School shooting

Open Forum
41

Loving the fact you used freerepublic as a link. The biggest collection of racist, reactionary headcases the internet has probably never seen. This thread on somethingawful keeps an eye on them and is definitely worth a look if you want to truly see into the head of paranoid white America.

The Free Republic, there is always more and it is always worse…

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3415552&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Unravellingmind if you cant see the simple link between access to guns and people using them…there is probably nothing more to be said.

42

@omad: I don’t know anything about The Free Republic, so maybe you can enlighten us all and tell us about it. I just Googled for statistics on criminals killed with guns and that’s what came up first, right next to the independent.org article. In fact, they’re BOTH copied from the San Francisco Examiner, meaning this is not content originally generated by this group. This should be easy for you to cross-reference:

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.” Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.” The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991-2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests — in addition to their arrests for other crimes.

The source doesn’t negate the facts. You seem to be very well versed in the art of logical fallacy, and in desperation, you try to tie me to some group I know nothing about. Perhaps you can generate something of substance and refute the argument. Prove it to me because I can’t tell you’re able to do anything but ramble about nothing at this point.

EDIT: Oh, I see. Quoting your link:

"Okay, but what does that mean to me?

Well, if you’re asking what “freep” means, it is a term for frequenters of the über-conservative internet forum FreeRepublic.com"

You seem to have me confused with someone else. Just because I support the 2A does NOT make me conservative or Republican! For some reason, I get this a lot from foreigners who seem to think the only people in the USA who own guns are conservative Republicans. I’m liberal on social and economic issues and vote that way as well. Republicans don’t like me because I support gay rights, I support ending prohibition on drugs, and I believe in the social safety net and welfare system. If you have spent any time at all around conservatives, you know their feelings on the welfare system (i.e. they want to GUT it) and gay rights. I’m also anti-war and Republicans are often very hawkish (until it’s Obama in office, then we shouldn’t be doing anything ever). I’ve voted for FAR more Democrats than I ever have Republicans, but I won’t vote for a Democrat that hates gun rights. That is the only time I vote for a Republican. I’ve never voted Republican in a Presidential election. BTW, contrary to conventional conservative thought, Obama has been great for gun owners and done nothing but increase our rights.

43

@unravelingmind

Look, disarming doesn’t mean the government going round to people’s houses and demanding their guns at gunpoint. You just ban the commercial sale of certain kinds of weapons. Guns are not drugs. Guns need to be manufactured. Presumably, gun manufacturers are not going to manufacture guns that they can’t sell. So the supply of new guns dries up.

What do you do with the guns already left in society? You ban the possession of certain classes of guns and ammunition, and you give people a certain amount of time to turn their guns in. After that, you don’t go door to door, but if a person is found to be in possession of a restricted gun or ammo, they would be charged with a crime. Yes, criminals will still have guns, but they will be arrested for various things, and they can be charged with possession of a restricted weapon along with their other crime, and that gun will be taken off the streets. It’ll take some time, but American society, including criminals, can be (largely) disarmed in this way.

Of course, it can’t happen unless there is broad social agreement that it should be done. And then there is the question of which weapons and type of ammo should be restricted.

As it is now, lots of dangerous things are restricted. Individuals can’t own surface-to-air rocket launchers (presumably), so why assault weapons? Societies have to make these choices. And you are right (I think) that significant numbers of Americans don’t want to disarm. So that’s that. I don’t expect anything to change in the near future.

44

In my opinion, this rampage and others like it offer a better argument for adding even more restrictions for the right to free speech. I assume 15 minutes of notoriety is a bigger factor in inducing a mentally unstable person to doing this kind of action than access to weapons.

Let us say that all press coverage outside if a 100 kilometre radius or by any media outlet with a readership of over 30 000 should be mandated by law to be limited to police releases. No bios of the perpetrator or the victims, no tales of heroism. no editorials. Let the names of these people fade quickly.

Do people who would like to further restrict access to firearms also agree to this?

As is probably clear (to all but a select few) , I think gun control is neither here nor there in relation to these sorts of cases. I do actually favour gun control in theory. But I think in a place like the USA it would do far more harm than good to try to enact these sorts of things. It is too ingrained in the culture.

45

I don’t agree dooo. I think gun control, that is greater control over these kind of attack weapons would make it more difficult for these nut cases to commit these atrocities, not impossible but more difficult. This would reduce the occurrences, although it would not eliminate them. It would also reduce the homicide rate. Greater control of hunting rifles, on the other hand, probably would have little effect on gun crimes.

It is interesting to look at the varying rates of homicide and gun versus knife homicide in the US.

It would appear that Louisiana, California, Maryland and a number of Southern States top the list for homicide with guns, whereas states like North Dakota, or Wyoming as well as Vermont are at the bottom. I wonder if it is the gun laws that account for the difference, I doubt it.

46

unravelingmind made a VERY interesting comment that nobody seems to have noticed :
“Are we to blame the individual or the inanimate object ?”

The main problem is not the gun, but the person who pulls the trigger.

47

@Dooo: “It is actually the first time I have used such a term in this forum so I challenge you to provide evidence for this “character trait”. However, it is not the first time I have been attacked without provocation by Friedemen. I can provide evidence on request.”

I have called one of your statements what it seemed to me, utter nonsense. Unlike you I havn’t called you any names.

I have said that no access to a gun for the shooter would have probably prevented this shooting. What is "strawman, off-topic, tangent etc. about that?

And finally, what is so difficult in remembering a 10 letter name, mine, and reproducing it correctly in writing? You are a teacher for God’s sake.

48

My thoughts and prayers go to the victims.

49

@ Friedemann

What has made you this touchy and hostile? China not what you thought it would be?

I am not even going to try to address your selective memory about our exchange. I doubt anyone is interested but I suggest reading back if you want to know the real story.

50

Here is a link to a very disturbing anecdote about mental illness in kids. As a father of 2 young children who are about to join the school system, it scares the hell out of me.

“I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.”

51

In my opinion, mental illness of the sort described in the article boils down to people who are compelled by intellect or curiosity to question societal norms but lack the strategic or social skills to do it in an grounded realistic way. In that sense to some extent we are all mentally " ill". The erratic behaviour is not the cause but the effect of this frustrating predicament.

If my kids act in the way described in the article, (and all kids I have ever met do to a certain extent), in a sense I am happy because ti shows there is something vital about their intellect. It is however my duty to instruct them to identify their goals and achieve them. This is a l-o-o-o-o-ng and sometimes tedious process. As a parent my first role is to model this sort of grounded approach to life.

52

Friedemann: Why don’t you like the electoral college?

53

I noticed that most people commenting on this American issue are not themselves Americans. This is not in itself a problem, but it can turn into a problem when, as is often the case when non-Americans discuss America, people start to mistake arrogance for sophistication. Take, for instance, the gentleman’s comments above:

“They will kill, with knives, fists, teeth, whatever that’s not taken away.
I don’t mean to insult the citizens of US in any way. My opinion is that I’m not fond of the US government, that’s all. I’d say the blame is on the government, which influenced the people, and NOT to blame the firearms entirely.”

This, as well as the rest of the comment, is supposed to be the words of the sophisticated cosmopolitan, who are always self-proclaimed experts on world affairs and American society. And yet the entire comment is borderline illiterate. I say “borderline” because it appears to be written in some form of English; one cannot be sure. But many Americans have come to expect this kind of “analysis” from keyboard warriors. I keep hearing how all Americans are supposed to be these boorish, chauvinistic louts yelling “we’re number 1!”, when in fact all the crudeness on this thread is coming from non-Americans. I have lived in the United States my whole life–in New York, to boot–and have never once seen or heard an American shout “we’re number 1,” especially in the presence of a foreigner, whom we welcome (especially the illegal ones, whom we provide with a path to citizenship even after they’ve broken the law) and in whose cultures we are genuinely interested. I grow weary of hearing how my family and I are supposed to be a part of this xenophobic death cult called America, and yet I’ve traveled this country and have met not one person who conforms to this ridiculous stereotype. Those who massacre others in this country, I can assure you, neither care about nor know anything about George Bush’s foreign policy, or about Operation Iraqi Freedom, or about NATO, or about the Panama Canal Treaties. These are sick people–sick in more ways than one. Most are in their early 20s…they kill because they are mentally ill, not because they’re not enlightened enough to have read Chomsky.

I am a supporter of law-abiding citizens owning certain types of weapons. That said, I welcome the opinion of non-US citizens like Bortrun, Friedemann, and Steve, who strike me supremely intelligent and civil people. I always learn from their comments. I do not, however, welcome the sub-literate rantings of people who think they know my country but who in fact know only the slogans they believe to be original and creative.

54

I think the electoral college system is outdated because it can produce a winner who has not won the popular vote. Furthermore it reduces the campaign to only a couple of swing states.

There are other issues though which may not be constitutional. The most important in my opinion is campaign financing and the fact that politicians are owned by corporate interests.

55

Friedemann.

Do you know the background of the electoral college system?

Would you agree that the statement “politicians are owned by corporate interests” is a bit of hyperbole which sort of reduces the credibility of your whole post. It is the absolute nature of many of your comments that renders them less serious, in my view.

I mean is this all politicians, some, many? Democrats, Republicans, Independents? Owned? or just influenced by? Do corporate and union and other interest groups not exert influence on politicians in your country, or other countries? Do you know whether this influence is greater in the US than elsewhere, especially the influence of “corporate interests”.

56

If the “corporate interest” talking point were even remotely true, then the Cold War never would have ended. After the Soviet Union dissolved, some of the biggest military-connected companies in the U.S. took huuuuge hits (Grumman, the largest defense contractor in the nation, shut down tons of plants and many jobs were lost). The military was scaled back and the CIA (yes, the CIA) scaled back as well. The word “corporation,” too has to stop being employed as some kind of a priori insult, as though it ends the conversation by virtue of something being a “corporation,” kind of like the word “Nazi” or “child molester.”

57

@Steve

I would imagine that the electoral college system originated in a time where the vastness of the country was a particular challenge and therefore evolved around that special set of circumstances.

The “owned” statement is of course a simplification for the sake of brevity but if you look at the vast amount of money that politicians from both parties depend on to finance their campaigns it is clear that this will influence politicians’ actions once they are in power. The tax code in the US is so complicated at least partly because well paid lobbyists work hard to achieve loopholes and special rules and exemptions for their clients. Another problem are the revolving doors between congress and the lobby industry.

If you find my comments too absolutist, have a look at Bennys latest post on what he thinks about the US, I found it an interesting read by the way. Might also be interesting debate fodder for your hangout.

@rwargas22:
I am not saying that all industries get their way all the time but lobbyists certainly wield an enormous influence. One example is the food industry where a national health crisis is unfolding at least partly because of the way food is produced and marketed in the US.

58

@rwargas

I agree. Corporate has become a bad word, yet we live better, longer and healthier lives today than ever. Mostly this is thanks to corporations. There is no successful country, from the point of view of standard of living, health, education, freedom etc. that does not have a strong corporate sector employing people, developing new products, paying taxes etc… Unfortunately the school system seems to be dominated by people who want to propagate the idea that only the public sector or the “not for profit” sector is morally valid. Strange, to say the least. Not for profit means no taxes. And as I have said before I prefer a businessman out for profit to an idealist out to propagate ideas.Idealists have been more dangerous in our history.

@friedemann

I am not American and therefore do not really worry too much about how they elect their presidents. i suspect, however, that the electoral college system was set up to protect the rights of states vis a vis the central government. I don’t know. However, it is not a major inconvenience. In Canada, and perhaps most “first past the post” electoral systems, a Prime Minister can have absolute power with less than 40% of the popular vote. And no member of his party can vote against the government. I think there are many things in the US system that are admirable. There is no perfect system, and if there were I would be very wary of it.

I don’t read Benny’s posts but will be talking to him tomorrow. I know there is an awful lot of knee jerk anti-Americanism out there, and I find it very annoying.

Lobbyists wield influence, all lobbies, not just corporate lobbies. With regard to the food industry, here you deliver another friedemannism, making some sweeping statement with the greatest of confidence when the truth is much more complex. What are you referring to? Obesity?What would you do? Ban certain popular foods? Note that in the US, Hispanics live to an average of 80 ( longer than Germans BTW) while whites live to 78 and blacks to 73, all with the same food products available.

59

Steve,

yes, I was referring to the obesity epidemic. You are right in that obesity is a complex issue but the way we produce and market food is a big component to it. Measures I think would make sense include:

  • restricting marketing for fast food and especially soft drinks, especially to children and teens.
  • addressing the subsidy schemes that favor unhealthy and environmentally questionable food (grains, meat, sugar) over vegetable and fruits.
  • yes, maybe even banning certain foods, after all we ban a lot of harmful substances in our societies.

There seems to be a growing consensus among scientists that the increased sugar consumption since the 70ies might be the biggest culprit responsible for the obesity crisis. And yes, you are right, obesity is on the rise everywhere in sync with the spreading of a certain diet. I have been to India a lot this year and was really shocked how many overweight people there are in India which is on average still a relatively poor country.

Longevity and obesity prevalence vary among different ethnic groups and I suspect that what they actually eat (as opposed to the range of food available) has a lot to do with that. Remember that the diet varies among different socio economic groups. And then there are always people that are blessed like yourself with good genes (yet another assumption!) and who never have to struggle with obesity.

60

ad rwargas 22: (…) I noticed that most people commenting on this American issue are not themselves Americans. This is not in itself a problem, but it can turn into a problem when, as is often the case when non-Americans discuss America, people start to mistake arrogance for sophistication. (…)

Well, I guess this also applies to a lot of Americans talking about other countries. Americans aren’t exactly shy either when it comes to “judging” others, calling entire nations “rogue states” for example or suggesting that there is a “good new Europe” (countries supporting the attack on Iraq) and an “ugly old Europe” (countries speaking out against the invasion). And I have repeatedly heard Americans talk about European affairs in a way that had me flubbergasted due to an almost scary lack of information (at least that’s the way I perceived it). However, I would never suggest that Americans are not supposed to engage in discussions about Europe - North Americans normally hold freedom of speech in extremely high esteem (to a degree where most Europeans have trouble following their rationale), so generally speaking it should not be a problem for us non-Americans to take part in this discussion and I’m glad that in essence you seem to share this opinion.

Just like Europeans sometimes get defensive when Americans “meddle” with their way of life, quite a few Americans seem to have the same reaction. Personally, I don’t care where a person comes from when talking to him or her about a specific topic. As long as people are well informed and/or present their arguments in a way that allows for a respectful discussion I don’t see any harm when “outsiders” raise their voices.

Besides, when the US decide “to take action” on a global level it does concern many more people than just Americans. This is not the question at issue here, but it may explain why people are more concerned about US policies in general than they are when it comes to other countries.

(…) and have never once seen or heard an American shout “we’re number 1,” (…)

Well, Obama (and I’m sure he is not the only one) repeatedly referred in his speeches to the US as “the best country in the world”. Now, if that is not a number 1, I don’t know what is.
If you read through newspapers, magazines, online articles you will frequently come across Americans using the term “best country in the world” when referring to the US - just try google. I don’t mind. There are worse things in life than being happy to live in the country where you reside and when you think it is the best of all countries, so much the better, as long as you don’t turn this conviction into some sort of “supremacy” thinking.

I neither hate the US nor do I hold any grudges against individual US citizens, certainly not on the basis of crimes committed by utterly sick people. I have been to the States several times and I have more than once said that it is without any doubt one of my favourite destinations for a holiday: great landscape, exciting cities and generally speaking very friendly and extremely helpful people.

On more than one occasion I have “defended” the US when people call Americans a people without any culture or depict them as superficial and ignorant. I’d rather have the supposedly superficial friendliness of most Americans than open hostility or rudeness both of which are not that uncommon in quite a few other places I have been to.

I have American friends who have been living here in Austria for many years and who would put lots of Europeans (including Austrians) to shame when it comes to their knowledge and understanding of European and/or Austrian history and politics. It is ridiculous to judge an entire nation or even a small group (be it on ethnic, cultural, religious or any other premises) based on the actions of some criminals. Having said this, I don’t think that most outsiders would do that anyway.

Just because I and other non-Americans take a critical stance when it comes to certain issues, this does not mean we are anti-American as it is sometimes suggested. I am often confronted with a similar situation when I criticize the policy of the Israeli government and am then reproached with being anti-semitic. That is simply ridiculous.

So, I hope comments from “outsiders” will still be allowed (if not welcomed) in this forum, just as I am interested in learning what non-Europeans think about Europe. There are many topics that are worth being discussed. Besides, since this is a language forum they may also be useful for people wanting to practise their German, French, etc. I don’t mind talking about these issues in German with anybody who is interested in them.

Finally, to all those who think that some in this thread are just out to “slander” the US. I don’t think this is true. While there certainly are some people who generalize about the US as much as others generalize when they talk about other countries, most of us “outsiders” are genuinely interested in a serious discussion.