid with mental issues could blur the play world with the real world.

The reason there are fewer fatalities these days is 99.999999999% due to the fact that cars absorb impact and have airbags that reduce the force from inertia on occupants. Even 50 years ago, peopl ewere thrown about like ragdolls in an accident. Sure grandpa loved his old Dodge, "solid and stable, not like these new things that just crumple and collapse when hit!"

However, I'd MUCH rather be in a car that folds up like an accordion during an accident than one that doesn't. Engineering saved lives, not licencing.

The '59 probably weighs double what the 2009 does, yet the old car crumples like a tin can

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

It's offset, driver's fender to driver's fender. If it was a true head on, the Chevy would have fared much better I think. Then there's side impact which would have been different too. The Chrysler seems to have crumpled well too but is designed to absorb and redirect impact that the cabin doesn't crumple and the engine is pushed down to the ground instead of into the passenger compartment. The Chevy just trashed a fender and then the A pillars were cut in half due to rigid construction, that alone would be enough impact to do in any occupants. It really shows how far we have come though, cars today are a million times safer than those before, I've been saved TWICE from a sure death accident due to specific car construction that was just introduce the year I bought the car. I still love my old muscle cars though.

like that. Over the years I've seen many crashed cars and they're usually full head on with the centre of both bonnets very close to each other, or the part ons are just the headlight corners clipped, or straight into an inanimate object, or full into the rear, or into the side or corner from the side. Except in the US test crashes like that video I've never seen two cars hit with the full quarter head on like that.

On another aspect, my father's mid/late 1960s Toyota Crown was designed so that in a series impact with the front of the car the engine dropped out the bottom and the main body for the car rode up and over that while the engine compartment crumpled while absorbing energy. I've looked at a few modern cars of the same size and there's no way the engine can drop out the bottom and the frame etc isn't strong enough to absorb much impact energy at all due to teh cheaper way many are made out of shells welded together.

But car to roadside tree/lamppost gives a corner crash like that most of the time.
Sweden started using that in their car security tests. A lot of formerly five star cars got demoted.

Car to tree is a very frequent source of death, since most car accidents are solo accidents.

the side as an almost missed or dead in the centre of the bonnet.

Odds are the collisions will occur over the entire range equally.
The corner collisions are much harder on the structure though.

And discussing it with your kids is not a good idea either. They may not understand the depth of the issue beyond hearing people were killed on TV. I've seen parents hugging their kids and crying about it, not those involved but just parents who have seen the news. This creates unnecessary trauma for a child. Children are desensitized from TV news where people are shown being killed, they play violent games and are exposed to these realities daily. For them it is an unrealistic world, kids should not be filled with fears and sadness over such issues. No amount of personal awareness would help them avoid such a situation. Having a parent upset and warning about such things is just not needed and makes the issue much worse for them.

I too had someone scowl at me on the weekend because I basically shrug my shoulders and write it off as a hideous society that I haven't believed in for many years anyway.

Yes, it is absolutely horrific, it is a devastating time for all involved, parents should never outlive children etc.

But the more fuss and public outcry it creates, the worse the situation gets as others follow suit to be even bigger and more notorious.

It's been proven countless times by police forces worldwide that popularity will just breed more of the same. If nobody makes a fuss and it's not publicized, these people without a voice usually seek other avenues for attention.

It is sad, my heart to goes out to those involved, I can't even begin to imagine if that had happened to my child...but we need to move forward and let police focus on why it happened, how it happened and working on ways to reduce the likeliness of it happening again.

What could possibly motivate someone to murder innocent children? My heart goes out to those that lost their loved ones and to all children, families and the teachers that will have to live with that horrible memory for the rest of their lives.

Is there anywhere that any of us are safe anymore from the lunatics that walk among us?

AV

That it is a Right to be armed and everyone should be carrying?

See if those 5 year olds could have shot at the intruder not so many may have died.

What a crock of Shite.

Col

All of the usual suspects on both sides of the 2nd Amendment have thrown their publicity machines into gear. I'm sure they both have contingency plans and public relations schemes sitting on the shelf for just such an 'opportunity'.

Using dead children to justify their stances is completely unacceptable in my books.

Col

Is something ONLY the pro gun control people are doing (can you spell Michael Bloomberg?).

I'm glad you deem it unacceptable.

You, Colin, are down in Australia, and you are obviously "using dead children to justify (your gun control) stances".

And that's what you just criticized people in the United States for doing.

(Shaking my head in disbelief.)

What Gun Control Stance?

What have I said about Weapon Control?

For that matter do you even know what I think of Fire Arms?

What I really find offensive Joe is that someone will place words in my mouth that where never said or even implied. What happened yesterday your time "maybe by now" was a tragedy and it's unacceptable under any circumstances.

Doesn't matter if those children where shot, stabbed or run over by a Hijacked 747 killing young children is just pure and simple Unacceptable, what makes it more unacceptable is that they where unrelated so they personally had no way of adversely impacting on the person who killed them..

What I also find very offensive is that somehow you seem to be justifying the Right to Bear Arms and that there should be no controls on any Nutter who wants to shot the Crap out of a bunch of children because it's their right but in the same breath those same children do not have a Right to Medical Care provided by the State.

I'm defiantly not under the impression that this is an excuse for anything at all though I do see it being used by the Gun Control Lobby to somehow try to overthrow your Constitution. While I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing it's most defiantly not a Good Thing from the point of view of the Rule of Law having any sort of Knee Jerk Reaction for any event. But by the same token I can also see some idiots claim that arming 5 year olds improves their chances of not being shot and killed because they can return fire.

Doesn't matter if they are so far below the age to even understand what it is that they are doing it's OK to do it. Anything that seeks to Pervert the LAW to ones own ends is what I most defiantly find unacceptable. If there are changes to be made to any Legal Document particularly something as Important as the Countries Constitution it needs to be done away from any Hysteria and with a well run Public Education Campaign.

Relying on Emotion is never acceptable to make changes to anything let alone something as important as the Constitution.

As for the person you mentioned above I don't have a clue who or what they are or if they are male or female or what they are on about though from what you have posted above I would assume that they have something to do with Fire Arm Control Proposals, however if they would use something like this incident to advance their cause that in my books speaks volumes of why they should be ignored.

As for weapon control it's impossible as anything can be used as a weapon something as simple as a Ball Point Disposable pen is an ideal weapon in the right hands and the possibility of outlawing something like that doesn't even rate a mention.

Col

I quoted you verbatim.

Did I misunderstand the intent behind the words you did utter? The ones I quoted?

Now that's entirely possibly; I'll concede it's probable, based on your reply; and I'll even go so far as saying, What else is new?, based on our history in the TR Water Cooler.

.

One nut tries to blow up an airplane with a bomb in his shoe, and now we all have to take our shoes off at airports. Many nuts kill hundreds, and nothing changes.

didn't regard shoes as 'necessary to the security of a free state'.

That was the well-trained militia.
Where is that militia, by the way?

Helping rebuild...somewhere.

for some reason that I don't fully understand, last year the Supreme Court ruled the 'militia' clause wasn't relevant to firearm laws.

According to the sophistry of the pro-gun at-the-expense-of-everything-else crowd, "A well-regulated militia..." is not a qualifying clause, but a clarifying clause.

it is reasonable to refer to the entire country as if everyone in it holds the same opinion on this subject. I'm equally sure that the US is the only country in the world where people on both sides of tragedies exploit them for political benefit.

I don't think America holds the patent on idiocy

This event has done two things: it's caused Dems to grow a pair, and it is exposing the GOP influence of the gun lobby.

While Joe Scarborough may be now a RINO, he was rated A+ by the NRA for his stance on guns when he was in Congress. A staunch libertarian all the way and an avowed conservative Republican.

Earlier this week he gave a mea-culpa on-air where he said he was wrong, that the safety of our children are the most important thing, and that this event changed him, and changed America. Call me naive, but I belive that.

But in doing so, you look to the wrong cause.

Cause and effect - people play the game, putting one or the other (cause or effect) in either the leading or the following position depending on what point is trying to be made (just like they do in the global warming debate - they mix up cause and effect). Is the proliferation of guns the cause?

Kids (or young adults) killing other kids (or young adults). Why do they do it? The answer to that question has absolutely nothing to do with guns, yet that's the "cause" so many people identify with. But it's not the "cause" at all; it's only the scapegoat.

Go ahead, Colin. Try to answer this question without your usual "nutter" kind of outlook.

Kids (or young adults) killing other kids (or young adults). Why do they do it? What caused the rise in such things happening?

You live in a country where it is possible for people to legally own semi-automatic weapons.

Regardless of whether incidents such as the recent shooting are on the increase - and I don't know whether they are, or not - to narrow down your view on "cause" in the way that you do is ridiculous and, honestly, somewhat disturbing.

Fot a crime, you require the means to commit the crime, the motive and opportunity. Without any of them, without the means, the crime does not happen.

Without a gun, you cannot shoot people.

..... you sure can come up with some doozies!

Without a gun, you cannot shoot people.

Gee, Neil. What a brilliant observation.

I guess we can conclude, then, that the prevailing mentality might go something like this. "Oh my, there's a gun. I think I'll pick it up and shoot someone."

And another Neil Doozie:

"For a crime, you require the means to commit the crime, the motive and opportunity. Without any of them, without the means, the crime does not happen. "

Therefore, let's systematically, as a society, eliminate the "means" people use to commit crimes; then we can start, as a society, to start addressing those motives people have to commit crime; and then, we can monitor everyone to prevent them from taking advantage of opportunity. Yeah, that's the ticket!

You propose eliminating the "means" so that the crime cannot be committed? Are you kidding me? (And it presupposes that eliminating the "means" is even possible, which it's not.)

In what other crime is the "means" EVER blamed for the crime, and/or EVER suggested that it be eliminated from becoming available so that said crime cannot be committed?

I am having a psychotic episode. I have been visited by God who has told me that Wattenden Primary School, Croydon,is to be my target. It is Tuesday afternoon at 2:30pm and I am standing outside of the school with my semi-automatic rifle with its military magazine and four hundred rounds of ammunition.

But I'm British and I do not have a gun nor do I have access to one. I cannot go into the school and shoot the children.

We should both address the motives, of course. But we in the UK and other societies with strict gun laws have long since addressed the means so that the probability of the juxtaposition of a psychotic killer and a weapon that permits him or her to kill rapidly and indiscriminately is reduced as close to zero as we can get it.

As for your final question, I do believe that in both our societies, "going equipped for burglary" or its equivalent, is a crime; the means IS the crime. But that's irrelevant becuase obviously - I thought - I was not "blaming" guns but, to outsiders such as me, the idea that someone with a mental illness has such easy access, not just to guns, but to assault weapons is beyond our ability to comprehend.

"The right to keep and bear arms". Whatever...

re: "But I'm British and I do not have a gun nor do I have access to one."

whether there is a gun in every house or in none in any house
a nutter will find a way to get one (or more) if they so desire

People usually don't stay angry for that long. Murder is usually, as far as I'm aware, a spur of the moment thing. If you can't access the means to carry out your desires immediately, you may well calm down and see sense. If the means are easily obtainable, you may act before you calm down and think.

Obviously there are exceptions.

I agree that gun-control will not remove the desire to carry out the act, and think that's where we should be looking for the solution, but there's very little political will to address problems this deeply embedded in our societies. Especially if it means we have to change our behavior.

At this point in time, I have NO IDEA how to go about getting a gun if I want one. I wouldn't know where to start.

Of course, we can't stop criminals holding illegal guns and it's possible that, if I were intending to commit a crime, that I could eventually find out. But I cannot simply take the guns belonging to a member of my family, or a neighbour, or an acquaintance because they do not have any.

This discussion, for me, is about the psychotically deranged indivual, be that psychotic episode triggered by schitzophrenia or bipolar disorder or physical causes such as drugs, alcohol or a brain tumour, not being able to access the means to rapidly and indiscriminately slaughter.

Where I live in the States, I could drop into any of dozen retail outlets on the way home from the office and pick up as many new pistols or even semi-automatic assault rifles and as much ammo as I can carry.

Of course the 'straw purchasers' do just that, buy-em in Georgian, sell-em in NYC or Mexico, but I digress...

If I wanted to get something illegal...let's say I wanted a kilo of Heroin. To be honest, I would not know where to start....bars in seedy part of town? Online? Even then, the illegality of the item means I could get shot or arrested walking into a sting operation.

In the UK, getting any sort of weapon would be like me getting my kilo of heroin.

You better do it before the UK bans them!

http://news.bbc.co. uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

What's next?

to my American (and other Nationalities) friends if I offend you at this point....I'm Canadian (and proud of it) but for the life of me, I do not believe in the right to bear arms.The right to own a gun for legal hunting and protection of one's home, yes. I don't have guns in my house, nor do I want them here. I made Darryl remove his rifles before I moved in, I want nothing to do with them.

So my thoughts on this are, having easy access to guns and being P'Oed at my parents because I can't have my own way likely was justified is this sick kid's head before he went off. And nothing makes me more aggrivated than when they turn coward and kill themselvles instead of facing up. Yes, I'M friggin' mad!!!!!!!!! Watching the news last night made me cry, my heart is so broken for all the folks involved.

But I should point out that in recent history the worst what is commonly called Gun Crime was committed in Norway which has some of the tightest Gun Control Laws in the world.

What happened my time yesterday in the US was a utter tragedy but what happened in Norway even without the bombing by the idiot where 95 people where shot dead is beyond reason.

Col

6 years old, what a tragedy. What has to snap in your head to make you want to go kill small children. They had just moved there from Canada.

Possibly even more tragic is the relative frequency of these attacks.

Hate feeds hate, kills more, builds more hate. If the hate doesn't kill you, it infects you.
How do you cure hate?