Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Another school shooting


Off-Topic Discussions

701 to 750 of 1,152 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

The violence comes from human nature. The guns just increase the lethality.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
The violence comes from human nature. The guns just increase the lethality.

That in response to me or wicked cool?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to favour the idea that giving people less things to shoot with should result in less people shooting things.


In the interest of being completely honest, I do believe that SOME violent movies contribute indirectly to violence. Not in the way that most "blame Hollywood" people seem to think. I don't think anyone (or almost anyone, just to hedge) sees Pulp Fiction and goes on a killing rampage except the very mentally disturbed. Who should, hopefully, be under some sort of supervision or, if they're the younger sort, have a media filter in the form of a parent or guardian to talk to about the content.

But I do think that Hollywood (and all other movie cultures influenced by Hollywood), being an American institution, does tend do efficiently convey the American value of rugged individualism by way of action heroes. The idea that guns solve problems and that the consequences of violence are trivial aren't things that we want children exposed to.

Violence in movies isn't always a bad thing if it is given its proper weight. I sometimes like movies (John Woo, et al) that have very stylized violence, but even those have a tendency to show the repercussions of said violence.


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
I tend to favour the idea that giving people less things to shoot with should result in less people shooting things.

Unfortunately in our country that's a radical concept that will get you a lifetime ban from at least one major political party.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

mordion wrote:
ciretose wrote:
The violence comes from human nature. The guns just increase the lethality.
That in response to me or wicked cool?

You.

Guns exist to make it easier to kill things. It is what they are for.

This isn't a bad thing, in the right hands we all agree it is a good thing. But we also all agree that it would probably be a bad idea to allow a 1st grader access to a loaded automatic weapon.

Why we don't all agree it would be a bad idea to allow access to someone a trained mental health professional has deemed unstable is where I become confused.

Shadow Lodge

meatrace wrote:


If it helps clear things up, I don't give two craps about the kids who were killed in this incident, or any specific incident. I don't hold human life to be sacred to be honest, but rather look toward the big picture of the functioning of a society.

So giving two craps about dying children is equivalent to holding something sacred?

When something like this happens, the majority of us reflect on what it would be like if we were affected by something similar - the loss of one of our own child. We then relate to those who did undergo such a loss and we are able to feel empathy. Citizens capable of feeling empathy are necessary, in my mind, for a civilized functioning society.

One can still be capable of feeling empathy while temporarily suppressing it to approach a non-biased conclusion. However, not giving "two craps" about the "kids who were killed" sounds like sociopathy to me.

Now that being said, I have trouble understanding why Americans who do not know anyone that was personally affected by this tragedy are anymore upset by this than when children are murdered elsewhere (like in Gaza). I get that it is a nationality thing, but to me that comes with a line of reasoning that doesn't set well with me.

Edit: Well I guess I see it being more upsetting because I am American because of the political landscape that I am part of that seems to give rise to this kind of thing. I mean if it can happen there why not where I live?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Why we don't all agree it would be a bad idea to allow access to someone a trained mental health professional has deemed unstable is where I become confused.

I don't think you're getting a lot of resistance to that idea. You're getting resistance to mandating everyone be checked out by a mental health professional before purchasing a gun.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

mordion wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Why we don't all agree it would be a bad idea to allow access to someone a trained mental health professional has deemed unstable is where I become confused.
I don't think you're getting a lot of resistance to that idea. You're getting resistance to mandating everyone be checked out by a mental health professional before purchasing a gun.

You should have seen the other thread...


Asphere wrote:


So giving two craps about dying children is equivalent to holding something sacred? ...

One can still be capable of feeling empathy while temporarily suppressing it to approach a non-biased conclusion. However, not giving "two craps" about the "kids who were killed" sounds like sociopathy to me.

You REALLY misunderstood my whole post. I was just saying two things, not linking them together. I don't care about the kids who were killed. I just don't, maybe that is sociopathy but I don't think so. I would care if it were someone I knew and cared about, but I don't care about those kids. They're not my kids, they're not my friends kids, I don't buy them birthday presents or give them airplane rides at family reunions. I don't love them because I don't know them HENCE I don't particularly care if they're dead. I acknowledge, abstractly, that it is a tragedy and it's a shame that it happened, but I'm not personally vested in the tragedy. I can't bring myself to manifest care about someone I've never met on a whim. If I cared about every single person in the world I would be paralyzed with guilt 24/7 because I couldn't so much as take a job without worrying about the people who will not be hired due to me and putting hardship on them.

I also don't think that all life, or all human life, is sacred. If I did I wouldn't be pro-choice and pro assisted suicide. Like BNW, I don't think that human life is any more special than any other kind of life, objectively, and that includes microbes. It's just we DO have empathy towards other humans and that makes us act a certain way. That's a function of biology and it's also a huge evolutionary advantage. But that doesn't make you any more special than a cat or a deer or an orangutan from any objective perspective.

The one exception I'll make is spiders. F*+$ spiders.


mordion wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Why we don't all agree it would be a bad idea to allow access to someone a trained mental health professional has deemed unstable is where I become confused.
I don't think you're getting a lot of resistance to that idea. You're getting resistance to mandating everyone be checked out by a mental health professional before purchasing a gun.

Really we're talking about two separate things that are interconnected, not predicated on one another.

The way you state this it makes me envision a gun registration process that includes a trip to a psychiatrist.

What I envision as the solution is comprehensive mental healthcare (and healthcare in general) for EVERYONE, and a gun registration process that allows healthcare providers to red flag people.

Some people have disabilities that do and OUGHT to prohibit them from partaking in rights/privileges the rest of us enjoy. If you're blind you're not allowed to drive, for example. Why should someone with frequent violent episodes due to paranoid schizophrenia be allowed to have a gun?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Asphere wrote:


So giving two craps about dying children is equivalent to holding something sacred? ...

One can still be capable of feeling empathy while temporarily suppressing it to approach a non-biased conclusion. However, not giving "two craps" about the "kids who were killed" sounds like sociopathy to me.

You REALLY misunderstood my whole post. I was just saying two things, not linking them together. I don't care about the kids who were killed. I just don't, maybe that is sociopathy but I don't think so. I would care if it were someone I knew and cared about, but I don't care about those kids. They're not my kids, they're not my friends kids, I don't buy them birthday presents or give them airplane rides at family reunions. I don't love them because I don't know them HENCE I don't particularly care if they're dead. I acknowledge, abstractly, that it is a tragedy and it's a shame that it happened, but I'm not personally vested in the tragedy. I can't bring myself to manifest care about someone I've never met on a whim. If I cared about every single person in the world I would be paralyzed with guilt 24/7 because I couldn't so much as take a job without worrying about the people who will not be hired due to me and putting hardship on them.

I also don't think that all life, or all human life, is sacred. If I did I wouldn't be pro-choice and pro assisted suicide. Like BNW, I don't think that human life is any more special than any other kind of life, objectively, and that includes microbes. It's just we DO have empathy towards other humans and that makes us act a certain way. That's a function of biology and it's also a huge evolutionary advantage. But that doesn't make you any more special than a cat or a deer or an orangutan from any objective perspective.

The one exception I'll make is spiders. F$+~ spiders.

Now that I understand what you meant I would say that I am similar. I wouldn't have phrased it as you did. I care about children dying in that I don't want it to happen and I feel empathy for those who are affected by it, but I don't turn into an emotional tornado because I care about them on an abstract level. I am not emotionally invested in those particular children.


Yeah, you'll learn that about me. Sometimes I say something a certain way just because they invoke a reaction.

There's also a big part of me that thinks "you people really should stop having children. there's already more than enough to go around!"

BTW your name/icon juxtaposition makes my head explode. A Sphere, but your avatar is a cube *asplode*.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
What I envision as the solution is comprehensive mental healthcare (and healthcare in general) for EVERYONE, and a gun registration process that allows healthcare providers to red flag people.

Without thinking about it a lot, that sounds fine. You should be able to get a second opinion, of course. But are mental health screenings mandatory in your envisioning?


mordion wrote:
meatrace wrote:
What I envision as the solution is comprehensive mental healthcare (and healthcare in general) for EVERYONE, and a gun registration process that allows healthcare providers to red flag people.
Without thinking about it a lot, that sounds fine. You should be able to get a second opinion, of course. But are mental health screenings mandatory in your envisioning?

In a general sense, yes. What I mean by that is that mental health should be treated with the same sort of aggressive care that physical health is, and it should be universal. Kids are required to get vaccinations every few years. If you were a parent and your kid had chicken pox but you didn't treat it and let him go to school you would be considered negligent. I imagine the same for someone who lets, say, schizophrenia, go undiagnosed and untreated.

I think we'd probably need to make such things mandatory for such time as the stigma around it is diminished. Once a generation or so has passed, and everyone understands that they have free, on demand, counseling and rehabilitation and there isn't such a stigma surrounding getting help for mental health issues, there would be no need for such a mandate.

But I'm not a big parents' rights guy. I think that children are citizens and have a right to treatment and help (and education) even if their parents are kookoo and don't agree.


mordion wrote:
meatrace wrote:
What I envision as the solution is comprehensive mental healthcare (and healthcare in general) for EVERYONE, and a gun registration process that allows healthcare providers to red flag people.
Without thinking about it a lot, that sounds fine. You should be able to get a second opinion, of course. But are mental health screenings mandatory in your envisioning?

My problem with how ciretose talks about it, is that it comes across as a means of punishing people that are mentally ill. Instead of a possibly temporary step while the people are treated and made healthy. This tone just strikes me as the exact opposite message we want to be telling people that are troubled. We shouldn't be telling them, if you talk to a mental health professional they will take your rights away. Instead we should be giving them the message that mental health professionals are there to help them get better and live a more fulfilling life.

As an aside on the mental health issue, it should be noted that mentally ill people are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. No doubt this person was mentally ill, but not everyone that harms someone else do so because they are mentally ill. Some times they are just incredibly evil, but completely rational, mofos.

EDI: FYI, vaccinations are not required everywhere for children, even in the U.S., as insane as that is. "It causes autism!" nonsense just makes me sick (no pun intended).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
But I'm not a big parents' rights guy. I think that children are citizens and have a right to treatment and help (and education) even if their parents are kookoo and don't agree.

That's another discussion, certainly. I'm not against the idea of mental health screenings being the norm in the same way physical checkups are. I am against the idea of going to buy a gun (or do anything) and having someone check a list and see that they can't help you since you haven't had a mental health screening in the last 18 months, or whatever.


pres man wrote:


My problem with how ciretose talks about it, is that it comes across as a means of punishing people that are mentally ill. Instead of a possibly temporary step while the people are treated and made healthy. This tone just strikes me as the exact opposite message we want to be telling people that are troubled. We shouldn't be telling them, if you talk to a mental health professional they will take your rights away. Instead we should be giving them the message that mental health professionals are there to help them get better and live a more fulfilling life.

As an aside on the mental health issue, it should be noted that mentally ill people are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. No doubt this person was mentally ill, but not everyone that harms someone else do so because they are mentally ill. Some times they are just incredibly evil, but completely rational, mofos.

I must say that you mustn't have listened very hard to what ciretose says, because that's not what I take away from it AT ALL. I think you're still just very hung up on the gun angle. But I'll let him defend himself.

More often than not, in my personal experience and what I've read on the subject, most people who commit violent crimes are either a) "temporarily" insane i.e. crime of passion etc. b) socioeconomically underprivileged, forced to turn to crime in general, and eventually get desensitized to violence due to the culture in which they exist.

I think "just plain evil" is a pretty lazy excuse not to try to understand people.

EDIT: OK fair enough maybe vaccinations aren't mandatory. They sure seemed mandatory when my mom dragged me kicking and screaming to the middle school to get poked half a dozen times, but I'm sure I had no concept of whether or not it was obligatory from a legal standpoint at that age.


mordion wrote:
meatrace wrote:
But I'm not a big parents' rights guy. I think that children are citizens and have a right to treatment and help (and education) even if their parents are kookoo and don't agree.
That's another discussion, certainly. I'm not against the idea of mental health screenings being the norm in the same way physical checkups are. I am against the idea of going to buy a gun (or do anything) and having someone check a list and see that they can't help you since you haven't had a mental health screening in the last 18 months, or whatever.

Yeah, that's probably over the line.

That said, the types of things that we're trying to screen for are chronic, not acute. Any psychiatrist they are seeing ought to know whether they're off their meds and be able to flag them in a system to not be able to purchase guns.

I also think there should be a federal waiting period of about 30 days to buy a firearm. Which I really don't think is outrageous or unnecessarily infringing on anyone's rights.

Just cuz I don't want to start another post (this isn't a response to your post) I think liability insurance for guns would be a pretty strong check and a damn good idea.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Done properly, it's just a flag in the background check and all the dealler sees is Sell or. Do not sell with a refrence number for the buyer to use when contacting the ATF (or whoever maintains the database, I assume it£ the Atf but it's not important) to see why and file whatever appeal they wish.

Paizo Employee Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Even though Connecticut is a tragedy that cuts deep to my soul, I keep hearing news stations advising this is the worst school massacre in U.S. history. It is not. For the sake of not forgetting those victims, there were nearly twice as many children killed in a Michigan schoolhouse in 1927, and had all the dynamite exploded, likely would have killed every child in the school.

Bath School Disaster


Even if both political parties agreed that more people should be screened for mental health it would never be made into law. One side would argue its too much and the other would say its not enough so best case scenario is some waterdowned bill that wont matter.

If all drugs were legalized how much would crime go down? Who would control legalized crack/cocaine etc. Coud you buy it a store. eventually cigarettes will be illegal but cocaine wont be?

So why the rise in violence? Why didnt shooting like this happen in our parents generation? Wasnt it easier to get a permit?

I love the attitude where some say they cant get invested in other people dying.Sorry i cant agree with any of that. These kids were under the age of seven and as a member of scoiety you have a responsibility to care or at least you should. I cared about 911, Sandy, etc. I try to avoid the news on this story because it hurts to relate to them and share their pain but i do it anyway. Everyime one of these stories comes up i worry where are we headed as a society in where its "me" first. Theres no pride, guilt or true spirit. They probably get more angry when their miniature breaks their video console crash's etc.

Others have a simliar attitude. If the bear is chasing us i only need to run faster than you.


Gorbacz wrote:
Reading this thread gives me the impression that United States is some kind of post-apocalyptic war zone, where all the institutions of state have long collapsed, anarchy reigns supreme, law enforcement doesn't exist, and everybody is pretty much required to carry around a rifle, a shotgun and at least 2 backup weapons in order to defend themselves and their loving ones from hordes of mutant zombie druglord rapist narco terrorist Muslim Commie Mexicans that roam around.

While an exaggeration of the extreme right-wing mindset, it's not a huge exaggeration. They almost believe that to be true.


Andrew R wrote:
I have bought enough cars to know i walk up with cash, i drive off with title. I can go ram it into whatever i want and nothing can stop me. if i want to continue to drive it legally yes i need to go register it. but nothing more than cash to GET it.

So what you're saying is that if you buy from someone who decides not to fulfill their legal obligation and request a transfer of title with the state's DMV, you can do whatever you want with the car you just "bought", and therefore we shouldn't regulate guns?

Do you even understand what you just said?

Hell, if you're not concerned about legality, why even spend the money? Just break into a car and hotwire it! You're breaking the law either way!

We tightly regulate motor vehicles. That is a fact. You're not going to get around it, Andrew R.


Sissyl wrote:
These events can't be prevented, due to their rarity.

We already have pretty clear evidence that reducing the availability of firearms and managing who can own them does make mass shooting events less likely. So I'm not sure where you're getting this idea, other than just making it up out of thin air.

Quote:
Restricting guns will not stop it.

Because you say so, or what? The evidence that we've seen (and we have a metric ton of it) indicates that restricting guns does stop it, or at least makes it far, far less common.

Quote:
Crap and diesel is all you need to explode people,

And yet for some reason when people are denied firearms they don't suddenly resort to bomb-making for their murder spree needs!

Quote:
a car can ruin people's day...

And often does, but again, that's not what we see happening when crazy desperate people are unable to obtain firearms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Ill make you anti gun folks a compromise, one that might get something done. I will agree to make it harder to get a gun. psych evaluation and waiting period. In exchange ANYONE caught with an illegally acquired firearm gets the death penalty. You can feel good because you are making it harder to get them, i can feel better because criminals (the ones that daily do hurt people) are gone.

Please don't ever get involved in the law-making process.


Kryzbyn wrote:
A wider brush is needed. I don't think that author quite got all fo the sterotypes.

The history of this thread very strongly suggests that the stereotypes in question are comically accurate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wicked cool wrote:
1. For those who want to ban/restrict guns what are your thought on violent games such as Black OPS or movies such as Good Fellas/Dark Knight etc. Should there be tighter controls on those. Raise the viewing age on both to 21? Ban all tarantino films? Other countries do it why not the US.

Perhaps there ought to be, if clear evidence can be shown that exposure to violent media is more likely to result in incidents of mass violence. Then again, do we believe that the public good served by allowing creatives to express themselves however they desire ought to be tempered by the need to increase safety?

Quote:
2. what are your thoughts on the alarming rates of people who are diagnosed with mental illness and that they are allowed to walk the streets. That in many cases mental instutions/programs are closed first when it comes to budget shortfalls so that meaningless programs/jobs are saved.

Those in favor of revisiting the idea of gun control in this thread have pretty much unanimously been in favor of increasing funding for and societal appreciation of mental health programs and evaluations.

Quote:
3. How about the growing drug epidemic and the violence that comes from that?

There is no "growing drug epidemic". Statistics show that we are experiencing a lull in crime, including drug-related crime, and it's certainly not on some dramatic rise.

Quote:

How much of the the recent problem with gun violence is really a reflection of people who are mentally ill/drug induced or have a history of crime.Seems like we should go back to the days where neighbors watched over each other, and children/adults who have issues were more closely monitored/hospitalized instead of being given a prescription and sent home. More restrictive laws and longer harsher sentencing. Instead we get witness intimidation and more legal red tape for criminals to escape doing real prison time. Parents/teachers are given less authority to punish children. Police are no longer allowed to punich thugs outside the law. If a young adult spray paints property the police have to take them to the station or let them go. You cant make them even clean it up without a judges orders.

The guns are only part of a deeper cultural/lack of punishment problem and its clearly getting worse each generation.

You don't have a grasp of the statistics behind what you're trying to show, but you're claiming that drugs and society are to blame in general. This leads me to believe that you don't actually care about what the evidence shows, but rather about pushing your closely-held preconceived notions onto others in the hopes that they will be ignorant enough of those statistics to believe you.

So why are you doing that?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I just caught something on the news which made me stop and think.

The Primary School was locked-up for the start of lessons. That appears to be standard practice.

Seems weird.


Right now the right-wing blogosphere is exploding with this supposed connection between recent mass shootings and LIBOR despite no connection to be found. There's also a crazy person on YouTube purporting that (forgive me if I'm not fluent in crazy) Hollywood planned both the Aurora and Sandy Hook massacres and left hints in The Dark Knight Rises.

Sweet cuppin' cakes people are imbeciles.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Scott Betts wrote:
There is no "growing drug epidemic". Statistics show that we are experiencing a lull in crime, including drug-related crime, and it's certainly not on some dramatic rise.

Sure, but fear sells better when people believe that things are worse than ever -- and heading down hill from there.

Drugs! Rape! Murder! Quick, PANIC NOW!*

* Whew! Being a member of the "pro-suffering" crowd is hard work!


Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
A wider brush is needed. I don't think that author quite got all fo the sterotypes.
The history of this thread very strongly suggests that the stereotypes in question are comically accurate.

Of the handful of folks involved, I guess.

I'm a conservative, doesn't fit me though.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Kryzbyn wrote:

Of the handful of folks involved, I guess.

I'm a conservative, doesn't fit me though.

Although we don't agree, I generally find your posts well-reasoned and quite worthwhile.

As for some of the other posters -- I suspect threads of this nature disproportionately "feature" people on the fringe of the group that feels attacked...in this case, gun advocates.


meatrace wrote:
mordion wrote:
meatrace wrote:
But I'm not a big parents' rights guy. I think that children are citizens and have a right to treatment and help (and education) even if their parents are kookoo and don't agree.
That's another discussion, certainly. I'm not against the idea of mental health screenings being the norm in the same way physical checkups are. I am against the idea of going to buy a gun (or do anything) and having someone check a list and see that they can't help you since you haven't had a mental health screening in the last 18 months, or whatever.

Yeah, that's probably over the line.

That said, the types of things that we're trying to screen for are chronic, not acute. Any psychiatrist they are seeing ought to know whether they're off their meds and be able to flag them in a system to not be able to purchase guns.

I also think there should be a federal waiting period of about 30 days to buy a firearm. Which I really don't think is outrageous or unnecessarily infringing on anyone's rights.

Just cuz I don't want to start another post (this isn't a response to your post) I think liability insurance for guns would be a pretty strong check and a damn good idea.

I would add that anyone that is required to be constantly medicated to remain 'normal' should be flagged also.


bugleyman wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Of the handful of folks involved, I guess.

I'm a conservative, doesn't fit me though.

Although we don't agree, I generally find your posts well-reasoned and quite worthwhile.

As for some of the other posters -- I suspect threads of this nature disproportionately "feature" people on the fringe of the group that feels attacked...in this case, gun advocates.

Wow, thanks Bugley. Appreciated.

The key I think is to actually pause and think about what you're about to type before you type it. Let the emotional response lapse, and think. If it still sounds rational, go for it.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
A wider brush is needed. I don't think that author quite got all fo the sterotypes.
The history of this thread very strongly suggests that the stereotypes in question are comically accurate.

Of the handful of folks involved, I guess.

I'm a conservative, doesn't fit me though.

He was talking about the sort of person who claims that making it harder to get guns legally won't change anything at all because everyone who would have obtained a gun legally and used it to commit a crime will instead obtain a gun illegally. I'm hoping that doesn't apply to you, whether you label yourself a conservative or not.


I own a pistol, a .40 for home defense. That's what I bought it for.
I don't hunt with it. I keep it in it's case in a safe place, unloaded. I am a responsible gun owner. If I were to experience some kind of trauma that made me insane or otherwise unable to remain a responsible gun owner, I would be ok with surrendering it.

Does anyone really argue these points, or think they would remain responsible gun owners if the same were to become true of them?

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Kryzbyn wrote:
Wow, thanks Bugley. Appreciated.

No problem -- just don't tell anyone. I have appearances to keep up, you know.

Kryzbyn wrote:
The key I think is to actually pause and think about what you're about to type before you type it. Let the emotional response lapse, and think. If it still sounds rational, go for it.

Agreed. Unfortunately, all too often I find that easier said than done.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I own a pistol, a .40 for home defense. That's what I bought it for.

I don't hunt with it. I keep it in it's case in a safe place, unloaded. I am a responsible gun owner. If I were to experience some kind of trauma that made me insane or otherwise unable to remain a responsible gun owner, I would be ok with surrendering it.

Does anyone really argue these points, or think they would remain responsible gun owners if the same were to become true of them?

I think there are a lot of gun enthusiasts out there who believe strongly that they are mentally sound, but who harbor suspicions that if a mental health professional spent an hour talking with them they would be diagnosed with something.

That is, totally coincidentally, often what mentally ill individuals believe.

I think that there's sort of an undercurrent of fear or mistrust of mental health professionals in the conservative community, too. Would you disagree?

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Kryzbyn wrote:
If I were to experience some kind of trauma that made me insane or otherwise unable to remain a responsible gun owner, I would be ok with surrendering it.

Yes, but that's because you're not mentally ill. Heaven forbid that changes, but if it did it's hard to say what you (or anyone else) would do. Clearly sometimes things go very, very wrong.

Or did I misunderstand you?


Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
A wider brush is needed. I don't think that author quite got all fo the sterotypes.
The history of this thread very strongly suggests that the stereotypes in question are comically accurate.

Of the handful of folks involved, I guess.

I'm a conservative, doesn't fit me though.
He was talking about the sort of person who claims that making it harder to get guns legally won't change anything at all because everyone who would have obtained a gun legally and used it to commit a crime will instead obtain a gun illegally. I'm hoping that doesn't apply to you, whether you label yourself a conservative or not.

I'm not sure I follow that logic. Legal ownership of the gun doesn't seem to be the problem.

It's the wrong people getting their hands on it.
If another layer of safeguards needs to be added to try to prevent the mass shootings, I'm ok with that. It seems that it does.
It's when the ideas border on all firearms being illegal that I disagree, or when there are so many hurdles that you might as well not have a 2nd amendment. Reasonable hurdles are reasonable.
The post I had above that listed all of the things one already has to go through to own a firearm in CT should they choose to do so touched on this.
Aside from having to pass a psych eval to own a firearm, I don't know what could have been done to prevent that shooting proactively.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GeraintElberion wrote:

I just caught something on the news which made me stop and think.

The Primary School was locked-up for the start of lessons. That appears to be standard practice.

Seems weird.

Sadly, it's not really weird anymore. Because of school shootings, there's a lot more security at schools than when I was a kid. Outside doors, save for one, are usually locked and that main door may or may not be locked depending on the school and whether they allow people to walk in up to the office or need to be buzzed in.

When I was a kid, we had a middle school with a fairly open plan and classrooms opening right out into the library/info materials center. That's probably become a lot rarer as the need for security on individual classrooms has risen (and has been made even more obvious by Friday's events).


In my area and hoping it most areas Schools especailly K-4 are in lockup after the last morning bell. You have to be buzzed in and sign in.

so tell me Scott what is to blame? What are your statistics showing? Where are we getting the funding for the help the kids need? Hows Detroit going to help their mentally ill? We go door to door and take the guns? shut down the xbox live? Take away the books that have violent images. "To protect the interests of all you will be fined/ jailed for swearing in public, being caught with materials that could inspire violence, etc.". Good luck with the lawyers on that one

I would hae loved it if the other night the president came out and said think twice before you let your kids go see the expendables or buy them modern warfare for the holidays. If you see your kids being bulleyed or as a loner reach out to them. Dont let them become isolated and alone. Force them to take part in society. Heres a national number to call if you believe someone is mentally ill.

So the facts are not that more people are getting divorced, more single moms raising kids, poverty isnt rising and drug use is increasing. More pharmacys are not getting robbed for Oxy and its only my imagination that i need my license to buy certain cold medicines. Check your local police log. Ask you parks and recreation people if they are finding more or less heroin needles than they did 5 years ago. More pople havent lost faith in a higher power so it one less thing to be judged on (whether you agree with religion or not it was something that kept people afraid to break the law and many became familiar with others because of it). So whats driving the violence? Society is better as a whole then it was 40 years ago?

When i was a kid everyone on the street knew who my parents where and many knew me by sight. We played street hockey/baseball or some form of cops/robbers. For the most part parents dont let their kids out of eyesight now. Now you have neighborhoods where you cant identify the guy 6 houses down the street and dont know what he/she does for a living.

"Those in favor of revisiting the idea of gun control in this thread have pretty much unanimously been in favor of increasing funding for and societal appreciation of mental health programs and evaluations."

And yet its underfunded and one of the first things to cut.

Its extemely difficult in Massachusetts to get help for a kid that has ADHD never mind mental illness (probaly safe to assume that applies to other states). The government makes it very difficult to get help for parents that beg for it so i can only imagine what they do for those that dont care enough. Ever been to a government run mental facility or nursing home. Scary stuff.


Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I own a pistol, a .40 for home defense. That's what I bought it for.

I don't hunt with it. I keep it in it's case in a safe place, unloaded. I am a responsible gun owner. If I were to experience some kind of trauma that made me insane or otherwise unable to remain a responsible gun owner, I would be ok with surrendering it.

Does anyone really argue these points, or think they would remain responsible gun owners if the same were to become true of them?

I think there are a lot of gun enthusiasts out there who believe strongly that they are mentally sound, but who harbor suspicions that if a mental health professional spent an hour talking with them they would be diagnosed with something.

That is, totally coincidentally, often what mentally ill individuals believe.

I think that there's sort of an undercurrent of fear or mistrust of mental health professionals in the conservative community, too. Would you disagree?

I think in the conservative community you would find that they're hesitant to put any of their freedoms in too few of hands, or any one person's hands.

In regards to mental health professionals, I think that it's everyone to an extent. No one likes to think they may be emotionally or mentally broken, or to have it suggested to them they should go find out.

In full disclosure, I took psych classes in college with the intent of becomming a psychologist. So, I may be the caveat to your supposition about conservatives being intimidated by mental health professionals :)

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

wicked cool wrote:
1. For those who want to ban/restrict guns what are your thought on violent games such as Black OPS or movies such as Good Fellas/Dark Knight etc. Should there be tighter controls on those. Raise the viewing age on both to 21? Ban all tarantino films? Other countries do it why not the US.

There is no correlation between video games and violent behavior that wouldn't be better explained with a Y chromosome. (ie, boys play violent video games, boys act violently)

There is far better corelation between high power, high capacity guns and lots of dead people. Its as solid a connection as the bullets they're pulling out in autopsy.

Quote:
2. what are your thoughts on the alarming rates of people who are diagnosed with mental illness and that they are allowed to walk the streets. That in many cases mental instutions/programs are closed first when it comes to budget shortfalls so that meaningless programs/jobs are saved.

I think the institutions were so bad that they might be better off in the streets.

More often the savings go to tax breaks. I don't know what meaningless programs/jobs you're talking about.

Quote:
3. How about the growing drug epidemic and the violence that comes from that?

If it were legal there wouldn't be nearly as much violence around it. Legalize pot, and let people get that high but not any higher.

Quote:
Seems like we should go back to the days where neighbors watched over each other, and children/adults who have issues were more closely monitored/hospitalized instead of being given a prescription and sent home.

and women were lobotomized for "hysteria", political opponents wound up in asylums, undesirable minorities were threatened with mental detention, and you wound up with a life sentence without a trial.

.. and you knew who you were then, girls were girls and men were men...

Quote:
More restrictive laws and longer harsher sentencing.

The clinical definition of nuts is specifically that this won't work: the person is unable to weigh the consequences of their actions.

Quote:
Instead we get witness intimidation and more legal red tape for criminals to escape doing real prison time. Parents/teachers are given less authority to punish children. Police are no longer allowed to punich thugs outside the law. If a young adult spray paints property the police have to take them to the station or let them go. You cant make them even clean it up without a judges orders.

And yet youth crime is down.

Quote:
The guns are only part of a deeper cultural/lack of punishment problem and its clearly getting worse each generation.

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for

authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer
rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents,
chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their
legs, and are tyrants over their teachers." Socrates

The world is passing through troubling times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress.- Peter the hermit, 1300's

Kids today, they're morally corrupt and lazy! Why in my day we had to...- every parent ever.

If there were an actual decline between generations we really should be back to fire and unpointed sticks by now (the technology to make the sticks pointy having been lost)


I recently went back to my old High School to pick up transcripts for the university I'm transferring to. I had imagined walking the halls again and stopping by the guidance office to pick them up.

The front door was locked and I had to be buzzed in. What used to be the classroom at the end of the hall was now a security office, and I couldn't even enter the HS proper without a pass. They buzzed me into the security office, which had a metal detector on the door and were happy to give me my transcripts (which the lady in guidance left there for me).

So different from when I went to school there. Although, full disclosure, I graduated in 1999 about 6 weeks after Columbine. Guess they've upped security.

On my way out I got the stinkeye from one of the cops that, apparently, is just parked in front of the building all day.

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Just to give you guys some idea where I'm coming from:

I don't own a gun, although I have been to the range on a handful of occasions, and have considered getting a firearm. I have no criminal record, no history of mental illness, and I believe that I could be a responsible owner of a firearm. Ultimately I decided I did not want to shoulder the responsibility of having a gun in the same house as minor children. I don't really worry too much about home defense (then again, you do not want to meet me in a dark, unfamiliar house when I have a baseball bat :P). When my kids are on their own, I may reconsider my decision.

I'm also a parent. While I can't truly imagine what the parents of these murdered children are going through, I can try. If me giving up my right to own a gun means that the next mentally-ill person who snaps is less likely to have one...well, that seems like a pretty good trade to me.

I'll also note that no one here actually seems to be suggesting that firearms should be banned -- merely that we look at things like high capacity magazines, etc. Banning firearm ownership outright would clearly be unconstitutional.


wicked cool wrote:


When i was a kid everyone on the street knew who my parents where and many knew me by sight. We played street hockey/baseball or some form of cops/robbers. For the most part parents dont let their kids out of eyesight now. Now you have neighborhoods where you cant identify the guy 6...

...and we walked to school. 12 miles. Up hill both ways. In a foot of snow. With no shoes. AND WE LIKED IT.

/eyeroll

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Michael Brock wrote:

Even though Connecticut is a tragedy that cuts deep to my soul, I keep hearing news stations advising this is the worst school massacre in U.S. history. It is not. For the sake of not forgetting those victims, there were nearly twice as many children killed in a Michigan schoolhouse in 1927, and had all the dynamite exploded, likely would have killed every child in the school.

Bath School Disaster

Huh. Never knew about that. I don't know if its sad that this had been a problem as long as it has, or reassuring that its not a downward spiral of human behavior.


bugleyman wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
If I were to experience some kind of trauma that made me insane or otherwise unable to remain a responsible gun owner, I would be ok with surrendering it.

Yes, but that's because you're not mentally ill. Heaven forbid that changes, but if it did it's hard to say what you (or anyone else) would do. Clearly sometimes things go very, very wrong.

Or did I misunderstand you?

I meant that should I become mentally unstable, and had a lucid moment and was asked to surrender my pistol, I would for the fear of what I may do with it while mentally unstable.

701 to 750 of 1,152 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Another school shooting All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.