Another shooting - 20 children killed

[DArtagnan]

You keep saying that, but it simply isn't true. Even if you could magic away the existing gun supply in the US, they'd just pour in across the Mexican borders. It would be the best gift anyone has ever given the Mexican cartels.

So, you refuse to try to change because Mexico will supply you with weapons? It's not like you could potentially do something about that, right?

Given how many governments just about every western Europen country has gone through in the past 200 years, its a bit hard to narrow it down.

Just about every European country? Yeah, ok. Right.

That same attitutde is why Japanese Americans got internned during WWII just for being of Japanese decent. Advanced societies don't succumb to knee jerk reactions.

So, you think it's a knee jerk reaction to want to prevent people from being killed - which has been going on for a very, very long time? I see.

Except that you're really not ahead of us today. Western Europe's social system is crumbling under back breaking debt from the social promises you think everyone is entitled too. We certainly have issues there, but I'd take ours over yours any day of the week.

Debt from social promises? Are you kidding? Have you heard of the housing bubble?

The primary reason the economy is falling apart is blatant greed, first by the banks and second by the consumers.

By the way, some of us have a reasonably solid economy - even despite how capitalism failed so utterly.

The right to bear arms is part of that core. We don't refuse to change it, we change it when it is necessary. As horrible as this tradegy is, even if you total up all the school shootings that have ever occured in American history, the death toll is less than the number of people that die in one year in the state of Texas in highway accidents. To the individuals directly affected, it is obviously a horrible, unfathomable tradegy, but statistically, its not even a blip.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. You're saying that because the amount of people who have died through no fault of their own is lower than some other number, then what?

What's your point here? I'm curious.

How many lives does it take?

One can own guns and not be violent. As for poverty rates, umm, yes you do. Poverty rates vary from 10-23% (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081031102640.htm).

Are you aware of what poverty means in Denmark as opposed to the US? Look again.

The point is that what works in a small country such as Denmark doesn't necessarily work in a large country like the US. Just as the countries of Europe have individual histories and cultures, so does the United States. As someone who grew up in Texas, I can tell you that moving to New York was as much of a shock as if I had moved to another country in many ways.

It has nothing to do with the size of the country. It has to do with physical reality and human nature.

No more delusional than you thinking you can understand the culture and problems of the United States.

So, believing oneself capable of understanding the problems of one nation (the most prominent, to boot) is equally delusional to believing oneself capable of understanding the problems of almost 50 individual countries?

Right.

 

[dteowner]

One very hasty Yahoo search later...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...s-to-beat-Europe-s-fastest-rising-murder-rate

Most of the 109 homicides were recorded in the west of Scotland, which has a long history of gang-related knife crime.

First, they came for the guns. But guns were dangerous so nobody cared.

Next, they came for the knives. But knives were dangerous so nobody cared except on Thanksgiving when it was a real bitch to carve the turkey.

Then, they came for the rope. Sure, the rope was dangerous, but I was getting a little irate.

Then, they came for me, because I dearly wanted to choke the life out of them with my bare hands for being so stupid all along.

 

[JemyM]

Liberty isn't a stupid, outdated idea. That I hold it more important than safety is merely a philosophical difference.

The recent theory in Social Sciences draw a direct link between feeling safe and moderate groups and feeling uncertainty with radical groups, you know, the ones who see "freedom" as a curse-word. I was able to repeat this experiment myself. Simply by an uncertainty priming method I was able to make sensible moderate politicians take a leap towards extremism and extreme polarization. The thing is, that it was a mistake to see freedom and safety as opposites, since they are highly correlated.

Worth to think about.

 

[DArtagnan]

Which isn't even remotely feasbile, so what's your next solution.

So, you're incapable of enforcing the law? Again, it's not about eliminating this altogether - but minimising it.

It's not a complete solution, either.

It's funny, I was in Copenhagen in May for work and the head of our office related there that a massive gun smuggling operation had been busted in the basement of the building where our office is. These guys had an insane amount of fire power and were apparently selling it to some gangs of immigrants that have plagued Denmark in recent years. Additionally they were shipping them to other countries.

Your point being? I'm trying to get this. I just stated that we have gun-related violent crimes - and you bring up an example of gun smuggling.

Could you at least be relevant in some way? I'm not saying we don't have guns. I said even I could get a gun.

Now granted, they did eventually bust it, but it had been operating for at least 2 years before that. So with Denmarks strict gun laws unable to prevent that from starting, how is the US supposed to?

Exactly the same = enforce strict gun control. But don't be stupid and think you can eliminate guns from the world entirely.

So basically you admit that it is cultural, not the fact that guns are around. While you may not believe it, its not the easiest thing in most states in the US to get a gun. I'm applying for a permit for a handgun as we speak. Its a 6 month process in NYC as NYC has super strict laws on gun ownership.

Great, so make it harder still for ALL states.

Culture is not some mysterious entity with no relation to what exists in the society in question. Yes, again, it's cultural - and guns being easily accessible is part of that culture.

The law is not the issue, the culture and mental illness issues are and until you can grasp that, you will no grasp the problem the US faces.

Laws are part of your culture. Mental illness is not unique to the US. The amount of gun-related violent crimes - however - is quite unique compared to most of the civilised western world.

I have suggestions for dealing with mental illnesses as well, but we can't focus on that and ignore the killing of so many innocent people at the same time.

 

[JemyM]

One very hasty Yahoo search later…

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...s-to-beat-Europe-s-fastest-rising-murder-rate

I applaud you for trying to gather facts. Thank you.

However...

Murder with a firearm:
United States: 9,369
Germany: 269
Canada: 144
Spain: 97
Sweden: 58
Japan: 47
Denmark: 14
Ireland: 12

 

[DArtagnan]

Liberty isn't a stupid, outdated idea. That I hold it more important than safety is merely a philosophical difference. I assure you, I am not a moron. I am capable of engaging in intelligent conversation with nearly anyone of any education level.

No one said you were a moron. I'm not talking about liberty. I'm talking about the right to bear arms.

Do you have the right to kill people? No, that's one liberty down. Now, how about the next liberty that's going to get people killed?

Saddest part about this conversation Dart, is that you are clearly an intelligent and well spoken individual. But your choice of language actually reinforces the resolve of your opponents, even though the substance of your argument might otherwise sway people. And in turn that reinforces your decision to use such language. Just another vicious cycle of non-discussion, that takes everyone involved nowhere.

What do you think my goal is here? To get people to praise me or agree with me? It's not. I don't care about that at all.

I care about making people think and I care about challenging them.

People feel challenged when they're provoked and I want to hear all their resolve by way of argument.

If they end up disliking me as a person, that's irrelevant. I have no use for strangers liking me - as it serves no utilitarian purpose. It's useless.

If changing the world is so incredibly important to you, then you should really reassess your communication methods. Do they really serve your arguments and purpose? Or merely your ego?

Changing the world isn't important to me if people don't agree with the change. Such change can never last. I don't want to force them to agree and I don't want to manipulate them. Best I can do is present my case without manipulation and let them decide for themselves.

My ego? I think you'd be surprised how my ego factors into this.

If I cared about my ego in terms of what strangers think of me, do you think I would deliberately provoke them?

I care about speaking plainly and truthfully - and the reaction is not something I wish to manipulate or control.

If you're having a negative emotional response to what I'm writing - have you considered that there is more than one potential reason for that?

Sure, one reason is that I have a bad way of communicating. Another reason is that I have another way of communicating than you're used to - and maybe I'm not the one who needs to learn something.

 

[dteowner]

@JemyM- And I applaud you for completely missing the point, as usual— take away the guns and they use knives instead. Criminals will find the means to accomplish their crimes.

edit- Besides, those numbers wouldn't be quite so exciting on a per capita basis. They'd be even less exciting if you scaled them based on demographics. If you want to impress me, find a similar breakdown based on murders by knife. If the number breakdown is roughly the same, you lose. If the US "percentage" is higher, you lose. If the US number is lower, you win. Wanna play?

 

[CrazyIrish]

Ok, I'll try a different route. You notice any significant differences in the way you communicate on here as opposed to JemyM? You both responded to my last statement. Your answer mostly reinforced what I said about you, whereas JemyMs actually made me think about something I hadn't before. Hopefully the difference isn't lost on you. I imagine JemyM might have done that intentionally.

Oh, and JemyM...would you care to go into more detail? I understand the concept of priming, but I'm more of a math & mechanics sort of guy.

 

[dteowner]

Oh, and JemyM…would you care to go into more detail? I understand the concept of priming, but I'm more of a math & mechanics sort of guy.

His textbooks tell him that by issuing certain stimuli, he can provoke a specific response from you on a repeated basis, even if that response would be deemed "unusual" for you. He'll undoubtedly have a far more impressive explanation with polysyllabics amok, but that's the nutshell of it as he's explained it in the past.

 

[JemyM]

@JemyM- And I applaud you for completely missing the point, as usual— take away the guns and they use knives instead. Criminals will find the means to accomplish their crimes.

edit- Besides, those numbers wouldn't be quite so exciting on a per capita basis. They'd be even less exciting if you scaled them based on demographics. If you want to impress me, find a similar breakdown based on murders by knife. If the number breakdown is roughly the same, you lose. If the US "percentage" is higher, you lose. If the US number is lower, you win. Wanna play?

Per 100k people US is about x2,5 higher than the first western nation of which about 60% are done with firearms. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_per_100_peo-murders-per-100-000-people

 

[pibbur who]

Is it the gun controls or the cultural difference? Norway's strict gun laws did nothing to stop Anders Behring Breivik because he was someone that was mentally ill and slipped through the cracks (as you said, you can minimise it, but you can't eliminate it). We have a rampant untreated mental illness problem in the US more than we have a gun problem. Solve the first (which is much more feasible anyway) and if that doesn't work THEN we can start talking about guns.

For the record, Breivik was not mentally ill. He is what we used to call a psycopath, which is not an illness like schizophraenia or depression. It's a personality disorder. Psychopaths can be extremely difficult to catch. (Just look at serial killers which often show no sign of disturbance in their day to day life).

I think you exaggerate (correct spelling?) the significance of mental illnesses. Only a very small fraction of mental patients are dangerous. Same applies to psychopaths.

pibbur who would definitely not want to be forcibly treated for his depressions, since he poses no danger to himself or people around him. He receives treatment by his own free will.

 

[dteowner]

That's not what I asked. But let's play anyway.

US rate: 5.9, Mexico rate: 11.3

Mexico has extremely harsh gun control laws compared to the US. Cultures and demographics might not be the same, but they're at least in the ballpark. How do you explain it? Perhaps the Euro band-aid of gun control isn't a magical cure-all? Perhaps there's more going on, some stuff under the hood? Of course, they've got a huge cultural issue with the drug lord wars that accounts for the vast majority of the murders. But having guns would make them criminals, right?

 

[JemyM]

Oh, and JemyM…would you care to go into more detail? I understand the concept of priming, but I'm more of a math & mechanics sort of guy.

Priming means "preloading the mind" and there are many ways this can be done. Preloading emotions is done by asking a person to write down instances in which they felt that emotion, like asking the person to write down three instances of the person being uncertain. Emotions and memories are tied to each-other (called "mood congruence") so when asked to pick up such memories the emotion sticks along for a short moment.

When doing experiments in psychology we can preload the emotion, then ask questions and see if the responses are different between those who now carry the emotion we wish to test and those who weren't primed at all.

Uncertainty Identity Theory (or Uncertainty Reduction Theory) is quite advanced as it builds on two separate disciplines in psychology and it's also an add-on theory.

When we are uncertain we seek quick and accessible information that can lead us back on a safe (and make us feel safe). One effective way is to look at others for information on how we should effectively deal with the situation we are in. This explains the counter-intuitive phenomenon that you are less likely to get help the more who watch you get robbed, stabbed or set in other forms of danger (known as the Bystander Effect).

But this also apply to groups. Belonging to a group becomes a "moral compass" for uncertain people since the group helps them to decide what's good and right behavior.
The problem with moderate groups is that they do not offer the clarity and directness that radical, authoritarian and sharply defined groups have to offer, so moderate and loose groups are useless to cure uncertainty.

This have been tested. When primed with uncertainty people begin to polarize more against perceived opponents become more attracted to radical and violent groups. A (perhaps bad) analogy is to think on a lens which you wish to sharpen in order to see approaching tigers. The brain works in the same pattern, when we are uncertain we try to sharpen the contrast, it becomes more important to know friend from foe.

This could explain why nations under strong distress such as Greece elect both a fascist and a communist party into government.

 

[JemyM]

How do you explain it?

Mexico is the second highest in economic disparity. Poverty and poor social statistics are associated with crime and murder. You can see the same pattern in eastern Europe.

And it's also not illegal to own guns there, there are just some guns and calibers restricted to law and military. Acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents.

 

[JemyM]

Norway's strict gun laws did nothing to stop Anders Behring Breivik because he was someone that was mentally ill and slipped through the cracks (as you said, you can minimise it, but you can't eliminate it).

Just a note... In general, comparisons with Breivik doesn't give much. We can try to make sense of Breivik but hard to swallow truth is that he is a so rare phenomenon that it's very difficult to "explain" what he is and what his actions mean. I believe that given the time to plan ahead for a long long time it is possible to get away with what Breivik did no matter what country. Kinda like 9/11, a terrorist act on a scale we aren't likely to see in a long long time, if ever. These are so rare that we might have to accept that they are freak accidents that we just cannot do anything about.

 

[redman5427]

I think we do need to think about mental illness being a factor. I was listening to a Florida psychologist on the radio saying it is extremely hard to do anything these days about a patient who they think could be a danger to others. She said it is a 4 week process to try and get the courts to force treatment and even then, a lot of patients go home and refuse to take their medicine. This is a very good read.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-colo-shooting-shows-failure-treatment-menta/

So it isn't the amount of mental health patients that are violent, it is the violent offenders that have mental health issues.

Colorado shooter- clearly mental health problems the ball was dropped several times.

Fridays shooter-clearly had problems for years.

My shooter from Michigan- well documented

Va Tech killer-Seung-Hui Cho-

In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine convened a panel consisting of various officials and experts to investigate and examine the response and handling of issues related to the shootings. The panel released its final report in August 2007, devoting more than 30 pages to detailing Cho's troubled history. In the report, the panel criticized the failure of the educators and mental health professionals who came into contact with Cho during his college years to notice his deteriorating condition and help him.

Almost every mass killer in the Us has some kind of troubled mental health background and the data is showing that our system is not responding. I am not suggesting that we need to re-open all the closed institutions but clearly we need to look into it.

I still don't think anyone needs an assault weapon. It's time to open debate on this. 5-6 year old kids trump everything.

 

[dteowner]

Mexico is the second highest in economic disparity. Poverty and poor social statistics are associated with crime and murder. You can see the same pattern in eastern Europe.

I thought it was the mere presence of guns that made the difference. After all, you're not proposing cultural changes, you're just looking to ban guns. So why do you now consider cultural factors?

And it's also not illegal to own guns there, there are just some guns and calibers restricted to law and military. Acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents.

Ah so you're saying gun control doesn't work--your solution requires gun prohibition. You can't even manage that sort of draconian solution over there in enlightened Euroland, but you think it's a viable solution over here?

 

[pibbur who]

Just a note… In general, comparisons with Breivik doesn't give much. We can try to make sense of Breivik but hard to swallow truth is that he is a so rare phenomenon that it's very difficult to "explain" what he is and what his actions mean. I believe that given the time to plan ahead for a long long time it is possible to get away with what Breivik did no matter what country. Kinda like 9/11, a terrorist act on a scale we aren't likely to see in a long long time, if ever. These are so rare that we might have to accept that they are freak accidents that we just cannot do anything about.

Yepp. He planned it for years and was very dedicated and cunning.

pibbur who has nothing to add at the moment

 

[JemyM]

I thought it was the mere presence of guns that made the difference. After all, you're not proposing cultural changes, you're just looking to ban guns. So why do you now consider cultural factors?

Murder in Mexico is much higher than the west-european nations. What you have there is a double-whammy.

Ah so you're saying gun control doesn't work—your solution requires gun prohibition. You can't even manage that sort of draconian solution over there in enlightened Euroland, but you think it's a viable solution over here?

Murder in general is higher in the states so it's naturally not enough to remove the guns. Guns just double or triple the effect.

 

[JemyM]

Yepp. He planned it for years and was very dedicated and cunning.

Could be compared to the Swedish suicide bomber Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly who didn't plan much and weren't cunning.

-edit-
I confess that was a stupid comment. But the truth is that Breivik wasn't a rampage killer, he was intellectually and ideologically driven. He is a political terrorist. Rampage killers in western Europe rarely get access to the right equipment to be effective in their depressed state.