another mass shooting

[_EAllusion]

I have seen no evidence that the Parkland shooter was seriously mentally ill outside of some classic antisocial personal disorder signs and that condition is essentially untreatable.

You can't *define* mass killing as a byproduct of mental illness, then declare the incidence of mass killings a mental illness issue. That's trivially circular. And, again, serious mental illness is correlated with lower than average rates of violent crime.

[_subgenius]

WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS MORE POLITICAL THAN SENSIBLE
Man allegedly leaves lunch table and drives car into restaurant, killing daughter and daughter-in-law
But in recent months, Self had been wrestling with mental illness, Austin Rammell, a pastor at Venture Church, told WSOC. A family friend for 16 years, he told the station Self was beset by anxiety, depression, and mental breakdowns. Sometimes he would go days without leaving his bed, Rammell said.

‘‘He’s been taking precautions. He had all the guns removed from his house, so he was making steps that were rational steps.’’

Now, please, explain to us all how "at least only 2 died" is your acceptable and reasonable argument; and be sure to explain your partisan math on how 2 dead must surely be better than 12 dead. Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

[_Themis]

be sure to explain your partisan math on how 2 dead must surely be better than 12 dead.

So you think 12 dead is better then 2?

Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

I would love to see that argument. It has been clearly shown the only difference between the US and other western countries is gun regulation.

[_honorentheos]

MeDotOrg,

Excellent post. I especially wanted to highlight this point -

I firmly believe that the United States has a dysfunctional gun culture, unique among all advanced Western democracies. No one is going to convince me that of all the Western democracies, the United States is the only one where teenagers play violent video games and are taunted and bullied in high school.

I've read calls for change that sounds something like, "Americans have turned their back on the values that made us great. We need to strengthen the American family, turn our hearts back to God, and restore our foundation." They appear to be emotional appeals for an idealized golden age and a commitment to a religion-based National morality.

And that's fine if that's what a person believes but I don't think it's based on reality, either today or the past as it really existed. It's the equivalent of wishing we all lived in a perfect Utopian society that everyone agreed upon...and looks remarkably how the person postulating it would define a perfect Utopian society.

Over time I've become a firm disbeliever in libertarian freewill. I don't believe people have as much agency as we imagine. When I hear of a young person (or older person, given most of the people I've known personally who committed suicide were over 30) tragically having taken their own life - by any means - I feel for them and the fact that whatever the combination of factors were at the moment in time, it probably did feel hopeless and like the only way out of the pain they were experiencing. I hope that the message gets imbedded deeply beforehand that it will get better, that if they don't act at that moment they will be able to look back and be thankful for not having acted on it. But we're not going to stop people from feeling that, we're not going to end depression. And the fact is, if a person who is suicidal has access to a firearm they are more likely to successfully take their own life.

Likewise, there are always going to be people who feel powerless in any social order. It doesn't matter the age cohort, but among teens it's so ubiquitous we all immediately recognize the tropes derived from it that are used in television or movies. And in the US, guns = power is a fundamental, arguably new, message at the heart of gun culture. I'd go so far as to argue that the people dreaming of some mythical golden age where tragedies never happened are missing a real aspect of the American past: Our gun culture isn't healthy.

I was raised primarily in rural Utah. In Utah, getting one's hunter's ed "blue card" after turning 11-12 years old was a right of passage - up there with being ordained to the priesthood, moving from primary to the young adult program, or transitioning into the Boy Scouts from Cub Scouts. And yes, that is all very male-centric. I don't know what else to say about that because it is gender-biased. But the culture I grew up in had a defined route to manhood that included becoming a responsible handler of firearms that was necessary to participate in later activities such as hunting. Firearms were part of the culture, with hunting trips involving my dad and uncles, friends and their dads part of the fuzzy background that is my memory of my youth. I knew two guys who were killed in hunting accidents, both shot by friends while hunting who violated rules of hunting safety. And that was the conversation around their deaths among my friends and I where sloppy behavior turned tragic.

I say that because when I read folks like Jersey Girl or rockslider when they post on this issue, I hear them speaking from out of this same gun culture I was raised with where the violence is a violation of what otherwise responsible people recognize as the rules of safe firearm use. But while I respect that, I don't think that's reflective of modern American gun culture. Modern American gun culture as encouraged by the NRA is about equalizing power dynamics. It defines the very reason for owning a firearm as protecting the common citizen from a powerful, oppositional government. It sells product by glamorizing the power of the weapons and gun chic itself. It makes owning a semi-automatic assault-style weapon the equivalent of getting one's man card. It says nothing makes you feel powerful like a weapon. And anyone trying to take that weapon away from you wants to do so to make you powerless and weak. And this message gets echoed in the claim flawed, godless society that wants your guns is also to blame for their misuse amplifies this underlying pathological reinvention of the American-gun relationship.

If we want to talk about change we need to first recognize that people act in accordance to the combination of internal and environmental factors they are experiencing at any given moment. And we can't change the fact that these will combine to create highly risky conditions where an individual becomes a risk to themselves and to others. Taking out a high-risk factor from the environment is obvious as part of the solution space when this gets recognized. And second, if we want to talk about fixing our society, we need to focus in the gun culture part of it first.

Making laws that hold gun owners accountable for how their weapons get used takes away some of the chic while making it clear that ownership is a responsibility. It also reduces access to high risk individuals while creating space and time wherein a person can potentially get to a place where they aren't willing to pull the trigger on themselves or others. And it turns down the volume on the NRA message that trying to enforce responsible gun ownership is about the powerful trying to make a person weak. There are widely accepted other measures that have broad support that would also serve this goal.

[_honorentheos]

WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS MORE POLITICAL THAN SENSIBLE
Man allegedly leaves lunch table and drives car into restaurant, killing daughter and daughter-in-law
But in recent months, Self had been wrestling with mental illness, Austin Rammell, a pastor at Venture Church, told WSOC. A family friend for 16 years, he told the station Self was beset by anxiety, depression, and mental breakdowns. Sometimes he would go days without leaving his bed, Rammell said.

‘‘He’s been taking precautions. He had all the guns removed from his house, so he was making steps that were rational steps.’’

Now, please, explain to us all how "at least only 2 died" is your acceptable and reasonable argument; and be sure to explain your partisan math on how 2 dead must surely be better than 12 dead. Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

Red herring, idiot.

But your campaign to paint all people with mental health issues as murderous ticking time bombs that will go off regardless of whether or not they have access to firearms is noted.

idiot.

[_subgenius]

be sure to explain your partisan math on how 2 dead must surely be better than 12 dead.

So you think 12 dead is better then 2?

nope.

Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

I would love to see that argument. It has been clearly shown the only difference between the US and other western countries is gun regulation.

There is more than a single "difference", so such simplifications are obtuse, possibly moronic. Apart from the emotional and imbecilic nature of that graphic, it is nothing more than propaganda. Ergo my posted anecdote which refutes the bad-logic that One-Eye loves to perpetuate. It is like claiming that "the police" are racists, systematically, when the evidence concludes only with "this officer" is racist.

So, while people think that having a gun regulation system like "Country A" is what will solve, or even diminish, gun violence in America they fail to realize the error in their thinking...its a keeping up with the Jones' mentality that just simply does not work. So yeah, if there were no guns anywhere then there would not be any gun deaths, but tragedy would still remain...so why think that treating the symptom will cure the disease?...because narrow minded emotional bearers of the ever popular hair-fire have the myopia of partisan politics....and that myopia is vicarious at best. People like One-Eye are brave with their tongues but cowards with their hands....even here, it is safe for them to assume their self-anointed role as pontificate because they know it is a safe place...where they can seek solace and comfort among "like minded"....it is a herd mentality founded on being secure where one feels weak.

But anyway, I am reminded of the Michael Che joke where he speaks about how it makes sense that the 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms, because the 1st amendment is about being able to speak your mind as you see fit.

[_subgenius]

WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS MORE POLITICAL THAN SENSIBLE
Man allegedly leaves lunch table and drives car into restaurant, killing daughter and daughter-in-law
But in recent months, Self had been wrestling with mental illness, Austin Rammell, a pastor at Venture Church, told WSOC. A family friend for 16 years, he told the station Self was beset by anxiety, depression, and mental breakdowns. Sometimes he would go days without leaving his bed, Rammell said.

‘‘He’s been taking precautions. He had all the guns removed from his house, so he was making steps that were rational steps.’’

Now, please, explain to us all how "at least only 2 died" is your acceptable and reasonable argument; and be sure to explain your partisan math on how 2 dead must surely be better than 12 dead. Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

Red herring, idiot.

But your campaign to paint all people with mental health issues as murderous ticking time bombs that will go off regardless of whether or not they have access to firearms is noted.

idiot.

geez, and i even typed slow because i knew a rube like yourself would be unable to readily discern a rebuttal...i am refuting the ignorance of the argument not introducing a new argument.

you are just a plan "tard" sans the fun action noted.

[_Morley]

Now, please, explain to us all how "at least only 2 died" is your acceptable and reasonable argument; and be sure to explain your partisan math on how 2 dead must surely be better than 12 dead. Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

For the life of me, I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Of course two dead is better than twelve dead. How is that logical statement partisan? No one (including you) is saying anything about acceptable losses. No one (including you) wants anyone dead.

Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

Again, maybe it's just me but, "Huh?!"

[_subgenius]

For the life of me, I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Of course two dead is better than twelve dead.

Huh? by what measure is 2 dead better than 12 dead? This seems to be an equivalent "not good" condition. I mean let us assume that all the people involved are "good and innocent"...what if the 2 were octogenarians and the 12 were toddlers?

Your position makes no sense....i mean, i liked the movie Saving Private Ryan for the cinematography and compelling story...but many people would agree that the 8 dead was better than the 1 dead.

How is that logical statement partisan?

1. It is not logical.
2. It is based on a narrow emotional perspective.
1+2 = party platform.

No one (including you) is saying anything about acceptable losses. No one (including you) wants anyone dead.

I agree..."anyone" is the operable term that you have used here.

Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

Again, maybe it's just me but, "Huh?!"

In other words, if "some" deaths are acceptable then that quantity is arbitrary...in other 2 vs 12 can not be determined to be "better" without introducing subjective and arbitrary measures for how it is "better". Therefore, if asserting that a gun regulation is "better" because it would result in 2 deaths instead of 12 deaths then the same can be argued with regards to gun regulation whereas 12 deaths is a better consequence than the consequence of not having the rights afforded by the 2nd amendment.

[_schreech]

In other words, if "some" deaths are acceptable then that quantity is arbitrary...in other 2 vs 12 can not be determined to be "better" without introducing subjective and arbitrary measures for how it is "better". Therefore, if asserting that a gun regulation is "better" because it would result in 2 deaths instead of 12 deaths then the same can be argued with regards to gun regulation whereas 12 deaths is a better consequence than the consequence of not having the rights afforded by the 2nd amendment.