Kids having sex at a young age, saying they "totally did a sex on their canadian girlfriend like 40 times", says concerned resident

"Nobody I knew lost their virginities until they were at least 16," says the life-long Jehovah's Witness from a strict household. "When I was a kid we didn't talk about sex on Facebook, and we didn't sext," said the adult, referring to the practice of using technologies first widely available in 2007 to discreetly exchange sexual messages and photographs.

I left the org at around 16... haven't gone back since. You're forgetting, before facebook there was msn messenger, metro and photo log, myspace, and some other social sites, all used by me and my associates before we got facebook accounts. Trust me on this point, people are starting out earlier today, that's all I'm saying. Perhaps it's simply a regional phenomena.

"Back in my day, we sent risque Morse code messages via wire where the pattern of dots wrapped around a spool created a picture of our boobs."

kids these days with their sexcarrierpigeoning

Define "today". Women have been commodities throughout human history, were sometimes married before they reached adolescence, & often impregnated immediately after they did. The difference between now & much of human history, is that it's now mostly consensual (in the West at least). I grew up in the 80's & 90's & kids were ****ing like rabbits. It was common enough that teenage girls had special schools that they had to attend when they became pregnant. I remember once being asked out by a girl who later became pregnant at the age of 12 (I dodged that bullet).

Teen pregnancy is the lowest it's been in the last 70 years (the highest, apparently, was in 1990)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/us-cdc-teen-pregnancy-idUSTRE7345ZY20110405?feedType=RSS
(that's a 2009 report but I can't find the latest article I read).
There was a pretty interesting Cracked article that discussed how crime, drug use, and pregnancy in teens have all been on a steady decline since the 19...60s? I've been trying to find the article but I swear some teens have stolen it.

Since I'm joining the conversation late, I did skim through the thread, just a few thoughts.

First, I'm curious how you are following this story. For me, I'm aware of the event but other than that, I'm not really digging into or going out of my way to learn more about it. I assume CNN now has something to cover instead of the missing plane. I don't know because I don't watch any cable news. Sure, I can figure out why the story is the sort of thing they would cover to death but what I know is that some kid stabbed/shot six people and killed himself. He had mental health issues. Bought a firearm (have they said what it was yet because I'm sure we would all know if it was an evil Bushmaster). Tragic and terrible event but relatively small in the grand schemes of things.

Gun control seems to be a forced issue here. From my understanding he used some sort of bladed weapon for half of the killings. If he didn't have the gun would he have stopped at three? Would that have been less tragic? I've heard that the police were notified of his manifesto but too late. In a way it seems like the system worked but just too slowly. Perhaps the perpetrator should be required to hand deliver manifestos in the future to make sure they are taken seriously sooner. I really don't mean to make light of this but maybe this will serve as a lesson in the future and inspire those involved to act as quickly as possible when they have a potential warning.

I remember thinking during the discussion after Sandy Hook about the mental health issues raised. Certainly we want to prevent those with serious and dangerous issues from possessing firearms if the pose a threat to themselves or others but isn't anybody else concerned by some of the talk? Talks of databases and psychological testing prior to purchasing firearms. On the surface it seems like a no-brainer but in practice how do you administer it, trust it, maintain privacy, etc?

A few things I do know is that you aren't going to stop people from hurting and killing others. You aren't going to make guns disappear. Police don't exist to stop crime. An armed citizen has a far better chance to stop one of these murderers than a cop that isn't on the scene.

We can't stop it, but we can reduce it. No one has to loose their guns, but some people need to be denied access to them. You wouldn't give the keys to a drunks car while he's/she's drunk (if I recall correctly, you are liable for whatever he/she does if you do this in some states), why would you sell/give weapons to an unstable person?

Databases are needed, how else will any gun shop be able to check to see if someone doesn't have a record or isn't allowed to own a weapon? Thorough psychological examination is the only way (assuming that it actually works, which is another discussion entirely) to pick up on whether someone has any issues. Even with these measures, people will inevitable slip pass the system, but hopefully it will be a rare occurrence at the very most.

It is true that armed people, at the right time, place, state of mind, training have a greater chance of preventing or atleast containing a shooting spree situation. Assuming they aren't among those shot first, mistaken by authorities as the perpetrator, freeze up, shoot the wrong people, are shot by other armed people who believe they are the perpetrator... it's not as simple as "have gun, will travel".

I don't know why anybody here would do that. I got my information from primary sources, the L.A. Times, and random comments.



oh, my

Just read The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined instead.

I'm not arguing about pregnancy, I'm arguing about how much sex people have today. While there is nothing wrong with a healthy and plentiful sex life, it does become a hazard if you have multiple partners (obviously), which is probably what I'm trying to point out. Where I grew up, and in the social economical class I belonged to (sometimes middle class some times border line between lower and middle class) sex before 16ish/15ish wasn't something you heard about, and even today, asking anyone who I grew up with, waited around that age, sometimes more. People from lower economical classes tend to start out at younger ages, from what I've been told, probably as a result for a lack of other activities and education. Teen pregnancy is common in this class, but all in all, this is in México's northern region, which is quite different to it's mid region, where I have been living that last 4 years, and I have noted a disproportional amount of single moms around here. It is also still somewhat underdeveloped in certain parts, although major cities such as Querétaro are drastically different to it's neighboring towns, in all it's cultural aspects. In short, I grew up in an environment different to what appears to be today's general environment.

I'm just wondering since this doesn't really seem like it should be such a big story especially divorced from sensationalist media.



I'm genuinely interested in why this fact is unsettling for you.

...because attempting to train and arm a significant cross section of the ordinary population, and have them carry their guns around all the time would result in more shootings, not less? Why else?

Unless they were part of some 100% civil voluntary police force, maybe even wear uniforms? Just a simple thought.

Well, I'm certainly not talking about any regulated force or some sort of compulsory training and gun ownership. Merely the average citizen, lawfully possessing a firearm. The likelihood that any average person would ever need a gun on their person, let alone have to shoot one, is surely infinitesimally small. Just as I'm sure the likelihood of being killed in a mass shooting or even a very small one such the one in this thread. Still, logic dictates an armed citizen has a higher likelihood of survival and/or protecting others rather than waiting for any sort of law enforcement to respond.

I neither conceal nor open carry but I have thought about the duties of a responsible citizen and am open to the idea in the future.

You say it as if you're expecting things to go south down the walking dead aisle. While I support your position on allowing citizens to own firearms lawfully, I must admit I feel somewhat eerie reading how you consider it the responsibility of a citizen to protect others. While I consider it to be a virtue, and perhaps a self imposed responsibility, I would hate to force my own moral compass upon others, which would be a conflict of my own morals. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your post, perhaps I'm not.

What sort of logic?

Nothing quite so dramatic as The Walking Dead (although that show and others was on my mind with regards to Steven's point earlier, maybe I'll get to that later)! I accept as a given that if "bad" people were to somehow interject themselves into my life, a "first responder" might simply be someone that shows up to question witnesses and zip the body bags. I consider the likelihood of an event like that to be small but, still, I consider the likelihood. I think about if I am negligent to not have done all that I could to prepare for such an event. Of course there are numerous events people should prepare for. We should be prepared for a power outage of a short duration. We should be prepared for a weather event that can disrupt food supplies. Perhaps we need to prepare for a loss of income. And, perhaps, we need to be prepared for violence to meet us face to face.

In that context I consider my responsibility to protect mine and other innocents as I have the ability.

It's been a long time since I've seen FIXED in massassi, thought one was due >_>

Since the likelihood of actually needing a firearm is infinitesimal, what does that say about the people who do carry? They are either entertaining fantasies of tremendous violence, or living in mortal terror of it. Neither of these people should be armed.

'Thinking about the duties of a responsible citizen' falls into category #1, FYI.

Well, that is kind of the point. Aside from the humorous, and tragic when it happens, point that self inflicted wounds occur of course.

How are we talking about ccw, anyway?

It's basically guaranteed that someone looking to kill a lot of people is going to shop for weapons. Explosives are pretty tightly controlled already, and that leaves firearms.

Buying on the black market is already illegal, so that opens an opportunity for a plan to be discovered.
Mental health screening would create another opportunity for a plan to be discovered.
Requiring the same disclosures for private/show sales which already happen in first-hand retail would create another opportunity for a plan to be discovered.

It's not about restricting your right to buy firearms, it's about creating opportunities for attentive law enforcement officers to do their jobs. (And w.r.t. the **** ones, they'll probably end up murdering you in a no-knock on the wrong address whether you're armed or not.)

At the risk of sounding dismissive, the fact that these instances are so unlikely, wouldn't you agree that negates so much of the proposed solutions? Regardless, sure there must be a percentage of people that notion applies to. Well, instances like the one we're discussing in this thread demonstrate half of that. Mortal terror? I don't know, perhaps some but it would seem that you suggest anyone with a desire to carry fits in those two categories. It would seem to me that that is unlikely.

This is oversimplified but I used to carry a pocket knife and multi-tool everyday. I got out of that habit and even though I rarely need them, they are sorely missed when that occasion does occur. In a sense, I can see carrying a firearm to be the same sort of thing. If I were to carry one, I would never want to use it. If the need ever arises though, I'm sure I will regret not having one.

I don't want to get too much crosstalk going here but I want to focus on this for now. Most of the rest of what you stated is pretty easy to come to some agreement on, and it's not that this isn't, it's just I have some concern about this for a number of reasons.

I find compulsory mental health screening repugnant with regards to this issue. It's not that I want to see mentally ill people have free and unrestricted access but the broader precedent it sets. Who determines the fitness? Under what criteria are people subjected to it? What other choices might be subject to mental health screening?

Then again, I am informed on this not just by my personal beliefs but by my interpretation of the second amendment. You may not want to cater your rationale to that which would be understandable. With regards to the issue of gun control in general, I simply believe that issue is properly pursued through constitutional amendment because anything less just results in judicial back and forth until the Supremes rule (which of course can be overturned later).

What happens if you're the guy who has the mental breakdown?

That'd go over like a lead zeppelin.

That's not necessarily what mental health screening means.

Mental health screening mostly means they check your medical records to see if you've ever gone to a psychiatrist with funny stories about that time you barbecued a cat. Ideally it would also include a check to see if you live at the same address as someone who is likely to murder you and use your firearms to kill children, but I'd settle for the first one.

N.B. they are already supposed to do this but don't.

My right to be shot to death by a gun owner shall not be infringed.

So if we have medical records, they need to be screened. By whom? And what if there are no records? Or are our records now subject to collection? Where and how are they stored and who has access? And if a person has never had psychological evaluations, what then?

This just seems to be a much larger privacy issue and I know you're not the guy that's going to be drafting policy so don't feel obligated to answer all of this. It's just the alarming precedent this could set and potential for expansion and misuse is what has had me leery of this topic since Sandy Hook. This line of discussion should be quite familiar since many of us went through this years ago with the Patriot Act. Certainly we can all see the misuse that some of you warned about back then.

Possibly but bad amendments have been passed before. Of course bad is sometimes popular.

Like the Hanson Brothers?

How 'bout the same people screening your criminal background?

They already are, and great questions! I recommend asking the secret police and secret court, if you can figure out who any of them are.

I'm sure your records are handled with the utmost care and discretion that befits a job they have to pay high school drop-outs six figures to do.

If the whole idea's repugnant, why are you quibbling about implementation at all?

Not quibbling but because the pressumed answers lead to my view. Although I am curious to see if there are ideas that mitigate my concerns.

There are a couple times a week at minimum where I think that having a multitool with me would be handy.
However, I have lived at least a third of my maximum projected lifespan thus far and have never thought to myself: You know what would be useful right now... a firearm.
(Except when I'm visiting the range, of course.)
That isn't to say I've never considered purchasing my own firearm and getting a CCW, but there's never been any real justification other than vague niggling FUD and the idea that somehow it might make me safer in some highly theoretical situation.

The breakdown in your logic is that carrying a multitool around makes me want to saw/unscrew/ply/awl/hasp ALL the things.

I can't imagine any way that carrying a firearm around wouldn't have the same effect on the average citizen. Why spend all that money on a tool if you're never going to get the chance to use it? Why not escalate that potential mugging into a self-defense shooting just to be sure you won't get mugged? I'm a pretty solid shot (asterisk: factual statement), why should I wait until I'm sure someone's actually trying to attack me instead of just preventing them from doing so 15 yards out?

Which do you think would end up being harder to live with?
A) Being mugged and everyone walking away from it, or:
B) Killing someone.
C) Someone in your family and/or some random bystander getting killed by stray fire because you decided to escalate a situation into a gunfight.
D) The enormous throbbing persistent boner that everyone seems to assume is the golden reward for finally finding an excuse to draw your concealed weapon on someone.

And there's proof of this...
http://tbo.com/pasco-county/autopsy-theater-shooting-victim-held-hand-in-front-of-him-as-shot-fired-20140213/

Alright, that works for me. Let's ask some questions about the opposite side.

- Why shouldn't a person buying a firearm be subject to increased scrutiny?
- Why do you consider buying a firearm less noteworthy to law enforcement than the other activities they monitor, like who you call on your phone, the books you read, how much money you have and where you keep it, or how much fertilizer and benadryl you buy?
- Also, another question that leads you to the understanding that you already live in a totalitarian panopticon where every activity you undertake is reviewed by the plutocracy except, apparently, how many guns you own.


The only difference between the guns you own and the books you read is that rich white people aren't threatened by the guns. That's why nobody is ever going to do anything to prevent these mass shootings, because they're a poor person problem, and it's a great opportunity to sell even more guns to poor suckers.

Not to harp on this too much, but do you think there might be something a little suspect about a process in which you ask questions about something, presume that they have unsatisfying answers, and then form a strong opinion based on those presumed answers?

Alternatively, if you genuinely are willing to accept the possibility that there could be satisfying answers to these questions, and if those hypothetical answers could change your position, is it really right to say that you find the idea of mental health screening for gun sales repugnant?

That's a fair question, Michael. Generally speaking I think I do still feel that way but that's because I see the idea of mandatory screening for a purchase to be near one extreme of the argument. Requiring somebody to undergo further scrutiny if no other lawful reason to prevent a sale is present seems to be too much of an encroachment. I'm worried about the privacy issues as well of which Jon`C seems to suggest I am fine with in regards to so many other issues. That, of course, is not the case.

Of course the typical arguments of individual liberties versus public safety always apply. Perhaps we should look at how many of these sort of shootings occur, those committed by mentally ill people, and the instance of gun purchases by them. If the instances are as few as I suspect (I will put the effort into researching this later) why propose such over reaching policy?