27 dead in Newtown, Conn. school shooting

I think I saw a post few pages back. It's the society's stigma that if you have to see psychiatrist, you have problems and should be shunned, forever.

Sure, there's the issue of cost. But that aside, there are people who still thinks religion can cure everything.

But at the same time, people just need an outlet to deal with their pressure, their stress, and the lack of being outcasted by people.

tl;dr:
people have problems but society stigmatize that you have to fake it like you're happy cheerios in milk and banana

 

I didn't say they should be shunned, forever or even shot but if you coming with a gun or something in to a school with the intent to kill people someone need to be onsite that can help faster then the police can get every second counts.

And I apologize if someone had already said something like that.

 

But why is it even up for debate which way is harder to kill people when we could just find a way to prevent massacres altogether?

(well, obviously you can't prevent massacres, but you can do things to minimize the likelihood)

 

Can anyone explain to me why guns are so important that they necessitate all this debate?

 

I didn't say "you", I said "social stigma" lol.

btw, what happened to school security? #missed that part of news

 

ATF agents, law enforcement, FBI, CIA, and military sharpshooters already have all pointed out that action is faster than reaction. arming teachings wont stop children from being killed by lunatics because the gunman always has the advantage over anyone with a gun who might try to defend.

isreal is the only country on earth that I am aware of that arms teachers/administrators, and guess what; no teacher has succedded in stopping an attack. the teachers/administrators are the first killed. the reason only 8 people have died was because the teachers are a last defence, and isreal is an active warzone/terrorisem zone, and technically, there are multiple levels of security at each school. gunmen still get through, and no teacher has yet to protect their students with their own guns.

in futurama there was a episode that highlighted the 'more guns will protect us from the guns that are already there' arguement. When the brainspawn came, and there was a train crash, the govener, seeing that people were not going to be able to get to work, sent more trains down the line, where they crashed into the first train.

you dont solve a problem by making it bigger. you solve a problem by making it harder to pull off.

 

Right. So then, why are we not tackling the real, supposed roots of the problem (i.e. the things causing people to turn to violence) rather than the methods in which they're carried out?

I wholeheartedly believe it's much more intelligent to solve a problem by making it harder to pull off, like you said. So let's take it up a notch and make it so that nobody needs to pull it off.

Problem solved, right?

 

I am completely going to ignore the debate going on in this thread, and instead post the beautiful tribute that The Voice did in remembrance of the victims of this tragedy.

[YOUTUBE]IO64urOFNaY[/YOUTUBE]

 

But that last bit is exactly my point.
There's no reason it shoudln't be discussed now.
It needs to adressed as soon as possible.

I really do not understand that you think the answer to gun violence is to have more people with guns.

---------- Post added 19th Dec 2012 at 06:01 AM ----------

And one way of decreasing the likelyhood is the make it difficult for people to have to means to massacre.

 

I didn't create this (& don't know who did),
just saw it and grabbed a pic since I had my camera with me
thought it was a nice tribute...

(hopefully the image shows)

 

Exactly. If now is not the time, then when? When it happens again? But then that also won't be the time.

 

We should be afraid if outlawing guns works as well as the Prohibition...

I need to say this somewhere, sorry: It infuriates me that people think something so simple as outlawing guns will magically prevent shootings.

 

it should be noted that most gun violence is not commited by people who have mental health issues. there is an assumption that it is because of the tuscan shootings, aurora, and newtown, but most violent criminals who maim or kill with a gun are not mentally or emotionally unstable.

yes we need to deal with the mental health issue, but the real root of the problem is that the guns are easy to get, and efforts to sink up mental health records with background checks (around 60% of all gun sales in america lack a background check because of loopholes) have been thwarted by gun rights lunatics.

at the end of the day, it also becomes the responciblity of families to take into account their mentally and emotionally ill family members, and not keep guns in the house.

 

Before this gets too far away, I'd like to fight violence with a little education.

Guns are so important because, as I've said before and I'll say again, they ARE freedom, manifest in metal. In a more ominous tone, they are also power. Seeing how we restrict the rights of and imprison violent individuals, freedom and power can be dangerous, deadly, and even world-changing. However, if power and freedom stay mostly in the hands of the people, the country will be conducive to happiness and prosperity. On the other hand, if the government takes the guns away from law-abiding citizens as well, they hoard all the freedom and power for themselves, effectively turning us into a nation of serfs fit only to serve the lords.

Now, do I believe they WILL do that? Not necessarily, but somebody along the line will be corrupt and cunning enough to chip away at our rights slowly but surely. People used guns to create our country (by casting off a poorly-run and greedy government they called tyranny, no less), and they have kept America what it is for centuries. Take that away, and our lives, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and identity all go with them.

 

It amazes me people really try to dismiss it out of hand or create ludicrous analogies like the prohibition.

 

well, its not a proper analogy, but there are a few slivers of truth: if you outlaw extended magazines, and assualt weapons, people will find a way to get them. when we outlawed booze, people found a way to get drunk (speakeasys).

but that doesn't invalidate the point that in america, it is easier to buy a assualt weapon as a convicted felon or mentally unstable person than it is to get a credit card, and it is fairly easy to get a credit card.

it comes down to 'how easy do we want to make mass murder'?

the 2nd ammendment says you have the right to own a musket rifle, because that is all that existed at the time. the nra has revised that to mean 'any weapon'.

 

It's flawed argument to begin with because by that same logic we should decriminalise murder as people still continue to commit murder.

As I understand it grants the right to the people to form an armed militia against opressors, not own a collection of guns for defense against burglars or for sport.

 

But by that logic, we need to minimize the availability every single potential weapon that could be used in a massacre. Obviously that's not feasible nor efficient. Gun control is still likely beneficial to the overall cause, but I feel that addressing the roots of the problem (i.e. what causes people to commit massacres) is more important.

While what you said is definitely valid, when I meant "root causes" I figured there would be other things, likely more significant than mental health (i.e. poverty, social standing, employment rates, demographics, etc.) that dictate violence of different types.

 

so it's basically a paranoid american thing?

 

I wouldn't say it's paranoid, because that would imply I think a civil war is coming soon. I am not so sure about that.

However, it is a symbolic presence of power in the hands of the people. It was written into the Constitution so that we could defend ourselves from threats without external help, and I don't think any amount of shootings will change my mind that people overall should still be trusted with guns.