Dealing with mass shootings

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Dealing with mass shootings

Post #1

Post by otseng »

We've heard about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary today.

What can be done to curb mass shootings in the US?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Re: Dealing with mass shootings

Post #51

Post by otseng »

McCulloch wrote: Perhaps gun control.
I'm not opposed to some sort of gun control. But banning all guns would be impossible.
otseng wrote: Are you suggesting that only the government can have guns and citizens cannot?
Yes, that is one of the defining attributes of civilization. We relinquish to the collective authority of the state, our right to take revenge on wrongdoers.
Banning civilian ownership of guns would be the least realistic option considering the right is protected by the Constitution.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #52

Post by otseng »

A Troubled Man wrote:
otseng wrote: - Ban fully automatic and assault weapons.
That won't work because people kill people and will find ways to do it, with or without those weapons. Do we ban cars because of the number of deaths associated with driving?
Nobody is suggesting banning cars. And actually, handguns cause more deaths than assault weapons. But, I'm not suggesting banning handguns either.

I suggest banning assault weapons to potentially lower the number of fatalities in mass killings.
- All schools should have an armed police officer, even in communities where there is no history of violent crimes.
Not a bad idea, but schools already have a difficult time getting funding, who is going to pay for those officers?
Not sure how that is paid, but it is done in schools where I live.
- Curb culture of violence in movies, TV, games, entertainment.
Sorry, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support a correlation.
Really? I already presented two studies linking violence in entertainment and violent behavior.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 503#520503
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 623#520623
- Stop viewing killing people as a solution to problems.
Who exactly has those views?
We have more than 1 million abortions every year in the US.
The more I read about Lanza, the more I see a very dysfunctional, religious family with a psycho mom rearing a psycho son.
Religious family? Do you have evidence of this?

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #53

Post by ttruscott »

My pov...

there can be no political answer to what is substantially a religious problem.

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Post #54

Post by A Troubled Man »

otseng wrote:
Nobody is suggesting banning cars. And actually, handguns cause more deaths than assault weapons. But, I'm not suggesting banning handguns either.

I suggest banning assault weapons to potentially lower the number of fatalities in mass killings.
Banning cars will also lower the number of fatalities on highways, cars kill more people than hand guns and assault weapons combined.
Really? I already presented two studies linking violence in entertainment and violent behavior.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 503#520503
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 623#520623
Yes, you did. Unfortunately, correlation does not imply causation. Sure, brain scans of the kids who play violent game showed increased activity in the amygdala, which stimulates emotions, and decreased activity in the prefrontal lobe, which regulates inhibition, self-control and concentration. However, the fact of the matter is that there have been never been so many violent video games in the homes of US citizens with children playing them hour after hour, day after day, and there has never been so many hand guns and assault weapons in the homes of US citizens throughout all of history and yet with all of that, violent crimes in the US have been steadily decreasing.

Odd, isn't it?
We have more than 1 million abortions every year in the US.
Sorry, but that is another failed argument based in incredulity.
Religious family? Do you have evidence of this?
Lanza was sent to St. Rose Catholic middle school and the mother was a devout overbearing Catholic who attended the local church.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #55

Post by otseng »

A Troubled Man wrote: and yet with all of that, violent crimes in the US have been steadily decreasing.
It's good that violent crime rate is decreasing, but rates of mass killings (which the OP is about) has not been decreasing.
Lanza was sent to St. Rose Catholic middle school and the mother was a devout overbearing Catholic who attended the local church.
Just because someone goes to a Catholic school does not make him a religious person. And what evidence do you have that Nancy Lanza was a devout overbearing Catholic?

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Post #56

Post by A Troubled Man »

otseng wrote:
It's good that violent crime rate is decreasing, but rates of mass killings (which the OP is about) has not been decreasing.
No, that would include mass killings, ALL violent crimes.

Essentially, your argument doesn't fly simply because the amount of firearms in the US is steadily increasing as are violent video game sales, which by your logic would have violent crimes soaring out of control, yet they are decreasing.

User avatar
Nilloc James
Site Supporter
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Canada

Post #57

Post by Nilloc James »

I think something that hasn't been discussed enough is the lack of appropriate treatment and assistance to those with mental disorders.

Interesting comparison, Japan has a culture that is no where as gun happy as the united states. Instead of mass killings they have one of the highest rates of suicide in the developed world. Even if America succeeded in reducing the number of mass killings there is still a problem if you don't address what causes people to commit these acts.

Cewakiyelo
Scholar
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:54 pm

Post #58

Post by Cewakiyelo »

The 2nd amendments right to bear arms was established not so much for one man to protect his home against invasion from another man, though it opened that up for people. The main reason it was established was so that the citizens could defend themselves against a corrupt government that might rise up with it's military against it's citizens. When governments begin taking rights away from it's citizens the country gets closer to being a dictatorship.

The 2nd amendments right to bear arms intent was that we the people would be able to rise up and protect ourselves from our enemies, foreign or domestic, who are attempting to invade our country or strip us of our liberties. Our founding fathers realized that nations do these things to their citizens. It is why they came to this continent in the first place. They were leaving that kind of oppression behind. Our founding fathers did not establish a country where its' government ruled the people. They established a country where the people ruled the government. We are armed to insure that remains the case. We are armed so that we can protect our liberties and our country from both foreign and domestic threats. We are a strong nation but if we allow our rights and our weapons to be stripped from us we will not be so strong.

The events of the various mass shooting are sickening. But in the grand scheme of our country and it's population it does not amount to great loss. (Every loss is great.) The majority of those deaths that are committed by the use of guns, the vast majority are killed with stolen guns. The are not legally owned. The vast majority are killed by handguns not rifles, assault or otherwise. It is not the legal gun owners whom are going out and doing the crimes. It is criminals.

Criminals are going to do what they are going to do. If they can not get a gun they will use a knife or a sword or a bat. We might say, "Yes, that may be true. But, a person with a knife or sword or bat is more easily to stop." I will say that is not true. If we are sitting in a theater and a person pulls a bat and begins swinging there are seconds where the mind must process what is happening to decide what to do next, act. A single person who processes the information and decides to act may not be able to control the person. More people may be needed. So the first responder is struck down and then more jump the person. Whereas, a person who processes the information and has a firearm at his side can intervene from a distance and with certainty. The duration of time that the person doing harm is made shorter by the firearm.

Drunk driving kills more people every year that firearms do. Should we then do away with cars. We will say "It isn't the car it is the alcohol." I ask, do we penalize the alcohol? Do we put the alcohol on trial? No, we do not. We hold the person accountable. The person gets behind the wheel. The person gets behind the gun. If we are going to take away the gun we should also remove the car. The reality is it is neither the car nor the gun that are responsible, it is people. We should not penalize a nation of lawful citizens(the majority) for the crimes of a few.

The actions of the government and the President in this matter, caused by the recent tragedies, have done more harm than good. It has driven people in mass to gun stores to purchase guns and ammo before they can not get them. This has placed more weapons in more homes. More homes now have weapons that did not before. More homes with weapons means an increased chance of those weapons being stolen in a robbery. As mentioned before, it is the criminals with stolen weapons that are responsible for the majority of the shooting deaths in our country. Thank you Mr. President for decreasing our safety and increasing the likely hood that we will see more of these crimes in the future.

Cewakiyelo
Scholar
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:54 pm

Post #59

Post by Cewakiyelo »

otseng wrote:
I suggest banning assault weapons to potentially lower the number of fatalities in mass killings.
This would not change a thing. We have somehow come to believe that assault weapons are somehow greatly different that other weapons like rifles or handguns. However they are not. Unless a weapon is fully automatic and can fire continuously by holding down the trigger or are single action where one must pull back a hammer or bolt in order to fire or cycle the next round they are semi automatic. These so called assault weapons are semi automatic. they will fire no faster than the person can repeatedly squeeze the trigger. Handguns and hunting rifles are semi automatic as well. They can be fired just as rapidly and put out just as much ammo through the barrel as the so called assault rifle. The main difference of an assault weapon from others is it's weight. They are lighter so that they can be carried for prolonged periods with less fatigue. Instead of wood stocks they are made of plastics. They are often shorter, again to save weight as well as making them more useful in tight quarters. But as far as how much damage they do they are no different than a semi automatic handgun.

Post Reply