It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Changing the Debate on Guns

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:00 AM
a reply to: Bluntone22

I sure think that is the aim yes but not sure its quite happened yet. There is still individuality and supposedly more tolerance of that coupled with amazing creativity and more outlets for that too, however if neither is encouraged you get a lonely boy or girl spending their lives online bitching whining bullying etc. To kids of that age, the likes of facebook and twitter are so very serious. I've watched my youngest daughter grow up with this and watched with horror as she "friends" people she's spoken with for 5mins or get upset at some bitchy post or bitch at some girl uploading a selfie. Its a mad changing world

However, my conspiracy mind believes this is intentional. It keeps people off the streets, no protests no anarchy no insurgency and stops large groups congregating.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:04 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I feel you. It seems there is no firm footing on dealing with this scourge. Every possible avenue has a pro/anti coalition, from guns, to mental health to violence in media.

So are we just supposed to do nothing about it? Just accept it as a part of American culture?

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:06 AM
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Lack of social interactions is likely a very big contributor to the behavior of these kids. The kids that snap are not the kids in band or on the schools sports teams, they tend to be loners.
There is something to be said about idle hands, and computer games are idle hands.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:07 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

My NUMBER 1 problem (all caps, because it is a total deal breaker), is the utter ignnorance of the freaking idiots we have in Washington.

These dumbasses think that an "assault rifle" is somehow magically more deadly. Ignoring the facts, they outlaw specific types of guns, while leaving identical guns untouched.

Example: i have a .22 cal semiautomatic rifle. I load 18 rounds in a tube on the butt, and then stick a rod in to put spring loaded pressure on them to they advance the round upon firing. This would not be touched by any gun laws, despite me being able to squeeze the trigger nd fire off rounds without any kind of lever or bolt action. Its semiauto.

I have another .22 that is the same identiical rifle, except it looks like an AR 15, and is fed via a magazine beneath the chamber (like any AR). This gun, in some states, may not be legal. Simply because of how it looks.

Its like outlawing any car that looks like a ferrari, while ignoring Ford Festivas that have a ferrari engine.

I cannot allow Congress to make laws about things they know nothing about.

On a side note: the "gun lobby" isn't what keeps congress in check. Its the people. And their 2nd amendment right. We just pay money to the NRA to speak on our common goal: no more gun laws, and the reduction of prior laws.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:13 AM
USA Today has an interesting piece today. They are showing that Congressional Research Service has found that the increase in these cases is negligible if any, but what has increased is the hype and the hysteria.

A tragedy, not a trend

I see two different cultural oddities. Literally thousands of people have been killed due to gang on gang violence in the inner cities of Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, and L.A. over the last decade. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent trying to control it. These are mostly black on black or hispanic gangs killing each other in drug-related crimes.

These incidents where a young male walks into a public place and shoots a dozen people are much more rare, but we get more hysterical about it and analyze the young man to death, digging into every nook and cranny about his life, mental health, relationships, religion, philosophical bent, etc.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:21 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Maybe it's a lot of things.

Maybe it's the ease of access to firearms. After all we keep hearing of mass shootings, not mass stabbings.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:27 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

I have a nine year old son, too. I agree with what you have said about the classroom being more suited to girls. Although I am not sure I would use the term feminization. Certainly, there are standard expectations for students and it seems easier for girls to attain those expectations -- especially in the first few years of preschool and elementary school.

There could be other expectations, too, but there aren't. You sit still unless you are allowed to get up and move around. Impulsivity is not something boys grow out of naturally in school -- by modeling after others and finding their place in a school society. Impulsivity is just a no-no and to a small boy, he doesn't understand why other than an authority (teacher) said so.

I think sometimes when boys grow into men who do very senseless things -- like massacre classrooms of people -- they go through with it because they never developed the skills to control their own impulses.

All of that said, I still think there is something missing in the recent spree of mass gun shootings. I just cannot relate to this phenomenon. I'm 44 and things were not like this when I was young. The human psyche had very little potential to kill people with no personal motive. Serial killers even had motive -- and they weren't on suicide missions. They didn't WANT to get caught.

I admit, I can't help but have some disbelief about it all. I keep looking for motive and can't find anything compelling. Like Adam Lanza, for example, I cannot fathom the motive he had to kill five and six year old children.

And yet I see motive in the politicization of all of these mass gun-shootings. In fact, Obama was quoted saying -- in context of gun legislation -- that every time a mass shooting happened, he was going to talk about how to fix it.

I'm not a gun-nut. I have never owned a gun. I consider myself socially liberal. I even support 'smarter' gun control. But I cannot help but notice that the politicization of gun legislation is the only compelling motive that keeps shaking out of these otherwise senseless killings.

Take it for what you will, I know I sound like a tinfoil hat wearing fool to some people, but I am cynical and wonder if the people with the means, motive, and opportunity to commit these murders are actually getting away with them. Motive used to be important to criminal investigation. Now it seems completely unimportant and if people can't find motive, they just assign whatever they want...mental illness, infamy.

I guess I need something more compelling.

edit on 3-10-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:28 AM
For such a technically connected society, we are never more physically isolated. We sit behind computer screens and cell phones while texting and chatting via internet. This is quickly replacing personal contact with other people. We are social creatures by nature. Whether we're introverts or extroverts, we must have physical contact with others. These societal changes are harmful on so many levels. It's responsible for a lack of empathy, belonging, and physical connections.

It all starts from birth. Physical contact, especially during the first year of birth, is one of the most active times for emotional development. It's where the first emotional relationship should start. With the parents. This only increases as toddlers are introduced to other toddlers for play time. That is when empathy and sharing and getting along with others is taught. It's also where children learn what it's like to get their feelings hurt and learn how it feels to hurt someone else. Once again, empathy. As we lead busier lives, and struggle with juggling professional and family obligations, our children struggle. Maybe not outwardly at first. But on some level, they come to see the lack of social gatherings, and family gatherings as something normal. It's a perpetuating cycle continued through generation from generation.

Well, it's not normal. This is evident throughout our society today. These shooters, all of them from what I've gathered, were social pariahs. Unaccepted by their peers. That's said not to shift the responsibility of their actions, but to draw attention to what I believe is the root of the problem. We're not meant to lead a completely digital life. We're meant to physically interact. That interaction is a constant way to not become desensitized to empathy. It can't be accomplished through computer screens and text messages.

Unfortunately, technology is not always a good thing for humanity.

edit on 10/3/2015 by EternalSolace because: Spelling

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:40 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I do believe the second amendment of the US Constitution is important and should be maintained yet at the same time I also believe that more gun regulation is required and the laws changed.


It's not just about the second amendment but the entire BILL OF RIGHTS extending to the 14th amendment.

No the laws should not be changed.

Gun control violates all most the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendments.


People are responsible for their own actions.

And those that do commit a crime get their day in court, and crimes PROVEN in courts of LAW.

Not be held 'responsible' for things they don't do.
edit on 3-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:44 AM
a reply to: queenofswords

I call it agenda, political agenda.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:47 AM

I am from the UK, I

Funny that.

So was Mercer.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 11:54 AM
I enjoy talking to older people...well, particular ones. In discussing this latest tragedy with a 70 something year old, I'm told that these things never happened in their youth. In the 1950's, there was 1 mass killing. There were maybe 5 or 6 in the 1960s. Guns were readily available back then just as they are today. He told me everybody had a gun of some sort.

Since 2009, look how many there have been! No. This is not a gun problem!!

In 2012 alone there were the Sandy Hook and Aurora Movie Theater shooting. This year there have been the Charleston shooting and now the Oregon shooting.

Perhaps the political climate has something to do with it. Or, perhaps there really is an agenda in the works and the ends justify the means mentality is working full steam ahead. Don't be fooled.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:01 PM
a reply to: queenofswords

I think queensofswords that in todays society and so many people with too much free time in their hands, experiencing all sort of mental issues we are witnessing what is been now a type of Hollywood fame that only all for profits media conglomerates will offer to their views in the name of ratings.

Now people wants to shine before they go with a bang, rather than commenting suicide in an obscure room to be forgotten in history, now they will take as many as the can because the media will be there to glamorized them.

, I say the media is at fault more than people care to give it credit.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:02 PM
a reply to: marg6043

You may be right, marg....anything to get your name in Wikipedia!

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:04 PM
a reply to: queenofswords

Exactly, add that to the presidential speech on your mass murdering rampage too, never forgotten.

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:13 PM
So let's look at what we have based on all the ongoing threads pertaining to this subject.

Some think it is because there are too many guns and ready access to them.

Some think it is over prescribing of pharmaceuticals, especially mood-altering ones.

Some think it is social media enabling and hyping everybody up.

Some think it is disappointment in the system, economic woes, and a sense of hopelessness.

Some think it is a certain personality type unable to handle bullying, failure, and social awkwardness.

Some think it is an agenda and the agenda makers are using technology and/or cognitive and behavioral methods to manipulate targeted individuals to carry out the agenda.

Any more?

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:21 PM

originally posted by: KawRider9
I think the problem started with people treating their kids as friends. Lack of parenting is the bigger issue in my opinion.

We have created a society of people who DEMAND that you agree with them, or you're a hater and will be dealt with.

I don't know how to fix that.

You are exactly correct.

The shooter was a Wiccan/Muslim according to which report you believe, who hated Christians.

Before people get their panties in a wad,
I know that the vast Majority of Wiccans
and Muslims in the US
would never do this, and would find it

That said.
It was sheer intolerance for those he
disagreed with.

Intolerance breed by the meme in
our society that is it ok and even
desirable to disparage Christians
at every turn and blame them for
most of societies ills.

This meme that claims to be
extremely tolerant by saying
"Christians are ..... (name the insult
or derogatory remark" and are
supported by the media
and by many on social media.

This constant meme in the name
of tolerance for others,

has caused extreme intolerance

by encouraging and accepting
the disparagement of Christians
as being tolerant and a good thing
for the world.

The shooter thought he was just showing his
tolerance for everyone when
he killed Christians as being
an evil stain
on the tolerant world.
That is my opinion.

You all know he asked each person he shot
Are you a Christian,
if they said yes he shot them in the head
if they said no he let them live and shot them in the knee

In his mind, he was being politically correct and tolerant
when he let the non-Christians live,
in his twisted way. That is my opinion.

The current politically correct society has
decided that Christianity is a threat to the world
and they have broadcast this far and wide,

I see it on ATS in nearly several threads a day.

This "tolerant" and socially correct crowd
in my opinion is a huge part of the problem
that incited this madman to kill only Christians.

I even had people on another thread laugh
openly and call me names for even suggesting
this idea, and I expect they will come charging
at me again for this idea. Interesting that out of
all the people who attacked me, which were many,
only one who came in at the end, after 6 pages, said that the
shooter was evil and wrong in what he did. No one before
or after said the shooter was evil in what he did, they
only attacked me for suggesting that intolerance for
Christians played a part in the shooting.

However, in my opinion, this politically correct
"tolerance" only for those who agree with you -

is one of the core reasons for what happened.

The man felt justified in killing Christians,
where did he get that idea?

edit on 12Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:28:47 -0500pm100310pmk036 by grandmakdw because: addition format

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:22 PM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
The right to own guns shouldn't be up for debate.

Illegal immigrants and Legalizing Weed should be the main focus.

edit on 3-10-2015 by NowWhat because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I can't put my finger on it exactly, but schools are ditching recess, taking the physical out of PE, and increasingly telling little boys that they are wrong, even criminal for being little boys. Then you have the pervasive pop culture that tends to portray most men as bumbling idiots in the family. Look at the physique of the action hero. He's gone from rugged to too pretty to be believed in many cases. Muscular to slight or if he is muscular, he looks like the cover of a men's body building mag and again, too pretty to be believed.

Very few roles are the good alpha male. We have all kinds of flawed heroes or anti-heroes.

We have rape culture and the steady drumbeat of white privilege where the white male is worst of all. We have the metrosexual.

It all just sends a signal.

edit on 3-10-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: queenofswords

Yes the experts analyzis since they stated to study people that goes on gun violence rampage.

Gun violence and mental illness: Study addresses perception vs. reality

A group of international scholars, including co-author Vickie Mays of UCLA, analyzed dozens of epidemiological studies on gun violence and mental illness and compared the results to media-fueled public perceptions about the dangerousness of mentally ill individuals.

The researchers found that mass murderers with mental health problems, while they receive a tremendous amount of media attention, are not typical of those who commit violent crimes, and the vast majority of those with serious mental illness do not engage in violent acts.

Still, the study authors stress, gun violence can be reduced by instituting policies at the federal and state level that prohibit firearms possession among individuals who display clear risk factors for violence.

An evidence-based approach to gun control

A history of violent behavior, especially with criminal justice involvement, and other behavioral indicators of risk are much stronger predictors of future gun violence than having a serious mental health diagnosis, the researchers say, echoing the findings of the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, a group of national experts on gun-violence prevention and mental illness that released a set of federal and state policy recommendations in December 2013.

Such risk indicators include being subject to a temporary domestic violence restraining order, having been convicted of a violent misdemeanor, having two or more driving-under-the-influence convictions in a five-year period, and having two or more controlled-substance convictions in five years.

The researchers' analysis supports additional recommendations by the consortium, including the development of state mechanisms allowing law enforcement officers to confiscate guns from individuals who pose an immediate threat to themselves or others, and to request a warrant for the removal of guns when the risk of harm is "credible," if not immediate. In addition, the consortium suggests that family members and intimate partners be able to petition the court to temporarily authorize gun removal and prohibit gun purchases by individuals who pose a credible risk of harm to themselves or others.

On the federal level, the researchers' findings support the consortium's suggestion that the government clarify and refine policies dealing with gun disqualification for individuals who have been involuntary committed for mental health reasons, and state laws should be strengthened to prohibit gun purchases or possession following a short-term involuntary hospitalization. The consortium also recommended a clinically informed judicial process for restoring gun ownership rights following their removal based on evidence of risk of harm.

Interesting analysis and the solutions that can help done by studying the patterns of gun violence in recent years in the US.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in