In The Wake Of This Tragedy

[Guest]

O and Era Might I do think I understand what you are saying to some degree....God bless you bro...I hope you come back to a faith in God...Not saying that in any self righteouss kind of way...Just out of love bro....Peace...

[eagle_eye222001]

The pro-gun people are guilty of this, too.  It's awful how opportunistic some people have been.

 

I disagree.

 

 

When the Titanic sank, was it terrible how that event was used to discuss changes to current shipping standards?

 

It is inevitable and proper that people will cite an event to argue what should or should not have been done to help prevent it.

 

 

The difference is whether logistical reasoning is used.  The anti-gun movement does not use this while the pro-gun movement does.

 

 

The anti-gun movement will come in bellows of tears and emotion to argue that guns should basically be banned.  Using the same logic, cars should be banned, and people should not be allowed to vote......to many deaths come from car accidents and the voting booth.

 

The pro-gun movement will remain cool and correctly point out that criminals will invariably always get access to guns somehow.  They will also point out how criminals strangely refuse to follow the law.  In the Connecticut case, the only way to prevent this near massacre would be to outright ban guns of all types and literally makes all guns disappear   No gun law in Connecticut saved those lives.  The firearms were legally bought, but were then stolen and their owner killed.  The killer was underage to use handguns, but he still used them.  Perhaps there should be a law about not bringing guns into a school?  Maybe a sign would have stopped the killer?!?

 

The only person to charge for gun negligence is already dead and unfit for trial.  There is no reasonable or logical gun control law to follow from this incident.

 

 

The only opportunistic people are the anti-gun people as their arguments do not follow from the incident.  The pro-gun people recognize that we live in a dangerous world, and act accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

[theculturewarrior]

I have to say I don't understand social grief. When I heard about this story yesterday, I thought it was a horrible thing to happen, and I feel bad on some level for these people, but I don't have an emotional attachment to them. I don't know them, they are as unknown to me as all the other people who die every day. Maybe it's a flaw in me, I don't know, but I don't understand stories of people weeping on 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination or this.

 

I've been thinking a lot recently about what is love? What does it mean to love another person? I think love is largely a selfish thing...why do we care about the handful of people in our lives, why do we love them, and not feel the same way about the billions of other people in the world? I think it's because the people in our lives make us feel good, are part of our memories, etc. We can't imagine ourselves without them, and in some sense loving them is a way of avoiding death, having something to hold on to in this world. I feel the same way about grief over these kinds of events, it's more about our fear of having this happen to us, than some vague thing called "love." Can I "love" these children who died? I don't know. I woke up today and my life went on as it always does. I'm not crippled by their death.

 

I think there is something to the idea that we have made love into an idol. It's an emotional attachment. I think of what does it mean to love a spouse or your own child. It's largely an emotional thing, and it's reflected in our inability to let people be, to see the people in our lives as their own people, on their own journey, that we share and help along the way, but ultimately, we are all going on our own journey to death, where we will be utterly alone. That seems really sad and despairing, but if we simply accept love as something temporary, something that is not really "real," then it makes death easier to understand, as the logical end of our individual lives. And if you're religious I guess you can believe in a supernatural theory of love as something real...though it's interesting to me that Christianity revolves around the resurrection, the idea that love is something tied to this world, and we must rise again forever and return to our earthly form. Seems like a myth to me, but I can understand it if I understand love as an earthly thing, and the resurrection as a way to save our selfish attachment to this world.

 

Sorry for going on a tangent, and I am not trying to argue about anyone's experience or response to anything...simply stating honestly my own feeling.

 

 

Love, above all, is the desire for happiness.  The reason we grieve is because happiness was robbed from so many families.  It is not selfish.

[theculturewarrior]

In a case like this, people want to assume it was mental illness. Me too. It is a pretty common reaction. The reason for that, I believe, is that we do not want to accept that we are capable of such evil actions.

But if you can think of it, you are capable of it. And that is terrifying. It should be terrifying.

 

 

Anyone who is capable of doing such a thing in such random, inexplicable way is mentally ill.  The classification of psychiatric disorders is based on an academic discipline called abnormal psychology.  The premise the discipline I guess you could say goes like this:  This is the way most people are, the norm.  Some people's lives are disrupted because they have thoughts or behaviors that are outside the norm.  Regardless of whether or not he was able to make a voluntary decision to do such a terrible thing, this is an abnormal behavior that a psychiatric intervention may have prevented.

 

If he was a new patient at a psychiatrist's office still undiagnosed, the conversation may have began with him saying "I've have been thinking about doing this terrible thing."  The psychiatrist would then have no question that the man was mentally ill and probably would have ordered his hospitalization.  He would have been tested for harmful substances, such synthetic marijuana, or even prescription drugs that have rare reactions like this.  He would have a cat scan to discover any abnormalities in the brain.

 

I do want underscore if someone spends a lot of thinking about something like this, it is a symptom of mental illness.  Most likely harmless OCD, but definitely something that medicine has an answer to.

[4588686]

I disagree.

 

 

When the Titanic sank, was it terrible how that event was used to discuss changes to current shipping standards?

 

It is inevitable and proper that people will cite an event to argue what should or should not have been done to help prevent it.

 

 

The difference is whether logistical reasoning is used.  The anti-gun movement does not use this while the pro-gun movement does.

 

 

The anti-gun movement will come in bellows of tears and emotion to argue that guns should basically be banned.  Using the same logic, cars should be banned, and people should not be allowed to vote......to many deaths come from car accidents and the voting booth.

 

The pro-gun movement will remain cool and correctly point out that criminals will invariably always get access to guns somehow.  They will also point out how criminals strangely refuse to follow the law.  In the Connecticut case, the only way to prevent this near massacre would be to outright ban guns of all types and literally makes all guns disappear   No gun law in Connecticut saved those lives.  The firearms were legally bought, but were then stolen and their owner killed.  The killer was underage to use handguns, but he still used them.  Perhaps there should be a law about not bringing guns into a school?  Maybe a sign would have stopped the killer?!?

 

The only person to charge for gun negligence is already dead and unfit for trial.  There is no reasonable or logical gun control law to follow from this incident.

 

 

The only opportunistic people are the anti-gun people as their arguments do not follow from the incident.  The pro-gun people recognize that we live in a dangerous world, and act accordingly.

 

Well this is flawless logic.  And that is why America's rates of violent gun crimes are roughly the same as those of other countries, right?

[4588686]

Typical Democrat.  Never let a tragedy pass you by without getting some political gain out of it.

 

 

Thanks for taking the day off yesterday, at least.

 

 

1-I am not a democrat.

 

2-I'm not getting any political gain out of anything.  I realize that I command an aura of power but I'm not actually an elected official.

 

3- There should never be a tragedy that occurs that is not immediately accompanied by discussions about how to avoid something simmilar happening again.  Your own plea to depoliticize a tragedy is itself a political tactic.  

[kujo]

I disagree.

 

 

When the Titanic sank, was it terrible how that event was used to discuss changes to current shipping standards?

 

It is inevitable and proper that people will cite an event to argue what should or should not have been done to help prevent it.

 

 

The difference is whether logistical reasoning is used.  The anti-gun movement does not use this while the pro-gun movement does.

 

 

The anti-gun movement will come in bellows of tears and emotion to argue that guns should basically be banned.  Using the same logic, cars should be banned, and people should not be allowed to vote......to many deaths come from car accidents and the voting booth.

 

The pro-gun movement will remain cool and correctly point out that criminals will invariably always get access to guns somehow.  They will also point out how criminals strangely refuse to follow the law.  In the Connecticut case, the only way to prevent this near massacre would be to outright ban guns of all types and literally makes all guns disappear   No gun law in Connecticut saved those lives.  The firearms were legally bought, but were then stolen and their owner killed.  The killer was underage to use handguns, but he still used them.  Perhaps there should be a law about not bringing guns into a school?  Maybe a sign would have stopped the killer?!?

 

The only person to charge for gun negligence is already dead and unfit for trial.  There is no reasonable or logical gun control law to follow from this incident.

 

 

The only opportunistic people are the anti-gun people as their arguments do not follow from the incident.  The pro-gun people recognize that we live in a dangerous world, and act accordingly.

 

1) I don't think I've heard any serious person suggest that we should pass a law which "basically" bans all guns. That's a strawman, which is a fallacy. So much for your pro-gun logic.

 

2) Why did this lady have an AR-15 rifle? I support the idea that people without a history of crime or mental-illness should be able to own a handgun, provided they are duly licensed and that this license is renewed by the individual every few years, having proven that they are still sane and capable of handling the weapon safely. But this sort of rifle...what the hell is up with that?

Edited December 16, 2012 by kujo

[kujo]

...3- There should never be a tragedy that occurs that is not immediately accompanied by discussions about how to avoid something simmilar happening again.  Your own plea to depoliticize a tragedy is itself a political tactic.  

 

Yes!!!

[4588686]

 

2) Why did this lady have an AR-15 rifle?

 

What an excellent question.  I have family that lives in the absolutely worst part of Eastern North Carolina.  One of the poorest parts of the country.  I've never seen a police car where they live, although I spent most of my summers there.  Everyone lives in flimsy housing that can easily be broken into.  That who I do support people being able to own guns.  Because I really do understand that there are places where people do have to ensure their own protection.  

 

Nobody has a flooping AR-15.  You don't need them for protection.  An AR-15 is good for shooting a lot of bullets quickly.  Unless you're worried about an Ork army invading then you're fine with a shotgun.  

[ardillacid]

Nobody has a flooping AR-15.  You don't need them for protection.  An AR-15 is good for shooting a lot of bullets quickly.  

 

It sounds like you are confused. An AR-15 is semi-auto, so what specifically do you find offensive about this particular rifle? 

[CatherineM]

I've heard just as many arguments that if the teachers had guns this wouldn't have happened. Instead of talking about gun control maybe we should talk about mental illness intervention. We used to get our eyes and ears checked at school once a year when I was a kid. It's obvious this kid had issues. It's a shame he wasn't being treated for them.

[r2Dtoo]

1-I am not a democrat.

Any Obama voter is close enough in my book.

 

[quote]2-I'm not getting any political gain out of anything.  I realize that I command an aura of power but I'm not actually an elected official.[/quote]

You don't have to be a politician to get political gain from something.  Activists on both sides love situations like this. 

 

[quote]3- There should never be a tragedy that occurs that is not immediately accompanied by discussions about how to avoid something simmilar happening again.  Your own plea to depoliticize a tragedy is itself a political tactic[/quote]

Nice try but I never once advocated for anything in this thread.  Does not work.  You on the other hand specifically accused the gun industry of being behind this.  If that's not obviously an activist lie I don't know what is.

[HisChildForever]

The fact that he had no possible motive is evidence that he was mentally ill, and that the disease had taken him.

 

I agree. Until we learn more, I believe he had severe, severe psychosis and this was his psychotic break.

[4588686]

It sounds like you are confused. An AR-15 is semi-auto, so what specifically do you find offensive about this particular rifle?

I'm not confused at all. I know exactly what an AR-15 is and have since middle school when I first held one. What does it being semi-automatic have to do with anything that I said?

[ardillacid]

Then you should know that the firing rate is similar to other automatics. Why did you choose to emphasize this particular trait?