Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

John Stewart on UCSB/Columbine/etc.

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 7:57:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in epidemic violence that I think serve to explain, at least in some facet, how this all happens. But I, and I think you do too, blame society for this. The fact that our culture could produce people who do this is repulsing, saddening and maddeningly frustrating... but even worse is the refusal to meaningfully engage the issue.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 8:13:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 7:57:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in epidemic violence that I think serve to explain, at least in some facet, how this all happens. But I, and I think you do too, blame society for this. The fact that our culture could produce people who do this is repulsing, saddening and maddeningly frustrating... but even worse is the refusal to meaningfully engage the issue.

But how does one meaningfully engage the issue?
Both sides blame others.
The left blames guns, while the right finds causes that are scapegoats.

I don't see the difference between mass shootists and internet trolls. In either case, the aggressor feels entitled to their actions (whether it is getting off on the misery on others, or righting a perceived wrong (like shooting bullies), or being angry for being fired, or any other reason).

How does one challenge the core issue, that of entitlement and the curse of instant gratification coupled with short-sightedness?
Americans have this issue in spades, due to the disparity of many things.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 8:21:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 8:13:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:57:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in epidemic violence that I think serve to explain, at least in some facet, how this all happens. But I, and I think you do too, blame society for this. The fact that our culture could produce people who do this is repulsing, saddening and maddeningly frustrating... but even worse is the refusal to meaningfully engage the issue.

But how does one meaningfully engage the issue?

1. Restrict gun access across the board.
2. Take guns from people.
3. Require mental health screenings for all people every five years if they want to own any kind of firearm. Establish the threshold that even if there is a potential for someone to intentionally harm another person with a gun, they should not be allowed to ever own guns. Make all gun owners bear 100% of the cost for this.
4. Teach empathy, teamwork, social inclusion, etc. in the schools. Worry less about science, worry more about literature.

Both sides blame others.

No, they don't.

The left blames guns, while the right finds causes that are scapegoats.

The left blames cowardly republicans who are afraid of the NRA, while the right wants only to talk about adding more guns to a problem caused by guns to solve a problem caused by guns. It's the logic of insanity.

I don't see the difference between mass shootists and internet trolls.

Mass shooters kill people. Internet trolls are bad, but they don't kill people.

In either case, the aggressor feels entitled to their actions (whether it is getting off on the misery on others, or righting a perceived wrong (like shooting bullies), or being angry for being fired, or any other reason).

Yeah, and both are remediated by trying to facilitate a cultural shift from narcism to empathy.

How does one challenge the core issue, that of entitlement and the curse of instant gratification coupled with short-sightedness?

Entitlement and instant gratification aren't the problem. A culturally endemic drought of human empathy is what's to blame. We've got to stop viewing mass shootings as episodes that exist outside of the cultural context in which they occur. These things are predictable, and they're preventable... and the way to prevent them is to change the cultural conditions that made them possible.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 8:32:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 8:21:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 8:13:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:57:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in epidemic violence that I think serve to explain, at least in some facet, how this all happens. But I, and I think you do too, blame society for this. The fact that our culture could produce people who do this is repulsing, saddening and maddeningly frustrating... but even worse is the refusal to meaningfully engage the issue.

But how does one meaningfully engage the issue?

1. Restrict gun access across the board.
2. Take guns from people.
3. Require mental health screenings for all people every five years if they want to own any kind of firearm. Establish the threshold that even if there is a potential for someone to intentionally harm another person with a gun, they should not be allowed to ever own guns. Make all gun owners bear 100% of the cost for this.
4. Teach empathy, teamwork, social inclusion, etc. in the schools. Worry less about science, worry more about literature.

What do guns have to do about empathy?
The issue is: someone for some reason feels entitled to killing someone (or being famous, or causing hurt, or etc.).
In a world without guns, the problems would still exist.
This is what I mean by blaming guns.

Both sides blame others.

No, they don't.

The left blames guns, while the right finds causes that are scapegoats.

The left blames cowardly republicans who are afraid of the NRA, while the right wants only to talk about adding more guns to a problem caused by guns to solve a problem caused by guns. It's the logic of insanity.
No, you basically said the issue is guns.
4 point plan, and three deal with guns.
It may stop the number of victims, but does not address the core issue.

I don't see the difference between mass shootists and internet trolls.

Mass shooters kill people. Internet trolls are bad, but they don't kill people.
I am referring to their mentality.

In either case, the aggressor feels entitled to their actions (whether it is getting off on the misery on others, or righting a perceived wrong (like shooting bullies), or being angry for being fired, or any other reason).

Yeah, and both are remediated by trying to facilitate a cultural shift from narcism to empathy.
I'm not sure empathy is the cure.
But, yes, being less self-involved would be a plus.

How does one challenge the core issue, that of entitlement and the curse of instant gratification coupled with short-sightedness?

Entitlement and instant gratification aren't the problem. A culturally endemic drought of human empathy is what's to blame. We've got to stop viewing mass shootings as episodes that exist outside of the cultural context in which they occur. These things are predictable, and they're preventable... and the way to prevent them is to change the cultural conditions that made them possible.

Sure they are the problem.
What is narcissism? Entitlement to your desires.
If we could delay gratification, we would likely be less impulsive.

And, are you implying that I view them outside of our context? I see teens all the time (aren't teens/young adults the general mass shooter?). I see how they think, at least in the suburbs. Do you know how many people demand respect and trust just because they exist?
Perhaps, if they weren't so coddled, they wouldn't have the narcissism, and they could deal with others outside of home more.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:02:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 8:32:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 8:21:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 8:13:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:57:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in epidemic violence that I think serve to explain, at least in some facet, how this all happens. But I, and I think you do too, blame society for this. The fact that our culture could produce people who do this is repulsing, saddening and maddeningly frustrating... but even worse is the refusal to meaningfully engage the issue.

But how does one meaningfully engage the issue?

1. Restrict gun access across the board.
2. Take guns from people.
3. Require mental health screenings for all people every five years if they want to own any kind of firearm. Establish the threshold that even if there is a potential for someone to intentionally harm another person with a gun, they should not be allowed to ever own guns. Make all gun owners bear 100% of the cost for this.
4. Teach empathy, teamwork, social inclusion, etc. in the schools. Worry less about science, worry more about literature.

What do guns have to do about empathy?
The issue is: someone for some reason feels entitled to killing someone (or being famous, or causing hurt, or etc.).
In a world without guns, the problems would still exist.
This is what I mean by blaming guns.

Both sides blame others.

No, they don't.

The left blames guns, while the right finds causes that are scapegoats.

The left blames cowardly republicans who are afraid of the NRA, while the right wants only to talk about adding more guns to a problem caused by guns to solve a problem caused by guns. It's the logic of insanity.
No, you basically said the issue is guns.
4 point plan, and three deal with guns.
It may stop the number of victims, but does not address the core issue.

I don't see the difference between mass shootists and internet trolls.

Mass shooters kill people. Internet trolls are bad, but they don't kill people.
I am referring to their mentality.

In either case, the aggressor feels entitled to their actions (whether it is getting off on the misery on others, or righting a perceived wrong (like shooting bullies), or being angry for being fired, or any other reason).

Yeah, and both are remediated by trying to facilitate a cultural shift from narcism to empathy.
I'm not sure empathy is the cure.
But, yes, being less self-involved would be a plus.

How does one challenge the core issue, that of entitlement and the curse of instant gratification coupled with short-sightedness?

Entitlement and instant gratification aren't the problem. A culturally endemic drought of human empathy is what's to blame. We've got to stop viewing mass shootings as episodes that exist outside of the cultural context in which they occur. These things are predictable, and they're preventable... and the way to prevent them is to change the cultural conditions that made them possible.

Sure they are the problem.
What is narcissism? Entitlement to your desires.
If we could delay gratification, we would likely be less impulsive.

And, are you implying that I view them outside of our context? I see teens all the time (aren't teens/young adults the general mass shooter?). I see how they think, at least in the suburbs. Do you know how many people demand respect and trust just because they exist?
Perhaps, if they weren't so coddled, they wouldn't have the narcissism, and they could deal with others outside of home more.

I'm going to write up a response to this, because there are a lot of points that I think need to be addressed, but I'm not going to do it tonight. Maybe tomorrow morning, maybe tomorrow afternoon... just depending on when I get through work.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:04:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:02:29 PM, YYW wrote:

I'm going to write up a response to this, because there are a lot of points that I think need to be addressed, but I'm not going to do it tonight. Maybe tomorrow morning, maybe tomorrow afternoon... just depending on when I get through work.

https://www.youtube.com...

That's cool.
I'm going to bed anyhow.
My work here is, finally, done.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:41:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 7:57:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in epidemic violence that I think serve to explain, at least in some facet, how this all happens. But I, and I think you do too, blame society for this. The fact that our culture could produce people who do this is repulsing, saddening and maddeningly frustrating... but even worse is the refusal to meaningfully engage the issue.

Here's another excellent article about why mass shootings happen in our country.

The problem is partly our culture, in that it glorifies people who have power over others, at the expense of ignoring people (or worse, having contempt for people) that go out of the way to make life work in the United States.

http://www.livescience.com...

Americans need to start changing what the value in life. If we don't, these things are only going to get worse.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:48:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:41:46 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:57:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in epidemic violence that I think serve to explain, at least in some facet, how this all happens. But I, and I think you do too, blame society for this. The fact that our culture could produce people who do this is repulsing, saddening and maddeningly frustrating... but even worse is the refusal to meaningfully engage the issue.

Here's another excellent article about why mass shootings happen in our country.

The problem is partly our culture, in that it glorifies people who have power over others, at the expense of ignoring people (or worse, having contempt for people) that go out of the way to make life work in the United States.

http://www.livescience.com...

Americans need to start changing what the value in life. If we don't, these things are only going to get worse.

By the way, I'm briefly going to go over why mass shootings happen inside the U.S. in the final Round of my current debate on gun control. Part of the problem is the strong sense of entitlement Americans feel . . . we're a highly envious, entitled culture. When things don't go our way, we have a tendency to lash out and blame society for our problems, ignoring our own failures and choosing not to see the reward in finding alternative paths to happiness.

I'm not say American culture as it is has to be eradicated, because I don't it has to be. But there are things to have to change in our culture and inside of most Americans right now.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:50:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Correction:

"I'm not say American culture as it is has to be eradicated, because I don't think it has to be. But there are things that have to change in our culture and inside of most Americans right now."
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 11:53:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 8:32:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What do guns have to do about empathy?

A cultural lack of empathy, that is to say the ideas, customs and social behavior in the United States which creates the conditions in which individuals never learn to understand and share the feelings of others, is what makes possible the conditions in which an individual of the kind that we have seen perpetrate mass shootings can exist. If any of those individuals could empathize with other people -especially strangers- then they would not perpetrated those episodes of arbitrary violence. Guns, then, are not the problem, but the means by which the problem finds expression.

The issue is: someone for some reason feels entitled to killing someone (or being famous, or causing hurt, or etc.).

I'm not going to necessarily dispute that claim, other than to say that I don't think "entitlement" is the right word to use even though it's not wholly inaccurate.

In a world without guns, the problems would still exist.

Of course they would, but taking guns from people would reduce the possibility that the more broader cultural problem that we have would find expression in mass shootings. That is why, therefore, I want not only to drastically increase gun control measures, but I want the government to take guns from private citizens.

This is what I mean by blaming guns.

That's off base. Neither I, nor anyone else on the left, blames "guns" because to blame "guns" is to give agency to an inanimate object. People are the problem, but guns are the means by which that problem finds expression -and to prevent people from accessing guns is to reduce the possibility that the more broader problem could manifest as mass shootings.

No, you basically said the issue is guns...It may stop the number of victims, but does not address the core issue.

No, I didn't. But, let's talk about that some more. A world in which individuals can easily access firearms increases the possibility that any individual who appeared otherwise sane, normal, etc., could acquire firearms -legally or otherwise- in such a way that would enable them to harm innocent people. To seize gun, then, is to reduce (even if not wholly eliminate) the most salient aspect of the more broad societal problem.

The argument that "we're not going to reduce sociopathy by restricting gun ownership" is at once one the most common and among the most stupid out there. No one expects that preventing people from accessing, owning, buying, selling, possessing, trading, or otherwise obtaining guns will ameliorate the broader cultural problem. It will, nevertheless, reduce the chances that guns could be used in mass shootings, as they are. It's not a cure-all, but the quest for a cure-all is an exercise in futility. There is no such thing as a cure-all when the problem is culturally endemic, as it is.

Perhaps, if they weren't so coddled, they wouldn't have the narcissism, and they could deal with others outside of home more.

I don't dispute that the way a lot of kids -especially boys- have been raised and socialized is really, really problematic. I think that Baby Boomers have been the worst parents that our country has ever seen, and that generally they (and the policies the politicians they elected or failed to prevent from being elected) are more accountable, as a group, than any other, now. I have all kinds of solutions to that, but it's very close to being beyond the scope of this thread.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:30:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 11:53:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 8:32:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What do guns have to do about empathy?

A cultural lack of empathy, that is to say the ideas, customs and social behavior in the United States which creates the conditions in which individuals never learn to understand and share the feelings of others, is what makes possible the conditions in which an individual of the kind that we have seen perpetrate mass shootings can exist. If any of those individuals could empathize with other people -especially strangers- then they would not perpetrated those episodes of arbitrary violence. Guns, then, are not the problem, but the means by which the problem finds expression.

And rape (sans guns), domestic violence, and a whole host of other ills.
It is an issue we have and need to address. Agreed.

The issue is: someone for some reason feels entitled to killing someone (or being famous, or causing hurt, or etc.).

I'm not going to necessarily dispute that claim, other than to say that I don't think "entitlement" is the right word to use even though it's not wholly inaccurate.

In a world without guns, the problems would still exist.

Of course they would, but taking guns from people would reduce the possibility that the more broader cultural problem that we have would find expression in mass shootings. That is why, therefore, I want not only to drastically increase gun control measures, but I want the government to take guns from private citizens.
I disagree, and at what cost?
I get what you are saying, but the only issue is number of victims, not expression.
How many of the school shootings also had bombs of some sort? They will find ways.

There are four reasons to owning a gun:
1. To kill, murder, rob, etc. (obviously bad)
2. To equalize force against you (defense from baddies)
3. For entertainment (hunting, skeet, shooting range, collectibles, etc.)
4. To keep government at bay (it's a valid concern to be scared of corrupt police)

By banning guns, you create a power imbalance for number two (think women, elderly) who can easily be overpowered by an aggressor.
By eliminating guns, do we create more victims?

This is what I mean by blaming guns.

That's off base. Neither I, nor anyone else on the left, blames "guns" because to blame "guns" is to give agency to an inanimate object. People are the problem, but guns are the means by which that problem finds expression -and to prevent people from accessing guns is to reduce the possibility that the more broader problem could manifest as mass shootings.
My point is that expression will be found.
The fact that 95% of these mass shooting are personal and in gun free zones speak to the fact that guns are the means of expression, but also, they fear immediate retaliation (i.e. going for maximum damage), and even without guns, there would still be victims.

No, you basically said the issue is guns...It may stop the number of victims, but does not address the core issue.

No, I didn't. But, let's talk about that some more. A world in which individuals can easily access firearms increases the possibility that any individual who appeared otherwise sane, normal, etc., could acquire firearms -legally or otherwise- in such a way that would enable them to harm innocent people. To seize gun, then, is to reduce (even if not wholly eliminate) the most salient aspect of the more broad societal problem.
Unless you are stating that the existence of guns creates the motivation, desire, and ability to carry out these acts, it is irrelevant to me.
If everyone had empathy, then guns would not be an issue, would they?
Ergo, gun control is ultimately irrelevant.
It is merely a means to fix an effect of the moral cesspool of our society, and nothing gets discussed because the argument is shifted from society to guns. But, for those who want gun control, it is one step at a time.

The argument that "we're not going to reduce sociopathy by restricting gun ownership" is at once one the most common and among the most stupid out there. No one expects that preventing people from accessing, owning, buying, selling, possessing, trading, or otherwise obtaining guns will ameliorate the broader cultural problem. It will, nevertheless, reduce the chances that guns could be used in mass shootings, as they are. It's not a cure-all, but the quest for a cure-all is an exercise in futility. There is no such thing as a cure-all when the problem is culturally endemic, as it is.
Again, if the social ills didn't exist, if the empathy was in place, then guns aren't the issue. Look at other countries and their gun ownership. I think 44% of Canandians own guns.
Fixing the social ills is more important.

Perhaps, if they weren't so coddled, they wouldn't have the narcissism, and they could deal with others outside of home more.

I don't dispute that the way a lot of kids -especially boys- have been raised and socialized is really, really problematic. I think that Baby Boomers have been the worst parents that our country has ever seen, and that generally they (and the policies the politicians they elected or failed to prevent from being elected) are more accountable, as a group, than any other, now. I have all kinds of solutions to that, but it's very close to being beyond the scope of this thread.

I'd say the Gen X parents are worse.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:02:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any society in which individuals have substantial agency will be subject to occasional mass murder by individuals.

Any society in which governments have substantial agency will be subject to occasional mass murder by governments (lower frequency, much higher magnitude).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:46:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:30:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/10/2014 11:53:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 8:32:50 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What do guns have to do about empathy?

A cultural lack of empathy, that is to say the ideas, customs and social behavior in the United States which creates the conditions in which individuals never learn to understand and share the feelings of others, is what makes possible the conditions in which an individual of the kind that we have seen perpetrate mass shootings can exist. If any of those individuals could empathize with other people -especially strangers- then they would not perpetrated those episodes of arbitrary violence. Guns, then, are not the problem, but the means by which the problem finds expression.

And rape (sans guns), domestic violence, and a whole host of other ills.
It is an issue we have and need to address. Agreed.

The issue is: someone for some reason feels entitled to killing someone (or being famous, or causing hurt, or etc.).

I'm not going to necessarily dispute that claim, other than to say that I don't think "entitlement" is the right word to use even though it's not wholly inaccurate.

In a world without guns, the problems would still exist.

Of course they would, but taking guns from people would reduce the possibility that the more broader cultural problem that we have would find expression in mass shootings. That is why, therefore, I want not only to drastically increase gun control measures, but I want the government to take guns from private citizens.
I disagree, and at what cost?
I get what you are saying, but the only issue is number of victims, not expression.

Sure.

How many of the school shootings also had bombs of some sort? They will find ways.

I'm not going to tell you that taking away guns, making them harder to get and implementing a whole lot more regulation for their ownership either will eliminate the problem, or that it would not have marginal impacts of some kind. But, I do think that -and there is ample evidence around the world, especially in Australia, to suggest- taking the measures I'm proposing relating to guns will reduce the frequency of mass shootings. That there may be other ways that people harm other people isn't a reason not to take action on guns. That's a common -and impotent- argument.

There are four reasons to owning a gun:
1. To kill, murder, rob, etc. (obviously bad)
2. To equalize force against you (defense from baddies)
3. For entertainment (hunting, skeet, shooting range, collectibles, etc.)
4. To keep government at bay (it's a valid concern to be scared of corrupt police)

Sure.

By banning guns, you create a power imbalance for number two (think women, elderly) who can easily be overpowered by an aggressor.

I'm not going to totally ban all guns, but make them much, much, much harder to obtain. I also want to take guns from people who already have them, and melt them down into manhole covers.

By eliminating guns, do we create more victims?

Based on the evidence from virtually every other first world country which has taken substantial measures to cut down the number of guns in its territory and imposed stringent regulations which nearly preclude their ownership, the answer is no.


This is what I mean by blaming guns.

That's off base. Neither I, nor anyone else on the left, blames "guns" because to blame "guns" is to give agency to an inanimate object. People are the problem, but guns are the means by which that problem finds expression -and to prevent people from accessing guns is to reduce the possibility that the more broader problem could manifest as mass shootings.
My point is that expression will be found.

Of course it will, maybe with knives or bows and arrows (watch We Need To Talk About Kevin). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do what I'm saying with guns. It's irrelevant to the point. The objective is to reduce the number of guns in society, to reduce ONLY gun violence, not to eliminate violence -pursuit of the latter is a fools errand.

The fact that 95% of these mass shooting are personal and in gun free zones speak to the fact that guns are the means of expression, but also, they fear immediate retaliation (i.e. going for maximum damage), and even without guns, there would still be victims.

That's an incredibly myopic argument, and your statistic is without merit. The problem is that people can obtain guns, with relative ease, and do things with them at society's expense.

No, you basically said the issue is guns...It may stop the number of victims, but does not address the core issue.

No, I didn't. But, let's talk about that some more. A world in which individuals can easily access firearms increases the possibility that any individual who appeared otherwise sane, normal, etc., could acquire firearms -legally or otherwise- in such a way that would enable them to harm innocent people. To seize gun, then, is to reduce (even if not wholly eliminate) the most salient aspect of the more broad societal problem.

Unless you are stating that the existence of guns creates the motivation, desire, and ability to carry out these acts, it is irrelevant to me.

lol, I'm not saying that at all. Some sociologists have made that claim, but it's not my argument, nor is it an implication of my argument.

If everyone had empathy, then guns would not be an issue, would they?

There very well may come a time where gun control laws like the kind I'm proposing can be relaxed. Now is not that time.

Ergo, gun control is ultimately irrelevant.

Hardly. But I'm going to talk about the conditions under which gun control laws can be reduced in a later post. I'm almost out of character space.

It is merely a means to fix an effect of the moral cesspool of our society, and nothing gets discussed because the argument is shifted from society to guns. But, for those who want gun control, it is one step at a time.

I'm not so sure about that, either.

The argument that "we're not going to reduce sociopathy by restricting gun ownership" is at once one the most common and among the most stupid out there. No one expects that preventing people from accessing, owning, buying, selling, possessing, trading, or otherwise obtaining guns will ameliorate the broader cultural problem. It will, nevertheless, reduce the chances that guns could be used in mass shootings, as they are. It's not a cure-all, but the quest for a cure-all is an exercise in futility. There is no such thing as a cure-all when the problem is culturally endemic, as it is.
Again, if the social ills didn't exist, if the empathy was in place, then guns aren't the issue. Look at other countries and their gun ownership. I think 44% of Canandians own guns.

Once more, there may be a time when gun ownership regulations like the kind I'm proposing could be relaxed. Now is not that time. We have to deal with the problems we face now, rather than pretending that the real issue isn't an issue.

Fixing the social ills is more important.

And once they are, then more people, perhaps, could be trusted to own guns. Right now, gun violence is socially contagious. Mass shootings are incredibly common, and they're going to continue to occur to the extent that we fail, as a society, to restrict gun access and ownership. Stringently regulating gun ownership, and seizing guns from people, now, will reduce the possibility of all mass shootings. It may not have a whole lot of impact on other kinds of violent crime, but it's a necessary, proper and prudent response to an extant problem. The underlying social ill, then, can be addressed over time -but only once getting guns off the streets and out of people's hands creates the space for that to happen.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:50:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 9:02:35 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Any society in which individuals have substantial agency will be subject to occasional mass murder by individuals.

Any society in which governments have substantial agency will be subject to occasional mass murder by governments (lower frequency, much higher magnitude).

Platitudes like that are meaningless, because of their presuppositions of human nature. Where what we call "human nature" is contingent upon the social values that govern individual choices, your argument holds no water outside of the specific context in which those values could produce a society where individuals act in the way you've described. That being the case, and insofar as human nature -or what looks like human nature- is contingent in that way, that is to say it is socially constructed and not innate, my objective, then is to move beyond the conditions under which either of those worlds you described could be the case.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:31:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's talk, for a brief moment, about what's at stake in this issue:

Taking guns off the streets, out of people's hands and were prevented from being easily bought and sold, doing so will substantially reduce the potential for gun violence of every kind. Specifically, if guns were taken off the streets and out of people's hands and guns could not be easily bought or sold, then mass shootings would, to the extent that guns were removed, reduce the chances for mass shootings. That much is uncontroversial.

The argument that "taking guns off the streets and out of people's hands won't reduce the possibility of all kinds of violence" is impotent and irrelevant because the purpose of getting guns off the streets and out of people's hands is not to reduce the possibility of ALL kinds of violence, but only to reduce violence of a specific kind. Arguments against measures to prevent gun violence which are based on the notion that not all violence can be reduced by taking guns off the streets and our of people's hands distort the objective, confuse the issue and shift the scope of the debate from one based on reality to one that rests on the logic of "well, we can't fix everything, so let's instead just do nothing." That's the "conservative" position, and it's as fundamentally stupid as it is unethical to make, where that argument is being made because one prefers to continue to have guns readily accessible to any idiot who wants to buy one.

The reason that the making of that argument is unethical is because in doing so, one is valuing an individual preference that people be able to buy guns over public safety. Guns being in society, to the extent that they are now, come imminently at the expense of public safety. That is not to say that either all people who buy/own guns are idiots or likely to harm others, but it is absolutely to say that the world in which anyone or most anyone can buy/own guns is also the world in which people who wish to buy guns with the desire to harm others can do so with the same ease as one who can not. Passing laws restricting gun ownership, in that way, do not wish to make men angels, but accepts, rather, that some people can make very bad choices at others expense and society, therefore, has the right and responsibility to intervene on its own behalf.

Intuitively, this seems like overreach -but it's not. It seems unfair that all of society's access to guns should be limited to prevent some of society from harming others, but it's not. The reason it's not is because all benefit from changing the status quo from a world in which all or most all can easily buy and own guns to a world where only those who want to buy guns and present almost no possibility of ever using those guns to harm society can obtain them.

Conservatives, as they are perpetually inclined to do, fear that in restricting gun ownership in any way opens the door for taking guns away in totality and they argue from the position that any regulation of any kind begins a journey to an inevitable repeal of the Second Amendment -despite the fact that that is just not the case. Just because it is absolutely necessary to get gun off the streets and out of people's hands NOW does not mean that it will always be necessary to stringently restrict firearm ownership and access, or that if we regulate guns now to any extent more than in the status quo that such regulation will lead to a totalizing ban on guns across the board. That's just absurd.

If gun ownership is a right, then the right to own guns implies a duty to only use guns responsibly. Where that duty is not upheld by some, then the right to own guns comes under scrutiny -and it does so of necessity, in response to chaos and arbitrary violence. Society has a legitimate right and duty, likewise, to restrict liberty to the extent necessary though only to the extent necessary, to prevent harm where the prevention of that harm is achievable. Where legislatures do that, they act in the public interest and to the pursuit of common good. Where legislatures fail to do that, they harm the public interest and act inconsistently with the pursuit of common good. But, where legislatures are crippled by irrational NRA zealots whose single issue lobbying makes possible the kind of mass shootings that we now see on a weekly basis, it is the system that made possible that kind of influence to exert itself that comes under scrutiny.

In that the NRA and it's brigade of mouthpieces and pundits has restricted our nation's legislature from passing comprehensive gun control regulation in response to these kind of shootings that would meaningfully undercut the permissibility of these things happening, every death that occurs at the hand of any mass shooter who was able to buy and own guns in the status quo is to be properly laid at their doorstep. They are accountable. It is the NRA's fault, and the fault of all others who failed to act when action was required.
Tsar of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:41:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 10:50:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/12/2014 9:02:35 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Any society in which individuals have substantial agency will be subject to occasional mass murder by individuals.

Any society in which governments have substantial agency will be subject to occasional mass murder by governments (lower frequency, much higher magnitude).

Platitudes like that are meaningless, because of their presuppositions of human nature.
It's not meaningless at all. It's a prediction.

your argument holds no water outside of the specific context in which those values could produce a society where individuals act in the way you've described.
You mean a society in which we are dealing with creatures who have individual brains, varying goals, and a capacity for violence? Pretty sure I just described all human societies past present and future.

That being the case, and insofar as human nature -or what looks like human nature- is contingent in that way, that is to say it is socially constructed and not innate, my objective, then is to move beyond the conditions under which either of those worlds you described could be the case.
Your goal is to remove individual brains, varying goals, or a capacity for violence altogether?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:50:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
Let's talk, for a brief moment, about what's at stake in this issue:

Taking guns off the streets, out of people's hands and were prevented from being easily bought and sold, doing so will substantially reduce the potential for gun violence of every kind.
Except the government kind, which it dramatically increases in both likelihood and magnitude. (amend that: Not likelihood, certainty-- gun violence is required to "Take guns off the streets in the real, as opposed to magic universe. In the real universe, only armed men can disarm others.

The argument that "taking guns off the streets and out of people's hands won't reduce the possibility of all kinds of violence" is impotent and irrelevant because the purpose of getting guns off the streets and out of people's hands is not to reduce the possibility of ALL kinds of violence, but only to reduce violence of a specific kind.
If your goal is to reduce, not total violence, but only "gun violence," with absolutely no care for the impact on total violence, your goal is moronic. A man who wants more people to live has a worthy goal, a man who doesn't care whether a man dies so long as it is not to a bullet does not.

The reason that the making of that argument is unethical is because in doing so, one is valuing an individual preference that people be able to buy guns over public safety.
There is no such thing as public safety. My safety and a tyrant's safety are inversely proportional.

Passing laws restricting gun ownership, in that way, do not wish to make men angels, but accepts, rather, that some people can make very bad choices at others expense and society, therefore, has the right and responsibility to intervene on its own behalf.
Society can neither have rights, nor responsibilities, nor an "own behalf".

Conservatives, as they are perpetually inclined to do, fear that in restricting gun ownership in any way opens the door for taking guns away in totality
My goodness, it's almost as though that's how principles work.

and they argue from the position that any regulation of any kind begins a journey to an inevitable repeal of the Second Amendment
If the regulation violates the Second Amendment, repeal is rather moot no?

Just because it is absolutely necessary to get gun off the streets and out of people's hands NOW does not mean that it will always be necessary to stringently restrict firearm ownership and access
"Citizens, do not panic. My assault on your liberty is a temporary measure."

or that if we regulate guns now to any extent more than in the status quo that such regulation will lead to a totalizing ban on guns across the board. That's just absurd.
The history of creeping regulations says otherwise.


If gun ownership is a right, then the right to own guns implies a duty to only use guns responsibly.
The concept of "duty" lacks justification.

Where that duty is not upheld by some, then the right to own guns comes under scrutiny
"I'm sorry sir, but many Negroes like yourself rape white women, so you don't get a trial."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 7:12:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 10:50:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
Let's talk, for a brief moment, about what's at stake in this issue:

Taking guns off the streets, out of people's hands and were prevented from being easily bought and sold, doing so will substantially reduce the potential for gun violence of every kind.
Except the government kind, which it dramatically increases in both likelihood and magnitude. (amend that: Not likelihood, certainty-- gun violence is required to "Take guns off the streets in the real, as opposed to magic universe. In the real universe, only armed men can disarm others.

I am always amused by people who want to keep guns to protect themselves from the government. Really, I'm not even going to have that conversation, because of how outlandish the notion that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 7:13:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 10:41:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:50:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/12/2014 9:02:35 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Any society in which individuals have substantial agency will be subject to occasional mass murder by individuals.

Any society in which governments have substantial agency will be subject to occasional mass murder by governments (lower frequency, much higher magnitude).

Platitudes like that are meaningless, because of their presuppositions of human nature.
It's not meaningless at all. It's a prediction.

your argument holds no water outside of the specific context in which those values could produce a society where individuals act in the way you've described.
You mean a society in which we are dealing with creatures who have individual brains, varying goals, and a capacity for violence? Pretty sure I just described all human societies past present and future.

That being the case, and insofar as human nature -or what looks like human nature- is contingent in that way, that is to say it is socially constructed and not innate, my objective, then is to move beyond the conditions under which either of those worlds you described could be the case.
Your goal is to remove individual brains, varying goals, or a capacity for violence altogether?

LOL... really?
Tsar of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 7:24:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 7:12:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:50:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
Let's talk, for a brief moment, about what's at stake in this issue:

Taking guns off the streets, out of people's hands and were prevented from being easily bought and sold, doing so will substantially reduce the potential for gun violence of every kind.
Except the government kind, which it dramatically increases in both likelihood and magnitude. (amend that: Not likelihood, certainty-- gun violence is required to "Take guns off the streets in the real, as opposed to magic universe. In the real universe, only armed men can disarm others.

I am always amused by people who want to keep guns to protect themselves from the government. Really, I'm not even going to have that conversation, because of how outlandish the notion that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is.

Why is that outlandish? I'm not saying the argument is a knock-out punch in favor of gun rights, but it isn't like there's a lack of times where people have used guns to protect themselves from the government. The U.S. was created by a violent revolution.

The idea that people need guns to protect themselves from the existing U.S. government at this moment may be outlandish, but that isn't the argument (credible) gun-rights proponents are making.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 7:27:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 7:24:53 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/13/2014 7:12:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:50:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
Let's talk, for a brief moment, about what's at stake in this issue:

Taking guns off the streets, out of people's hands and were prevented from being easily bought and sold, doing so will substantially reduce the potential for gun violence of every kind.
Except the government kind, which it dramatically increases in both likelihood and magnitude. (amend that: Not likelihood, certainty-- gun violence is required to "Take guns off the streets in the real, as opposed to magic universe. In the real universe, only armed men can disarm others.

I am always amused by people who want to keep guns to protect themselves from the government. Really, I'm not even going to have that conversation, because of how outlandish the notion that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is.

Why is that outlandish?

The US government is not a threat to anyone's rights or liberty. End of discussion.
Tsar of DDO
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 7:50:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 7:27:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/13/2014 7:24:53 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/13/2014 7:12:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:50:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
Let's talk, for a brief moment, about what's at stake in this issue:

Taking guns off the streets, out of people's hands and were prevented from being easily bought and sold, doing so will substantially reduce the potential for gun violence of every kind.
Except the government kind, which it dramatically increases in both likelihood and magnitude. (amend that: Not likelihood, certainty-- gun violence is required to "Take guns off the streets in the real, as opposed to magic universe. In the real universe, only armed men can disarm others.

I am always amused by people who want to keep guns to protect themselves from the government. Really, I'm not even going to have that conversation, because of how outlandish the notion that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is.

Why is that outlandish?

The US government is not a threat to anyone's rights or liberty. End of discussion.

I will debate you on that Resolution.

Resolved: The US government is not a threat to anyone's rights or liberty.

You should really re-evaluate the tone you take when you disagree with people. It hurts your ethos.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 7:50:57 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/13/2014 7:27:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/13/2014 7:24:53 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/13/2014 7:12:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/12/2014 10:50:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:31:47 AM, YYW wrote:
Let's talk, for a brief moment, about what's at stake in this issue:

Taking guns off the streets, out of people's hands and were prevented from being easily bought and sold, doing so will substantially reduce the potential for gun violence of every kind.
Except the government kind, which it dramatically increases in both likelihood and magnitude. (amend that: Not likelihood, certainty-- gun violence is required to "Take guns off the streets in the real, as opposed to magic universe. In the real universe, only armed men can disarm others.

I am always amused by people who want to keep guns to protect themselves from the government. Really, I'm not even going to have that conversation, because of how outlandish the notion that people need guns to protect themselves from the government is.

Why is that outlandish?

The US government is not a threat to anyone's rights or liberty. End of discussion.

I will debate you on that Resolution.

Resolved: The US government is not a threat to anyone's rights or liberty.

There are some things that I'm willing to discuss; acceptable topics that reasonable people can disagree on. The idea that the United States government threatens people's rights or liberty in a way that necessitates private gun ownership is asinine.

You should really re-evaluate the tone you take when you disagree with people. It hurts your ethos.

Sure.
Tsar of DDO
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2014 9:21:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

I can't say I have much insight into the increase in mass shootings, but it is clear that each event has an amplifying effect; inspiring and encouraging other like-minded, desperately isolated young men like a Kessler effect cascade. So it seems possible that the increased banality of spree shooting may serve to curb the frequency of spree shootings. As these events become increasingly local stories instead of national breaking news/live coverage media events we will probably see a mitigating effect.

Look at the LA car chase phenomenon. I'm certain that being the most car dependent city has meant that LA has always had its share of car chases, but after OJ Simpson's slow speed chase 20 years ago, the idea of being chased on TV became increasingly popular. By 2000, there were 8 full time TV helicopter crews devoted to covering car chases in LA. When 9/11 commanded viewers' attention, the frequency of coverage declined followed by a 62% percent decline in car chases in 2002. As car chase coverage returned to normal, criminals were again more inspired to flee on TV.

In the last five years, LA Police have worked hard to decrease the amount of TV coverage because that seems to be th single most salient factor in car chase frequency.

Is it possible that spree shooters are subject to the same dynamic?

As spree shooting becomes commonplace, TV coverage decreases. As TV coverage decreases fewer psychotics will be inspired in the first place, and those who are inspired have less hope of achieving national notoriety.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 1:45:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/13/2014 7:12:43 PM, YYW wrote:

The US government is not a threat to anyone's rights or liberty.
Lolwut.

How the hell do you think the US government makes its money? By threatening people's rights, not leaving them at liberty.

(It COULD operate by a business model other than violent extortion-- but it doesn't.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 2:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

Lol

"There is nothing we can do to stop this from happening, even though every other developed country has stopped this from happening"
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 5:32:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 9:48:17 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/9/2014 9:41:46 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:57:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in epidemic violence that I think serve to explain, at least in some facet, how this all happens. But I, and I think you do too, blame society for this. The fact that our culture could produce people who do this is repulsing, saddening and maddeningly frustrating... but even worse is the refusal to meaningfully engage the issue.

Here's another excellent article about why mass shootings happen in our country.

The problem is partly our culture, in that it glorifies people who have power over others, at the expense of ignoring people (or worse, having contempt for people) that go out of the way to make life work in the United States.

http://www.livescience.com...

Americans need to start changing what the value in life. If we don't, these things are only going to get worse.

By the way, I'm briefly going to go over why mass shootings happen inside the U.S. in the final Round of my current debate on gun control. Part of the problem is the strong sense of entitlement Americans feel . . . we're a highly envious, entitled culture. When things don't go our way, we have a tendency to lash out and blame society for our problems, ignoring our own failures and choosing not to see the reward in finding alternative paths to happiness.

I'm not say American culture as it is has to be eradicated, because I don't it has to be. But there are things to have to change in our culture and inside of most Americans right now.

That article you posted had one very good sentence:

Many mass shootings are motivated by revenge or envy.

I would agree that the culture is very much jacked up in the US and at the forefront is the sense of justice. As a culture we cheer on the woman throwing out the cloths and damaging the ex-boy friends property after he cheats on her. We are very much ruled by an eye-for-an-eye mentality.

It does not take much for humans to self talk into a state where they feel they are justified to take vengeance. It happens from the smallest fights where one says things to hurt the other to mass murders where these people think they are getting some sort of revenge.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 6:15:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 5:32:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/9/2014 9:48:17 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/9/2014 9:41:46 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:57:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:53:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/9/2014 7:30:53 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

Listen to this. That's haunting.

What I find most haunting is everyone looks for the cop out instead of looking in the mirror.

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting ideas in epidemic violence that I think serve to explain, at least in some facet, how this all happens. But I, and I think you do too, blame society for this. The fact that our culture could produce people who do this is repulsing, saddening and maddeningly frustrating... but even worse is the refusal to meaningfully engage the issue.

Here's another excellent article about why mass shootings happen in our country.

The problem is partly our culture, in that it glorifies people who have power over others, at the expense of ignoring people (or worse, having contempt for people) that go out of the way to make life work in the United States.

http://www.livescience.com...

Americans need to start changing what the value in life. If we don't, these things are only going to get worse.

By the way, I'm briefly going to go over why mass shootings happen inside the U.S. in the final Round of my current debate on gun control. Part of the problem is the strong sense of entitlement Americans feel . . . we're a highly envious, entitled culture. When things don't go our way, we have a tendency to lash out and blame society for our problems, ignoring our own failures and choosing not to see the reward in finding alternative paths to happiness.

I'm not say American culture as it is has to be eradicated, because I don't it has to be. But there are things to have to change in our culture and inside of most Americans right now.

That article you posted had one very good sentence:

Many mass shootings are motivated by revenge or envy.

I would agree that the culture is very much jacked up in the US and at the forefront is the sense of justice. As a culture we cheer on the woman throwing out the cloths and damaging the ex-boy friends property after he cheats on her. We are very much ruled by an eye-for-an-eye mentality.

It does not take much for humans to self talk into a state where they feel they are justified to take vengeance. It happens from the smallest fights where one says things to hurt the other to mass murders where these people think they are getting some sort of revenge.

Bingo! I agree with you. I think Americans suffer from being a little too liberated with their opinions (hate speech; open bigotry and racism; threats of violence) and with their words (profanity). It would benefit our culture more I think if were more like the Japanese and experienced shame for going to far with with our bitter opinions and with our words.

We could use some of that in America.