Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Dead kids on the news in US
123
Dead kids on the news in US
2012-12-14, 12:56 PM #1
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1214/Elementary-school-shooting-in-Connecticut-suspected-gunman-dead

I will refrain from really commenting. Yet.

:psyduck:
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2012-12-14, 12:58 PM #2
yeah. this is REALLY terrible. :(
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2012-12-14, 1:00 PM #3
Local radio has already gone ahead and blamed video games, I'm in Canada so wtf people.
2012-12-14, 2:58 PM #4
Somebody remind me which video games glorify murder suicide?

The idea is a about as stupid as blaming Columbine on Doom.
2012-12-14, 3:08 PM #5
i heard some guy on the news mentioning gun control, video games, movies, tv shows...

let's blame everything but the ******* that did it as we always do so we can avoid the facts we don't want to face about ourselves
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2012-12-14, 3:25 PM #6
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Somebody remind me which video games glorify murder suicide?

The idea is a about as stupid as blaming Columbine on Doom.


The entire media's nonstop exploitation of the hysteria sure as hell does, though. We've basically promised every bitter fool out there that if they shoot a few innocent people they can be guaranteed to leave a legacy of infamy.
2012-12-14, 4:30 PM #7
At least we can all agree that the press harassing traumatized 8 year olds is way over the line.
2012-12-14, 5:03 PM #8
Originally posted by Jon`C:
At least we can all agree that the press harassing traumatized 8 year olds is way over the line.


I think interviewing/taping children should be illegal until age 16 or something, without a very long, tedious contract (for movie/regular TV industry purposes). Or at least some sort of horrendous punishment for this. Since apparently the media doesn't care how unethical it is.
2012-12-14, 5:19 PM #9
Nope they don't, they literally don't, with rare exceptions "journalists" are subhuman monsters.

@Mrscrappy look at this ****wad. "If I'm not allowed to traumatize children for money it means we all lose our first amendment rights!!"
2012-12-14, 6:30 PM #10
Never going to happen here in the US:

But interesting fact I haven't heard before, but a lot of people are bringing up now in the wake of this most recent shooting.

Israel had a problem with attacks on schools (tho I think by rebels or whatever, organized - not crazy ****ers ) and started requiring educators or whatever be armed with semi-auto weapons.

Ya. No more school attacks.
2012-12-14, 8:04 PM #11
Some CNN "Reporter" found a name that they believed to be the shooter, and published it.
Leading to an entirely unconnected family being harrassed by the media.
US media is ****ing disgusting.
E: Holy **** it's literal "But if the teachers just had guns!". I thought... I thought it was a myth.
2012-12-14, 8:25 PM #12
It's pretty sad when the general attitude in America is one of more guns = less violence. I don't know how we ended up with such ass-backward logic.
>>untie shoes
2012-12-14, 8:28 PM #13
"America would be better if only it were a paranoid theocracy that worships violence." <- things I am consistently surprised that real people believe.
2012-12-14, 8:44 PM #14
Originally posted by Antony:
It's pretty sad when the general attitude in America is one of more guns = less violence. I don't know how we ended up with such ass-backward logic.


In Israel, I heard that schoolteachers are armed.
2012-12-14, 8:50 PM #15
Israel also bulldozes residential buildings if they believe terrorists are hidden inside.
>>untie shoes
2012-12-14, 8:51 PM #16
Originally posted by Antony:
It's pretty sad when the general attitude in America is one of more guns = less violence. I don't know how we ended up with such ass-backward logic.

I'm sure he'll be back soon with some poorly cited "stats" to back up his moronic beliefs.
Please close the thread before he does, out of respect for the dead.
2012-12-14, 8:57 PM #17
I already gave you the "stat", and I don't have any beliefs on the matter.
2012-12-14, 8:59 PM #18
What? I meant squirrel king.
2012-12-14, 9:05 PM #19
Originally posted by Tibby:
What? I meant squirrel king.


I was confused, sorry.
2012-12-14, 9:07 PM #20
I was even more confused than I'd thought. I haven't felt this dumb since jr. high when I told a joke back to the guy I heard it from 5 minutes earlier.

Edit: logic polarity error.
2012-12-14, 9:12 PM #21
Originally posted by Antony:
Israel also bulldozes residential buildings if they believe terrorists are hidden inside.

What a coincidence, Israel also bulldozes residential buildings if they want more land to build residential buildings on.
2012-12-15, 1:29 AM #22
Originally posted by Antony:
It's pretty sad when the general attitude in America is one of more guns = less violence. I don't know how we ended up with such ass-backward logic.


I really don't think that more guns would lead to less violence, especially in a case like this. While there is obviously a great deal about what happened and why that we still don't know it at least SEEMS apparent that this guy would not have been dissuaded if the teachers were armed. While that tactic probably would work against an organized group, it almost certainly would not against guys like this and the perpetrators of other school shootings whos entire plan is to take out as many as they can before they themselves die.

On the flip side to that though, I also really doubt there is much that can realistically be done short of TSA style screening to keep things like this from happening.
Yes gun control would probably keep good law abiding people from having guns. but if outlawing things kept bad people from getting their hands on them then prohibition and the "war on drugs" would have worked. Put simply, if someone REALLY wants to get a gun, they will figure out a way, and it probably wont really be that hard. Even if you were able to completely eliminate guns from the picture, bombs made from readily available material have been used in these same kinds of attacks such as in columbine and then there is the case of Bath Township, Michigan in 1927.

Certainly not saying that nothing should be done, just that I really don't think the usual ideas in the "call to action" that inevitably takes place after these tragedies will work accomplish much other than furthering this or that sides political agenda. which is really ****ty, but also probably true.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2012-12-15, 1:56 AM #23
Originally posted by Darth_Alran:
Yes gun control would probably keep good law abiding people from having guns. but if outlawing things kept bad people from getting their hands on them then prohibition and the "war on drugs" would have worked. Put simply, if someone REALLY wants to get a gun, they will figure out a way, and it probably wont really be that hard.
This is a false argument. I'm not blaming you for making it, because the NRA has been pushing this argument for years, but it's false nonetheless.

We aren't talking about organized crime, career criminals who know the right people to buy stolen or smuggled guns. We're talking about people with severe untreated mental illnesses, people who their friends describe as dangerously unstable, who are legally able to enter a store and purchase firearms with no effective mental health screening. These are people unstable enough that career criminals aren't even going to do business with them because of the risk.

There is no credible argument against mental health screenings which does not end with "so that all these armed mental cases will scare the sane ones into buying guns too".
2012-12-15, 2:00 AM #24
I'd also like to point out that legislation requiring mental health screenings was tabled after the Tucson and Aurora massacres. It was shot down by both Democrats and Republicans because the rich people on K Street are more important than families and children.

You want to know what encourages these people to kill? Having even more insane people in congress who reinforce their delusions every ****ing day.
2012-12-15, 6:11 AM #25
Why do people also act like there's a black market gun dealer right around every corner?

I'm sure that restricting gun ownership wouldn't completely eliminate gun violence, but you have to believe it would decrease it.
>>untie shoes
2012-12-15, 6:18 AM #26
Originally posted by DrkJedi82:
i heard some guy on the news mentioning gun control, video games, movies, tv shows...

let's blame everything but the ******* that did it as we always do so we can avoid the facts we don't want to face about ourselves

Yeah let's ban guns and fix absolutely nothing!

Hell, just look at China. Nasty school knife attacks.
2012-12-15, 6:24 AM #27
No one is suggesting that gun regulations are going to "fix everything".

Which would you prefer: A man enters a school with a knife and wounds 20-some odd kids. Or, a man enters a school with a gun and kills 20-some odd kids.

Guns are designed to kill things. End of story. I don't care if you use your guns for recreation. You can do like people in major cities and leave your damned guns at the range in a safe, that way you can go to a controlled environment and shoot whatever you want to.
>>untie shoes
2012-12-15, 7:15 AM #28
Originally posted by Reid:
Yeah let's ban guns and fix absolutely nothing!

Hell, just look at China. Nasty school knife attacks.

Umm,

1. Putting in some gun control doesn't mean banning guns.
2. It tends to help.
nope.
2012-12-15, 8:05 AM #29
Originally posted by Jon`C:
This is a false argument. I'm not blaming you for making it, because the NRA has been pushing this argument for years, but it's false nonetheless.

We aren't talking about organized crime, career criminals who know the right people to buy stolen or smuggled guns. We're talking about people with severe untreated mental illnesses, people who their friends describe as dangerously unstable, who are legally able to enter a store and purchase firearms with no effective mental health screening. These are people unstable enough that career criminals aren't even going to do business with them because of the risk.

There is no credible argument against mental health screenings which does not end with "so that all these armed mental cases will scare the sane ones into buying guns too".


I highly, highly doubt a mental health screening would reduce the number of shootings like these. From what I remember, nearly every such shooting (outside of the Batman shooting) the guns didn't even belong to the shooters.
2012-12-15, 8:40 AM #30
Originally posted by Antony:
Why do people also act like there's a black market gun dealer right around every corner?

I'm sure that restricting gun ownership wouldn't completely eliminate gun violence, but you have to believe it would decrease it.


As CM just pointed out, it's much easier to find a friend or family member who has a gun to borrow or steal than to find a black market dealer. In which case the only actually "effective" gun control is things like: keep your gun secured, or, don't lend your gun to unstable friends.

Also, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2012-12-15, 10:36 AM #31
Originally posted by Dormouse:
As CM just pointed out, it's much easier to find a friend or family member who has a gun to borrow or steal than to find a black market dealer. In which case the only actually "effective" gun control is things like: keep your gun secured, or, don't lend your gun to unstable friends.

Also, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx


Well I don't think that's a valid reason not to strengthen or enforce mental health screening. Borrowing/Stealing/Buying Illegally are all possible additional deterrents to anyone considering murder. Also the link you posted is missing a few states (ex: Alaska). I don't know if that is because those states have no laws prohibiting mentally ill from owning guns or their research is just incomplete.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2012-12-15, 11:18 AM #32
Originally posted by Reid:
Hell, just look at China. Nasty school knife attacks.


22 injured, 26 dead. Potato, potahto.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2012-12-15, 11:26 AM #33
Some people are just messed up. Some shoot people, some cut, some kidnap and rape, some molest.

Laws and regulations won't change that.

Let's mourn and move on.

maybe armed teachers would reduce things like this. Maybe teacher shootings would go up. I think we need to stop breeding so much, that would help
2012-12-15, 12:52 PM #34
Originally posted by Squirrel King:
Laws and regulations won't change that.


Laws may not stop those things completely, but they can certainly have an effect.
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2012-12-15, 3:46 PM #35
Originally posted by Jon`C:
This is a false argument. I'm not blaming you for making it, because the NRA has been pushing this argument for years, but it's false nonetheless.


so that's how cherry picking works!
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2012-12-15, 5:35 PM #36
The UK experienced a primary school massacre back in the 90s (Dunblane - 18 dead of which 16 were children all under the age of 7). We responded by tightening our gun control laws. Handguns in most forms were banned and the rules on the ownership of guns generally was made even stricter (you need a license, you must show that you have a suitable and secure locker for your weapons). We still have criminal gangs with guns in our cities but our homicidal nutjobs who just want to kill indiscriminately typically crop up with knives. To get a gun they either need to go through the lengthy firearm licensing process, need to convince someone they know to endanger their firearm license and risk jail by giving them access to their weapon (in both cases they're only likely to get hold of a shotgun or hunting rifle) or they'd need to have underworld connections. That severely limits the ability of the crazies to get hold of what is for them essentially a harm multiplier.

And yes, I know the horse has already bolted the stable in terms of ever managing to get gun control down to that level in America but it does at least show that gun control makes a difference within the narrow terms of the frequency and scale of mass murders.
2012-12-15, 6:14 PM #37
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
I highly, highly doubt a mental health screening would reduce the number of shootings like these. From what I remember, nearly every such shooting (outside of the Batman shooting) the guns didn't even belong to the shooters.
Loughner also bought his pistol from Sportsman's Warehouse, and Cho legally purchased both of the guns he used. All three of these people, by the way, had recorded histories of mental illnesses. I'm sure the statistics get skewed more when you're talking about high school shootings, but of course kids aren't buying their own guns.

And even if you are right, all it means is that you should do mental health screenings as a part of a firearms licensing program, and create legal penalties for making firearms available to people who don't have such licenses (or storing them unsafely).

Originally posted by Darth_Alran:
so that's how cherry picking works!
No, it's not. The NRA's argument against gun control and mental health screening is that it's not a complete solution, so therefore it's totally ineffective and nothing should be done! I'm not pretending that it is a complete solution, but I am saying that these measures will reduce gun violence perpetrated by the mentally ill. Standing up and screeching that "WELL IF IT WON'T COMPLETELY SOLVE THE PROBLEM THEN WE SHOULD DO NOTHING" is just moronic.

If I were cherry picking I would be ignoring the Toronto mall shooting from earlier this year. That was organized crime, and obviously Canada's gun control laws couldn't have prevented it.

On the other hand, Cho, Loughner, and Holmes all had recorded histories of mental illness. So the real question is, how many times are you going to tolerate these kinds of shootings before you figure out that doing nothing isn't going to solve the problem?
2012-12-15, 8:22 PM #38
yes, but i never said i was against mental health screening. in fact i am rather far off from the NRA's argument (which i honestly had not even heard about till you told me... just now.)

the cherry picking bit was in regard to my own statements where you kind of latched on to the part you quoted and left out or didn't see the part where i said
Quote:
Certainly not saying that nothing should be done, just that I really don't think the usual ideas in the "call to action" that inevitably takes place after these tragedies will work accomplish much other than furthering this or that sides political agenda. which is really ****ty, but also probably true.


or i may have been a little too vague in that part. when i said
Quote:
usual ideas in the "call to action"
i was referring to the almost inevitable call to outright ban firearms that some activists seem to whip out whenever there is a tragedy like this.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2012-12-15, 8:42 PM #39
On a completely different note. With all the publicity given to the shooter by the sensationalist media, I think it is important to remember the victims. Sorry if this comes off as inappropriate, but i think its important to remember that these were real people.

Charlotte Bacon. age 6

Daniel Bardon. age 7

Rachel Davino. age 29

Olivia Engel. age 6

Josephine Gay. age 7

Ana M Marquez-Green. age 6

Dylan Hockley. age 6

Dawn Hoclsprung. age 47

Madeline F. Hsu. age, 6

Catherine V Hubbard. age 6

Chase Kowalski. age 7

Jesse Lewis. age 6

James Mattioli. age 6

Grace Mcdonnell. age 7

Anne Marie Murphy. age 52

Emilie Parker. age 6

Jack Pinto. age 6

Noah Ponzer. age 6

Caroline Previdi. age 6

Jessica Rekos. age 6

Avielle Richman. age 6

Lauren Russeau. age 30

Mary Sherlach. age 56

Victoria Soto. age 27

Benjamin Wheeler. age 6

Allison N Wyatt. age 6
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2012-12-16, 2:03 AM #40
That is a very sad and depressing list indeed
You can't judge a book by it's file size
123

↑ Up to the top!