Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

ComeToTX · July 2012

pandora wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

pandora wrote:

People have opinions from past experiences, from drawing similarities, from knowledge
of a particular subject.

It's only opinions...
We certainly have some here on this subject who have opinions ...

he is a cold blooded killer with a hate for people, blood lust
when no one knows that.

It's just an opinion.
Seems it's more those making something out of a difference of opinion ...

i use the word or cold murderer or has mental problem
and is an opinion that has no base no matter which of 2 is the truth..
i cant do diagnose from the sofa of my house just watching the news.
if some of you in the thread can do a diagnose via tv screen,...
then,all the doctors out there that see patient in PERSON every day must go burn their diplomas..

oh Dimi really? you of all people know you judge situations as well
and give opinions speculate etc...
this based on your life experiences knowledge

that is all this is and it it based on the same critea everyones uses to do just that,
to have an opinion or speculate.

It is just opinions like I said seems difference of opinion to be more of the deciding factor.

In my opinion a killer with mental disease is not a cold blood murderer and to this layman
he appears to fit the bill of a young man with onset mental illness.

This subject that should be addressed , as in the Gifford shooting,
Loughner who is now diagnosed after the fact.
What do we take from that?
Lets do something before the fact, make help readily available for loved ones to stop
this from happening in the future.

We are learning much about illness through these incidents
just as we are learning about pedophiles and how the prey.
Awareness and action is needed to get help to those who need it
before victims are made.

read the article i just posted. these mentally ill people shouldn't be able to buy guns at least. surely you agree with that...?

pandora · July 2012

g under p wrote:

chadwick wrote:

horse doodoo
you have all the choices in the world

sure forgiveness they say weighs heavy not allowing healing
screw it aint forgiving shit if someone burst into a theater and killed a dozen people one being my brother, mom, dad, girlfriend, whichever.

i'd have to lock myself up to avoid blowing that person's head off which would put me in prison possibly. but i am not going to forgive anyone for killing my people. i will refuse to understand them

chadwick wrote:

pandora wrote:

I see that ...

pandora,
they just murdered my wife and son. why the hell would i forgive that monster? illness made him do it! says the doctors. i do not give a shit what they have to say. less than a week after the event i aint ready to forgive and may never ever forgive and understand their cruelty which ruined my life

Chadwick i totally understand your point....my ex committed adultry i forgave her for that why because it was done between the two of us, i can handle that. However, she also abused my daughter when she was 3 years old because we were separated and she wanted us to get back together while putting my daughter through some terrrible horrors. I gained full custody except for 1 month in the summers.

I never forgave her for the abuse of my daughter and now she acts as if it never happened. i have no empathy for her to abuse an innocent 3 year old who was terrified for 3 months till I found out and put an immediate stop to it. This summer will be the very last regardless of what the courts has written...my daughter cannot stand to go to her so next summer and ones after she will stay with my mother and she my ex can visit.

There's just some things one has to say no I can't tolerate what you have done because to this day my daughter is still terrified of the dark and many other things I can't say here...it'll probably last the rest of her life.

Peace

I shouldn't pursue this maybe and it is of personal nature though you volunteered

Was she found to have a mental illness that caused her actions?

hedonist · July 2012

g under p wrote:

Chadwick i totally understand your point....my ex committed adultry i forgave her for that why because it was done between the two of us, i can handle that. However, she also abused my daughter when she was 3 years old because we were separated and she wanted us to get back together while putting my daughter through some terrrible horrors. I gained full custody except for 1 month in the summers.

I never forgave her for the abuse of my daughter and now she acts as if it never happened. i have no empathy for her to abuse an innocent 3 year old who was terrified for 3 months till I found out and put an immediate stop to it. This summer will be the very last regardless of what the courts has written...my daughter cannot stand to go to her so next summer and ones after she will stay with my mother and she my ex can visit.

There's just some things one has to say no I can't tolerate what you have done because to this day my daughter is still terrified of the dark and many other things I can't say here...it'll probably last the rest of her life.

Peace

I'm so sorry this happened. And though it shouldn't need to be said, bravo to you for being a good, safekeeping father to your little girl.

JonnyPistachio · July 2012

Jason P wrote:

I understand having the right to a weapon for defense ... but when the weapon has the world "assault" preceding it ... how does "assault" correlate to "defend". :think:

Dont forget that 50 cailber sniper rifle that can shoot down helicopters that you can buy legally at age 18. Who doesnt need a sniper for defense? You can see people attacking you from miles away!

pandora · July 2012

ComeToTX wrote:

read the article i just posted. these mentally ill people shouldn't be able to buy guns at least. surely you agree with that...?

I am here to address mental illness and how we can stop those ill from hurting others,
by whatever means they choose. That is ... treat the individual.

An ill person will get a gun to carry out their purpose legal or otherwise.
This killer may have had some very recent warning signs
but nothing in his background would have kept him from getting guns,
legal or otherwise.

blueandwhite · July 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I understand having the right to a weapon for defense ... but when the weapon has the world "assault" preceding it ... how does "assault" correlate to "defend". :think:

Dont forget that 50 cailber sniper rifle that can shoot down helicopters that you can buy legally at age 18. Who doesnt need a sniper for defense? You can see people attacking you from miles away!

In fairness, the attacker does have the advantage of air superiority. Self defence is an expensive game.

cincybearcat · July 2012

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... izona.html

A year old, but interesting data.

ComeToTX · July 2012

pandora wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

read the article i just posted. these mentally ill people shouldn't be able to buy guns at least. surely you agree with that...?

I am here to address mental illness and how we can stop those ill from hurting others,
by whatever means they choose. That is ... treat the individual.

An ill person will get a gun to carry out their purpose legal or otherwise.
This killer may have had some very recent warning signs
but nothing in his background would have kept him from getting guns,
legal or otherwise.

so you don't have a problem with the va tech shooter being able to have a gun even though he had at least a 2 year history of mental illness?

pandora · July 2012

cincybearcat wrote:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

A year old, but interesting data.

I thought I heard somewhere those states with the toughest new gun laws,
was it Chicago and NY, they are not helping at all against gun violence.

Is this true?

MotoDC · July 2012

cincybearcat wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Like I said, the argument presumes the conclusion. "Guns take this away" presumes the conclusion that guns are at fault, rather than the killer holding them. Death takes those rights away, regardless of the means. Even if you don't agree, it's still a core part of the debate that you cannot ignore just because you don't agree.

Furthermore, many believe legally owning a gun enhances those rights via their enhancement of the owner's personal security. If I am unable to defend myself or my family in the face of unwarranted aggression, my/our life and liberty are potentially greatly diminished.

You are doing the same thing when you say " If I am unable to defend myself or my family in the face of unwarranted aggression..." presuming the conclusion, heck, you are presuming the beginning.

I see what your are saying, just disagree. I'm ok with you defending yourself in your house. I just think we need to limit what type of gun you can have in that house, what type and how much ammo you can have, and I think you need to keep it in your house.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that I'm not being entirely internally consistent, but I'm not clear exactly what you're referring to here.

Are you arguing that I'm presuming that having a gun = my family is safer? Then do you believe the converse? That keeping me unarmed actually makes my family safer when confronted with an armed intruder? I'd be very interested in hearing your justification for that.

As for presuming my "beginning", the only thing I can figure out from that is that perhaps you're saying that I'm presuming that cincybearcat wants to take all my firearms away, whereas he really just wants to limit their type, ammo, and allowable location? Meaning I'm allowed to protect my family with a firearm, if necessary, at home but nowhere else? Please elaborate.

JonnyPistachio · July 2012

pandora wrote:

An ill person will get a gun to carry out their purpose legal or otherwise.
This killer may have had some very recent warning signs
but nothing in his background would have kept him from getting guns,
legal or otherwise.

These assumptions are highly opinionated assumptions, Pandora.
If there were limits on the caliber of weapon available to him like the AR-15, there's no telling if he would've settled on a hand gun or gone further to find an illegal AR-15. This is like giving up on the possibility that some restrictions could help deter. We cant know what's deterred because it hasnt happened.

JonnyPistachio · July 2012

blueandwhite wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I understand having the right to a weapon for defense ... but when the weapon has the world "assault" preceding it ... how does "assault" correlate to "defend". :think:

Dont forget that 50 cailber sniper rifle that can shoot down helicopters that you can buy legally at age 18. Who doesnt need a sniper for defense? You can see people attacking you from miles away!

In fairness, the attacker does have the advantage of air superiority. Self defence is an expensive game.

You're telling me! Better get two 50 calibers then, and why not make RPG's legal too?!

MotoDC · July 2012

Jason P wrote:

I understand having the right to a weapon for defense ... but when the weapon has the world "assault" preceding it ... how does "assault" correlate to "defend". :think:

Jason P with all your sports references I expected more out of you. "The best defense..."

mikepegg44 · July 2012

cincybearcat wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

which rights are you talking about?

Declaration of independence...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Guns take this away, as well as this...

"First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, I respectfully disagree.

And again, I'm not saying no guns...but we need to limit what types, what types of ammo, and how they are acquired. Hell, I can only buy so many Claritin-D's in a certain period of time...why not ammo? Hunters really need a stockpile?

if a person uses a tool to violate your rights the person should be held responsible, not the tool. But the vast majority of guns are never used in a commission of a crime.
I understand the desire for people to believe that limiting guns would limit crime, I just don't know if it is possible at this point to take that route. it might be like herding cats and limiting the responsible people would only make it a little harder for the criminals to get what they want... Legislating against murder doesn't stop all people from doing it, legislating against rape doesn't stop all people from doing it, legislating limits on gun ownership will only stop those who respect the law to begin with...
a mass murder ~7 times as large as the one at the theater was done using gasoline. I just don't believe you can legislate for all kinds of crazy...and, good with the bad, I don't think legislation can infringe only a little on our rights...there is a line and once it is crossed, all of them are subject to review at any time. I don't like the precedent it sets. The loss of life is terrible. If the people affected by this tragedy are drawn to the gun control lobby then I wish them the best of luck, I will just disagree as politely as possible.

Ultimately half way isn't going to do anything to stop gun violence, you would have to really end all private gun ownership. simple limits won't have the desired effect. The assault weapon ban of 94 taught us that people will get around it, and, even after it expired,violent crime rates have decreased...You either have to go all the way, figure out why people want to go into a movie theater and shoot people to begin with, or make it easier for people to defend themselves.

This is a bit of an extreme analogy, but if a criminal intent on doing harm were scouting out places to conduct that behavior, which place would he pick, the one that had a sign that said, I have guns and know how to use them, or the one that had a sign that said, Gun Free Household?

I am with you Cincy, I would love to think there is something that can be done, and for us rational folks there seem to be no-brainer ideas...unfortunately the irrational folks won't pay much attention...

PS...I think you should be able to by as much Claritin D as you want

pandora · July 2012

ComeToTX wrote:

pandora wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

read the article i just posted. these mentally ill people shouldn't be able to buy guns at least. surely you agree with that...?

I am here to address mental illness and how we can stop those ill from hurting others,
by whatever means they choose. That is ... treat the individual.

An ill person will get a gun to carry out their purpose legal or otherwise.
This killer may have had some very recent warning signs
but nothing in his background would have kept him from getting guns,
legal or otherwise.

so you don't have a problem with the va tech shooter being able to have a gun even though he had at least a 2 year history of mental illness?

He must have passed the mental illness background check I keep hearing so
much about on the news???

I have a problem with the fact he had a diagnosed mental illness and still did not receive
proper care.

pandora · July 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

An ill person will get a gun to carry out their purpose legal or otherwise.
This killer may have had some very recent warning signs
but nothing in his background would have kept him from getting guns,
legal or otherwise.

These assumptions are highly opinionated assumptions, Pandora.
If there were limits on the caliber of weapon available to him like the AR-15, there's no telling if he would've settled on a hand gun or gone further to find an illegal AR-15. This is like giving up on the possibility that some restrictions could help deter. We cant know what's deterred because it hasnt happened.

Two sides to the coin there Jonny no telling he wouldn't.

JonnyPistachio · July 2012

cincybearcat wrote:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

A year old, but interesting data.

Interesting data.
I see more populated states like Cali, NY, NJ are 50th, 43rd, and 49th in permissive gun laws and appear at #40, 45 and 46 on the list. Kinda surprised me.

It does appear that there is a bit of correlation with permissive gun laws and deaths by state.

ComeToTX · July 2012

Pandora,

Did you read the article? Mental health history is almost never considered when buying a gun. That's the point. We need stiffer gun control so guys like him don't get guns.

dimitrispearljam · July 2012

pandora wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

pandora wrote:

People have opinions from past experiences, from drawing similarities, from knowledge
of a particular subject.

It's only opinions...
We certainly have some here on this subject who have opinions ...

he is a cold blooded killer with a hate for people, blood lust
when no one knows that.

It's just an opinion.
Seems it's more those making something out of a difference of opinion ...

i use the word or cold murderer or has mental problem
and is an opinion that has no base no matter which of 2 is the truth..
i cant do diagnose from the sofa of my house just watching the news.
if some of you in the thread can do a diagnose via tv screen,...
then,all the doctors out there that see patient in PERSON every day must go burn their diplomas..

oh Dimi really? you of all people know you judge situations as well
and give opinions speculate etc...
this based on your life experiences knowledge

that is all this is and it it based on the same critea everyones uses to do just that,
to have an opinion or speculate.

It is just opinions like I said seems difference of opinion to be more of the deciding factor.

In my opinion a killer with mental disease is not a cold blood murderer and to this layman
he appears to fit the bill of a young man with onset mental illness.

This subject that should be addressed , as in the Gifford shooting,
Loughner who is now diagnosed after the fact.
What do we take from that?
Lets do something before the fact, make help readily available for loved ones to stop
this from happening in the future.

We are learning much about illness through these incidents
just as we are learning about pedophiles and how the prey.
Awareness and action is needed to get help to those who need it
before victims are made.

i can have an opinion..but it based on the tv and news..never met this guy,i dont know what happed except the fact he did something very bad..
my experience ends there..im not a doctor to do diagnose
if he has mental disease or he is faking and he is a cold blood murderer i cant tell,ad noone can tell for sure.here in the forum,cos he watch the news,or saw cold murderers or mental sick peope before.
there are other people will tell,the ones will talk to him and will be the specialist at the case..
the rest of us assuming and our opinion can start with,if and maybe etc...
for sure something is wrong with his mind,but im not the one i can do a diagnose...
my feeling says,he is a fucked up kid that thought this will be fun and he will rule his world and he will do something extreme at his boring life..
alot of people feel nothing out there,they have boring life,but they dont shoot and kill people
and now he is freaking out realize what the fuck he did and he is in a mind mess..but again this is an opinion from my sofa,just reading the news in internet..i just assuming..
and that means nothing.....about what is the truth about this guy...
we can talk for days about it,but doesnt change the fact that we just having a conversation in genedral about it..
noone can have a safe opinion if he isnt part of the investigation,a specialist ,and with out knowing the details of the case..

norm · July 2012

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-j ... un-control

Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

Comments

Categories