It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The conversation that needs to happen.

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Up above I posted a direct correlation between gun control law impact and the mass school shootings that clearly indicate the shootings intensify as gun control is tightened. I also showed where there is a direct correlation between video violence and mass school shootings, and between psychoactive drugs in children and mass school shootings.


Gun control laws should have no impact because kids aren't the target customer for firearms in the first place. Even with open laws they're too young to own weapons.

At least in the case of school shootings.

It's not a shift in gun attitudes, it's a shift in our own attitudes, and guns are an easy release valve. Like I just said in a previous post I think it has to do with how interconnected we are. It's a communication issue, we see/speak with people and hear how well they're doing, and compare it to our own lives. Facebook, Twitter, even text messages are nothing more than taking other peoples best moments and having them thrown at your average. That makes people feel like they're getting a raw deal and lash out.




posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You muricans sure seem to hate the #### out of each other sometimes.

Some stuff just seems amplified - unwillingness to help the needy and even an enjoyment of other's suffering.

Easy to make such crap stereotypes as an ignorant forriner i know but mass shootings are super american and it aint just about guns. I think it's a deep disconnect manifesting as going amok.

I honestly think you guys need to start showing and feeling that you care about each other.

Kumbaya and all that
edit on 16-2-2018 by skalla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: skalla

So long as the FBI keep getting caught instigating terror plots to bust, I cannot have faith that they aren't somehow involved. This started in 99. Prior to that...not much. Since then...increasing rapidly.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
As long as we're spitballing ideas... Ante's post about the common factors found in most mass shooters got me thinking. What if all this talk about blaming guns, or lack of parenting, or video games, or whatever is moot? What if these mass shootings are simply the evolution of a phenomenon that has existed for over a century?

In the closing days of the 19th century the East End of London was petrified by a series of killings. Today these murders are known the world over as the work of Jack the Ripper. While there were definitely multi-person killers before Jack he is still recognized by most as the first serial killer.

He certainly wasn't the last though. Throughout the 20th century the serial killer and the spree killer ruled the day. Eventually peaking in the 70s and 80s. While the mass killer did exist during this time period it certainly didn't have the prevalence of its brothers.

Then in the 90s we started to see the number of serial and spree killers dwindle. It certainly wasn't the end of the phenomenon but there was also a clear difference between the 80s and the 90s.

Then Columbine happened in '99 and suddenly the mass murderer became en vogue.

What happened in the 90s that could have facilitated this change? There's one big one. The adoption of DNA testing by law enforcement agencies.

So we get to the point of this post. What if the modern mass murderer isn't a new beast? What if it's simply the evolution of what came before? It's now a lot harder to kill multiple people over an extended period of time. So what if the people that would have become Ted Bundy in the past are now killing all of their victims in one go?

If that's the case then we're looking in the wrong place for a root cause. We need to look at what caused Jack and his progeny to rise in the first place. Unfortunately, over a century of research has turned up no real answers.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sure, i can't discount that.

Randomly i was recently reading about going "amok", in Malay culture i think. It is kinda a thing humans do sometimes when felt "pushed" in a certain way, culturally dependent etc.

A lot of people (including in The US) feel less free, less valued, that they have no opportunities etc. That things aint getting any better.. maybe this explains the increase in massacres rather than fbi meddling - on its own at least.

And when someone aint being subject to mental health monitoring or outreach, and has no free or easily available support it doesnt make things any easier. A for profit model maybe prevents all that?

As well as shoving drugs at people.

From my distance though surely there is a wide ranging cultural element to this. Not saying it aint sortable or that you're a bunch of nutters.

But you got a fairly unique situ with gun possession so i think you'll need a pretty unique solution.

No simple answer.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: skalla

I'd be interested in that article.

Antediluvian made an excellent point with the archetype concept (that the archetype was romanticized in teen consciousness).

There are likely a few answers.

The one thing I keep thinking is that human behavior is erratic and irrational. 130 years ago women were fainting from being so delicate. Today they serve active duty in the military.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


Lanza, should not have been walking around the neighbourhood, because he was too sick for that to be safe for him, or for others. This Cruz fellow, should not have been free to take a dump without supervision, because he was insane. Regular folks in society SHOULD be able to own whatever they damned well please for self defence purposes, as far as the constitution allows for, and for the reasons the constitution allows for. But people with deep, DEEP psychological problems, specifically those which lead a person to violent outbursts, or sociopathic behaviours, should NOT be in regular society. They should be institutionalised for the safety of others, and themselves.

And who, may I ask, decides who is insane and who is not? You? Me? What guidelines are to be used? Is TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) a reason to lock someone up for their own safety? What about OAD (Oppositional Authority Disorder)? ADHD?

I mean, seriously... we have expert fools trying to declare that supporting a political policy is evidence of severe neurosis! Joy Behar just equated prayer with "talking to yourself" and "voices in your head."

That is the issue. How can we identify, or better yet normalize, those who are becoming prone to violence of this magnitude before the fact, without incriminating every single member of our society? What could have been done to stop Cruz? It's easy to look back in hindsight and say it was obvious because he posted "I want to be a professional school shooter," but consider this: I make jokes all the time about violating laws. The last time I was buying groceries, I paid with a $100 bill. The cashier of course checked it for authenticity. I replied with something along the lines of "I just printed it, don't go marking on my pretty work."

And when I got a laugh, I said "I'm going to be HIllary Clinton when I grow up."

That was not an admission to counterfeiting; it was a sarcastic remark made to point out and make fun of the problem with counterfeiting and the hassle it brings to normal people. But if the humor aspect was missed, or ignored, that could be taken as an indicator that I am counterfeiting $100 bills... which is simply not true.

Maybe Cruz at the time he posted that statement was being sarcastic or funny (in his mind anyway). Maybe not. The point is, we don't know. We need a metric by which to gauge who is a problem and who is not, before they become a problem. And that metric must be accurate, and must not be abused, lest we find ourselves under another dictator.

That will take time to develop.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


It's not a shift in gun attitudes, it's a shift in our own attitudes, and guns are an easy release valve. Like I just said in a previous post I think it has to do with how interconnected we are. It's a communication issue, we see/speak with people and hear how well they're doing, and compare it to our own lives. Facebook, Twitter, even text messages are nothing more than taking other peoples best moments and having them thrown at your average. That makes people feel like they're getting a raw deal and lash out.

You're not wrong.

That is an aspect that I had not considered... but I certainly will!

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Teachers, especially the union ones are getting extremely close to walking out or going on strike until we start seriously talking about making schools safe. Rumblings are starting too of students (high schoolers mainly) who are about to boycott going to school until the adults start fixing the problem.

I 100% support both. Armed guards/teachers are not going to solve this problem. The only solution is to remove weapons from society. Until we take security seriously, I see no reason to force both teachers and students to sit in rooms that are quickly becoming deathtraps.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Armed guards/teachers are not going to solve this problem. The only solution is to remove weapons from society.

That, again, is simply not possible.

Are you suggesting that we go door-to-door for over 300 million people and search every nook and cranny of every square foot of property with a metal detector? Even if we were to do that, weapons can be moved around easily and it's not possible to search everywhere at once.

If, however, we were to remove all firearms from society, that removal would be very temporary. Even if we were to immediately confiscate all firearms, including parts for firearms, from manufacturers and close their doors, how many people have the ability to make a firearm at home? I think the answer might surprise you... I personally own a Midas 1220 as do quite a few other people, and a simple gunsmith toolset allows it to manufacture firearms of the same quality as what is sold today... with no real restrictions, because no one would know. Ban the toolsets, you say? Sure, you could do that, but remember the toolset itself can be made with the Smithy. What are you going to do? Ban steel?

Even of one could remove all firearms and all machines capable of producing firearms, that's not all weapons. What about knives? A good knife-thrower could kill as many people in seconds as he has knives. What about crossbows? Sniper-range items, and just as deadly as a bullet in the right hands. Numchucks? Glass bottles? Heck, I can kill a person with a freakin' pencil!

Let's not get into bombs and vehicles...

Your thinking is typical of those who do not fully understand the issue. It is not the type of tool being used, but rather the intent to use a tool that is the issue. The tired old mantra of "Take the guns away!" is simply unrealistic, unobtainable, and extremely dangerous if not executed completely. How many more children would have been killed if no police had firearms in Florida? Cruz could have stayed in that school as long as he wanted, reloading at leisure... he could have brought in a reloading kit and supplies in a duffel bag and still been in that school picking off people at his leisure. A quick shot to anyone who tries to enter is all he would need to remain safe indefinitely, and a reloader would have given him a practically unlimited supply of shots.

Only the threat of someone else with a gun, equally armed, stopped him at all.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Are you suggesting that we go door-to-door for over 300 million people and search every nook and cranny of every square foot of property with a metal detector? Even if we were to do that, weapons can be moved around easily and it's not possible to search everywhere at once.


My suggestion would be periodic (annual?) gun buybacks that buy guns back at above market rates to be destroyed, followed by placing limitations on sales of new guns from the manufacturers (high taxes plus annual production limitations on domestic wholesales).

If people make their own firearms, I really couldn't care less. The number of people that can do it is small and they wouldn't seriously impact supply. That would result in a gradual increase in weapon costs over time, so that 25 or 50 years from now access is sufficiently limited by price, that fewer weapons would be available.

I don't think we need to ban guns entirely, instead my preferred solution would be market driven. I would like to see economics keep guns out of peoples hands for most crimes. It wouldn't fully eliminate gun violence, including school shootings, but it would prevent 99% of it.



Even of one could remove all firearms and all machines capable of producing firearms, that's not all weapons. What about knives? A good knife-thrower could kill as many people in seconds as he has knives. What about crossbows? Sniper-range items, and just as deadly as a bullet in the right hands. Numchucks? Glass bottles? Heck, I can kill a person with a freakin' pencil!


Lets take an approach that reduces the rate of violent crime. It's not going to be possible to eliminate all of it, and the more you want to reduce, the more authoritarian you need to get. Finding a good balance of pricing weapons out of peoples hands for most crimes though? I think that's totally possible through market forces. We've already done it with fully automatic weapons. Lets apply that logic to all firearms.



Only the threat of someone else with a gun, equally armed, stopped him at all.


It will never happen. Teachers see these kids for 4-6 years depending on grade level and school. They get invested in kids, they want to see them succeed. Most teachers form bonds with their students, and care about the kids they're teaching. When fractions of a second matter, do you really think teachers will be able to put all of that aside and shoot a student? Furthermore, is it truly a realistic expectation that we turn educators into gunslingers. Even if it is, lets say a kid pulls out a gun in class, would it really be a good idea for a teacher to shoot into a bunch of students when only one student is the threat?

It's just not realistic.
TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The conversation that needs to happen.

Not it doesn't.

Society has made laws against the action of killing someone.

Society has made laws saying every single person has to prove to the state they are a good little person.

Society has made laws banning certain things.

Society has made laws defining what they can look like.

Society has made laws as to how many rounds can fire at the squeeze of the trigger.

Society has made laws as to how many round it can hold.

And this little story has been repeated for over 70 years.

What more do people want?

Running around screaming the sky is falling, and doing the same thing over, and over again expecting a different result?

Some call that INSANITY.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


My suggestion would be periodic (annual?) gun buybacks that buy guns back at above market rates to be destroyed, followed by placing limitations on sales of new guns from the manufacturers (high taxes plus annual production limitations on domestic wholesales).

I tried, but I could not think of a more useless exercise in inefficiency.

So you want to set things up so a kid like this can go out, buy a gun, then after he kills people with it, sell it back to the government for a profit? Or maybe set up an investment scheme for the wealthy to just buy guns and sell them to the government for a guaranteed profit? You realize the same program would provide incentive for criminals to target homes with guns because they don't even have to go through the pawn shop paperwork, right?

And where does all the money come from to give people profit from their investment/criminal activity? If you limit sales from gun manufacturers, that will drive the price up. Since you specify buy back for a profit, that will increase the cost of the buyback. It's an endless Ponzi scheme!


If people make their own firearms, I really couldn't care less.

If you want all the firearms removed from society, as you first suggested, then I certainly care! One gun in the hands of a criminal against an unarmed population is a disaster of epic proportions!


I don't think we need to ban guns entirely, instead my preferred solution would be market driven.

So you think only the wealthy should get to have self-protection? Good to know.

And your original suggestion was to remove all weapons from society. Now it's different. That's quite a switch.


Lets take an approach that reduces the rate of violent crime. It's not going to be possible to eliminate all of it, and the more you want to reduce, the more authoritarian you need to get. Finding a good balance of pricing weapons out of peoples hands for most crimes though? I think that's totally possible through market forces. We've already done it with fully automatic weapons. Lets apply that logic to all firearms.

While I agree about a balanced approach, you are incorrect in your assumption. We do not use market forces to control fully automatic weapons. They are so highly regulated by law almost no one can qualify to get one. They are illegal to manufacture for sale, except to DoD.


It will never happen. Teachers see these kids for 4-6 years depending on grade level and school. They get invested in kids, they want to see them succeed. Most teachers form bonds with their students, and care about the kids they're teaching. When fractions of a second matter, do you really think teachers will be able to put all of that aside and shoot a student?

Not all, but you'd be surprised at what someone can do when faced with life or death. And this kid was not a current student at the school. He had been expelled for discipline problems.


Furthermore, is it truly a realistic expectation that we turn educators into gunslingers.

No one is suggesting to turn them into "gunslingers." The suggestion is that they can possess a firearm for personal protection, not that they'll walk around with a six-shooter on their hip. You've been watching too much TV. There are probably several "gunslingers" around you every day and you never know it.


Even if it is, lets say a kid pulls out a gun in class, would it really be a good idea for a teacher to shoot into a bunch of students when only one student is the threat?

That's easy to fix... just let the shooter kill all the other kids and you have a clean shot.

You have to be kidding to even ask a question like that.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I think that is a brilliant post.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes...excellent, disarm the masses while politicians, elites, rich, etc. keep protected with their armed forces, since they are always exempt from all the rules the rest of us have to live by.

Deaths from other types of items increases...strangulations, by blunt instruments, by sharp blades, etc. Other types of crime increase as well, rapes, home invasions, etc.

You'll find more cars weaponized. Disturbed people will use the internet to make IED's after a trip to Home Depot. They are surpisingly easy to make, even for the inexperienced.

People will do what happens now - they will find new and inventive ways to kill each other. Becuse that is what a percent of us just do, it seems.

The normal masses of people will just be a large victim pool of slaves with no rights except what are allowed to them by their "benelovent" government. No society in the world has ever removed all weapons and it's impossible to remove everything that could be used as a weapon.

But look at it this way, the goal of having guns removed will probably happen over the course of a generation or three. I mean, look at our latest generation here in America...most can't think for themselves, support themselves, have an actual opinion or know what's going on because they can't look away from their cell phones. That generation will be so trained to walk in line, procreate like a good little sheep and teach their kids to be even more passive...it's bound to happen. Kind of like how things happened in Idiocracy (the movie).

and believe me, I'm glad I won't be around for it. I never have fit in or conformed very well...and we all know how the Powers That Be hate people who are non-conformists and indepenant thinkers. I've watched it bred right out of a large number of my friends kids.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Thanatos0042

People are inventive, they'll always come up with ways to kill each other. I'm not saying we can totally end violence. I'm saying that we can significantly cut down on mass shootings. Australia has guns, and they don't have this problem. Europe has knives and people occasionally get stabbed, but they usually live, and far fewer are wounded at a time.

Regulations priced automatic weapons out of the hands of the common criminal, it could do the same to the weapons they're using now given enough time.

What do you value more? Your child or your gun?



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
And where does all the money come from to give people profit from their investment/criminal activity? If you limit sales from gun manufacturers, that will drive the price up. Since you specify buy back for a profit, that will increase the cost of the buyback. It's an endless Ponzi scheme!


Pay for it with the taxes collected from the kids that now get to grow up and have jobs. Pay for it with the insurance payouts that no longer have to go to families who have kids killed. Pay for it with the funeral costs we no longer have to have. Pay for it with the reduction in spending on gunshot wounds.



So you think only the wealthy should get to have self-protection? Good to know.


You can own a tank or fighter jet now, but only if you're wealthy. The 2nd says nothing about expense.



And your original suggestion was to remove all weapons from society. Now it's different. That's quite a switch.


Reread my suggestion, periodict buybacks. I didn't say they had to be mandatory (that's why they're above market rate). Totally optional. We have 330 million known guns on the streets for 320 million residents. No form of gun control can work (in less than 50-100 years) unless it's also implemented alongside programs that incentivize people to turn in their existing weapons.



While I agree about a balanced approach, you are incorrect in your assumption. We do not use market forces to control fully automatic weapons. They are so highly regulated by law almost no one can qualify to get one. They are illegal to manufacture for sale, except to DoD.


And those regulations have made the price of certain black market weapons (which is how criminals get guns) too expensive to use in petty crime.
edit on 17-2-2018 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   
we have a heartless cold money greedy culture

that's the problem



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   
The "conversation" doesn't, "need to happen". Until you F'd up idiots, get back to basic reasoning and knowledge. And not deal punishment to the tool, like a bunch of "educated" Neanderthals. "Rock smash thumb". ..."rock bad!" .. "Me no like rock.".. We make "law" to ban rock! You libs are idiots.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple




Or the opposite: neglected. And never taught anything at all.


nail on the head




top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join