|
Post by AlanC on May 21, 2018 8:16:23 GMT -5
That particular horror doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. Is it just me or did that wedding totally eclipse the latest inexplicable massacre?
I think even the most fervent anti-assault rifle proponent has to take pause at this latest unhinged kid with his dad's shotgun and revolver. What law could prevent that? IMHO there is just no possible way to address this problem from the gun side in any way other than a useless, symbolic gesture that does absolutely nothing to stop these types of killings.
I have a family member who recently promised that if the gun confiscators come to his door he will open fire. I pressed him on it and he assured me that he is not going to live in "that kind of a country". I don't think he is alone. I would recommend that the solution needs to leave guys like him alone and look for a something that will do some good instead of doubling down on needless bloodshed and carnage.
Which brings me to my idea which I'm sure is going to get ripped but, hey, just don't make it personal and I can live with it.
It would appear to me that something has gotten into the kids. There are too many of them that are nuckin futz. There was a rash of bomb scares recently and several numb nuts from my old school phoned in a report and got arrested. How stupid/crazy/inexplicable is that?? They KNOW they can trace the phones but they do it anyway. The kid in Texas had to realize that his life as he knew it was over but he did it anyway. WTF???
OK, I don't understand it and probably nobody does entirely but let's look at it another way. Can we identify these "quiet loners" who one day bring a gun to school to kill everyone he doesn't like? To "fix" this problem someone is going to get their rights severely violated. Why not let it be the ones who are the most likely to bring a gun to school and leave the ones like my family member alone?
Surely someone in the FBI or other LE organization has compiled a pretty good profile of these kids. Make it a requirement for high school. You want to attend this HS? You must submit to this evaluation. Have the best and brightest make a series of questions and hook them up to a polygraph or other sensors that identify truth or evasion. I bet we have the technology to passively monitor the tell-tale body reactions without having to physically attach wires or sensors to them. Have them program the smartest damn AI in the world "talk" to these kids and see if they can't nip some of these massacres in the bud. If they could identify some of the POTENTIAL shooters and get him some help before he goes over the edge wouldn't that be a win-win for everyone?
I read that Autodesk- who makes my tormentor, AutoCAD, now has an AI Help that reads your facial expressions and interacts with you emotionally as well as technically. I bet that if they made it a priority, that a system could be constructed that would "interview" each and every kid in America when they were ready for HS.
We have to try something. Let's try something that might work instead of meaningless gestures meant to pacify whoever has the loudest voice or biggest bully pulpit.
Is it Orwellian? Fuckin-A it is. Or we could just learn to live with it.
|
|
|
Post by Don Clark on May 21, 2018 8:48:06 GMT -5
"I bet we have the technology to passively monitor the tell-tale body reactions without having to physically attach wires or sensors to them."
I haven't heard of anything, but I wouldn't rule it out. The most recent technology that I'm aware of (and even that could be Jurassic by now) is Voice Stress Analysis, and it requires at least a basic heart rate monitor besides a good mic.
My initial thought is the idea has some merit.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 21, 2018 8:59:16 GMT -5
. . . , I think even the most fervent anti-assault rifle proponent has to take pause at this latest unhinged kid with his dad's shotgun and revolver. What law could prevent that? IMHO there is just no possible way to address this problem from the gun side in any way other than a useless, symbolic gesture that does absolutely nothing to stop these types of killings. . . . , His old man gets held legally accountable for reckless endangerment. That'd put some sobering light on the situation. If you own a gun and it get's used in a crime while the weapon is under your expected control you bear some legal responsibility. Years ago I lost a cell phone. Left it in a bar. Took 36 hours for me to realize it was gone and just not misplaced. I called AT&T. They cancelled the account. But they said I was responsible for all calls made on the phone up until I reported it stolen. . . . , Including 3 hours of calls to Guatemala. And, yes, it made a difference that this wasn't an assault rifle. With an AR-15 the casualties would have been much higher. And it would have been much more difficult to bring the perp down.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on May 21, 2018 9:05:18 GMT -5
I think of my days in Jr high and High School in the 50's and early 60's. Kids brought shotguns to school and left them in their cars so they could go hunting afterwards. We all carried knives and used to play games with them on the playground. We played incredibly violent games outside with toy guns running around the neighborhood playing army and cowboys and indians. Lots of violence in cartoons and movies as well as all the comic books. None of our guns were locked up at home, they hung on a rack in the closet. What has changed??
Maybe
Copy cat behavior from over the top 24/7 online media coverage and the fact that social media has taken bullying to a whole new level.
Social media and Youtube access that give a platform to every looney and somehow legitimize them creating followers.
Video games and movies are so realistic that maybe, in contrast to the sterile violence that you knew was fake in the old days, the new stuff is so realistic we have become desensitized to it.
I would say that much more than guns it is the internet. That is the big one and it ain't going away.
Easy access to firearm accessories that significantly increase their lethality like HC magazines and bump stocks simply increase the ability to do much more damage and I see no reason for them to be available.
The best thing the government could do would be to appoint a commission with representation from every appropriate discipline including the firearm industry to spend as long as it takes to analyze all available data, factor out emotion, and make recommendations. Could take several years to do right but it needs to be done if we are to know if there are any solutions other than knee jerk emotional ones.
Meantime we may need to harden our schools. Too bad but I think it has come to that.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 21, 2018 9:06:20 GMT -5
How about making gun owners carry liability insurance. You can't legally own a car without insurance. Make those that want to own guns pay more of the cost to society for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by amanajoe on May 21, 2018 9:07:39 GMT -5
Hmm. There is a Reuters article that claims the mother of the first girl shot has said her daughter had been fending off advances from the shooter for a few months.
She also states that a week before, she had enough and made it clear that there was nothing going to happen between them in front of the whole class and had embarrassed him publicly.
Parkland shooter had been dumped by his girlfriend and he went and shot up the school specifically on Valentine's Day.
Another kid shows up and shoots his ex-girlfriend in another highschool a few weeks ago.
Hormones and psychoactive drugs may be a bad combination. I doubt we will ever hear what prescription drugs any of these shooters were on (or had recently come off) with drug ads running during every mass media news outlet commercial break.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 21, 2018 9:10:55 GMT -5
I think of my days in Jr high and High School in the 50's and early 60's. Kids brought shotguns to school and left them in their cars so they could go hunting afterwards. We all carried knives and used to play games with them on the playground. We played incredibly violent games outside with toy guns running around the neighborhood playing army and cowboys and indians. Lots of violence in cartoons and movies as well as all the comic books. None of our guns were locked up at home, they hung on a rack in the closet. What has changed?? Maybe Copy cat behavior from over the top 24/7 online media coverage and the fact that social media has taken bullying to a whole new level. Social media and Youtube access that give a platform to every looney and somehow legitimize them creating followers. Video games and movies are so realistic that maybe, in contrast to the sterile violence that you knew was fake in the old days, the new stuff is so realistic we have become desensitized to it. I would say that much more than guns it is the internet. That is the big one and it ain't going away. Easy access to firearm accessories that significantly increase their lethality like HC magazines and bump stocks simply increase the ability to do much more damage and I see no reason for them to be available. The best thing the government could do would be to appoint a commission with representation from every appropriate discipline including the firearm industry to spend as long as it takes to analyze all available data, factor out emotion, and make recommendations. Could take several years to do right but it needs to be done if we are to know if there are any solutions other than knee jerk emotional ones. Meantime we may need to harden our schools. Too bad but I think it has come to that. Good post until you hit the highlighted part. That's impossible. Plus I'll say it's a totally different world than the one we grew up in. Childhood memories only hinder understanding the situation the nation faces.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 21, 2018 9:15:30 GMT -5
Hmm. There is a Reuters article that claims the mother of the first girl shot has said her daughter had been fending off advances from the shooter for a few months. She also states that a week before, she had enough and made it clear that there was nothing going to happen between them in front of the whole class and had embarrassed him publicly. Parkland shooter had been dumped by his girlfriend and he went and shot up the school specifically on Valentine's Day. Another kid shows up and shoots his ex-girlfriend in another highschool a few weeks ago. Hormones and psychoactive drugs may be a bad combination. I doubt we will ever hear what prescription drugs any of these shooters were on (or had recently come off) with drug ads running during every mass media news outlet commercial break. Clearly women are the problem then. Teach more young boys to play the blues. It's a better outlet.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on May 21, 2018 9:25:36 GMT -5
"Copy cat behavior from over the top 24/7...." I think that's a significant component. If they hadn't heard of doing this, it would never have occurred to some of them to do it. But unless we end freedom of the press, that's a difficult component to deal with.
"The best thing the government could do would be to appoint a commission with representation from every appropriate discipline including the firearm industry to spend as long as it takes to analyze all available data, factor out emotion, and make recommendations. Could take several years to do right but it needs to be done if we are to know if there are any solutions other than knee jerk emotional ones." That tends to be my view. But what relevant expertise would the firearms industry bring to such an inquiry? Having a financial interest shouldn't give you a seat at the table. Knowing something relevant should. But as sensible as this approach may seem to some of us, we live in an age where everyone's an expert whether they know anything or not. We don't need facts. We have our opinions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 9:30:58 GMT -5
Alan's post reminded me of the world in the film Minority Report, in which "pre-cogs" can predict murders that have not yet taken place...
|
|
|
Post by RickW on May 21, 2018 9:35:55 GMT -5
And if you put out the perfectly logical law that says dad was indeed responsible for his firearms, and should have consequences, the NRA will start screaming. That to me is the problem. There should be laws around who can own and use guns, and those folks responsibilities. The NRA had made this into what it is, by convincing their members that any restriction is the government beginning to take away their guns.
Sadly, Don, I do think your solution is worse than taking the guns away. I don't see how you can do that with any chance of success. You need a 100 % hit rate.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on May 21, 2018 9:44:47 GMT -5
Alan's post reminded me of the world in the film Minority Report, in which "pre-cogs" can predict murders that have not yet taken place...
It does. Talk about a slippery slope if we went that way! Like I said. Somebody's rights are going to get trampled. Probably everyone's before it's over.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on May 21, 2018 9:48:27 GMT -5
"I have a family member who recently promised that if the gun confiscators come to his door he will open fire. I pressed him on it and he assured me that he is not going to live in "that kind of a country". "
You have a family member who is apparently batshit crazy and should not own weapons.
Mike
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 9:50:13 GMT -5
And then it will come down to the question of what's more important? Preserving citizens' rights or preventing the taking of more lives? And, in our country, I think you know what the answer will be.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on May 21, 2018 10:03:04 GMT -5
And then it will come down to the question of what's more important? Preserving citizens' rights or preventing the taking of more lives? And, in our country, I think you know what the answer will be. There is no law that will stop a mentally ill person from finding a way to kill a lot of people if that's what they're set on doing. Are any of these shooters law abiding citizens? No. The premise that fewer guns will prevent mass killings is flawed. The premise that law enforcement can prevent mass killings is flawed because law enforcement is reactive. Take away the guns and you'll get bombs or knives or clubs or chemical weapons developed in the high-school chem lab using readily available household products and instructions found on the Internet. IMHO, we need to have discipline for the kids until they're old enough to decide that killing somebody doesn't fix their problems. TV, movies, the Internet the whole liberal flood of "If it feels good do it", no down sides, got us here. What's different now from when we were kids? It's illegal to discipline kids now. How's that set of laws working out for you?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on May 21, 2018 10:43:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 10:45:38 GMT -5
Bruce, on the one hand, I see some logic in your post. On the other hand, there will still always be deviants or people who grow up completely amoral who will perpetrate similar crimes. And how many short stories, novels, and films (plus documentaries) have been written or made about violent mass killers who came out of disciplined (and sometimes dysfunctional) family environments? I don't think that, if a kid has tendencies that will make him grow up and bring guns to high school and shoot his classmates, taking away his video screens or spanking him is going to change his future.
I'll agree with you that our culture of violence is a key factor in the way our young people experience the world. I don't know if the solution is all about discipline alone. There have to be moral examples made, as well, and the lesson taught that there is value in life. This is the main thing I like about foreign cinema—it is not focused on trivializing violence, killings, and such in the same blockbuster way that US cinema and culture does, nullifying the idea that life is valuable and precious.
Maybe Mahatma Ghandi, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Yitzhak Rabin and Anwar Sadat, among others, had the right ideas. I still think that in a national opinion poll, citizens' rights and the 2nd Amendment would win out over preventing mass shootings. I know, it's cynical, but Marco Rubio is still going to accept campaign contributions from the NRA, too.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on May 21, 2018 11:01:44 GMT -5
"I have a family member who recently promised that if the gun confiscators come to his door he will open fire. I pressed him on it and he assured me that he is not going to live in "that kind of a country". " You have a family member who is apparently batshit crazy and should not own weapons. Mike He is not crazy. He is highly opinionated much like yourself. It is my opinion that he and his second amendment rights should be left alone.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on May 21, 2018 11:04:30 GMT -5
Bruce, on the one hand, I see some logic in your post. On the other hand, there will still always be deviants or people who grow up completely amoral who will perpetrate similar crimes. And how many short stories, novels, and films (plus documentaries) have been written or made about violent mass killers who came out of disciplined (and sometimes dysfunctional) family environments? I don't think that, if a kid has tendencies that will make him grow up and bring guns to high school and shoot his classmates, taking away his video screens or spanking him is going to change his future. I'll agree with you that our culture of violence is a key factor in the way our young people experience the world. I don't know if the solution is all about discipline alone. There have to be moral examples made, as well, and the lesson taught that there is value in life. This is the main thing I like about foreign cinema—it is not focused on trivializing violence, killings, and such in the same blockbuster way that US cinema and culture does, nullifying the idea that life is valuable and precious. Maybe Mahatma Ghandi, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Yitzhak Rabin and Anwar Sadat, among others, had the right ideas. I still think that in a national opinion poll, citizens' rights and the 2nd Amendment would win out over preventing mass shootings. I know, it's cynical, but Marco Rubio is still going to accept campaign contributions from the NRA, too. I agree with all of that.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on May 21, 2018 11:08:34 GMT -5
IMHO, we need to have discipline for the kids until they're old enough to decide that killing somebody doesn't fix their problems. TV, movies, the Internet the whole liberal flood of "If it feels good do it", no down sides, got us here. What's different now from when we were kids? It's illegal to discipline kids now. How's that set of laws working out for you? Really? I don't think we're anywhere near, say, the Swedish model yet. Of course, if you mean forbidding corporal punishment in schools, I'd have to disagree. No school employee should have the right to lay hands on a student except to defend himself or another, and even then the principle of proportional force should apply. And there's plenty of "discipline" in the schools, often in the form of suspension or explusion--and often disproportionately applied to black and hispanic boys. The head coach/PE teacher of my high school was a bully--my first sight of him (when I was in third grade) included (along with his harangue about how guys who didn't want to play football were sissies) him arm-punching a kid who walked across his basketball court in street shoes. He was an asshole who should have been reined in hard, but in 1953 an ex-Marine coach was allowed to be an asshole and a bully. Now, kids, particularly teenagers, can be anything from anarchic and imprudent to nasty, but the external forces that make or reinforce those traits do not originate with the schools, though a lousy school and nasty classmates can encourage bad behavior. But there's no simple solution to the problem of civilizing us.
|
|