You are completely right with that. Anyway we should be aware of the relation of the things named in this thread. I mean IMHO we cannot forbid or argue with excessively graphic violence in video games and excessively graphic violence in Hollywood movies while guns are still easily available. Also we cannot forbid things which actually have another common purpose. We have items which have a 'common' purpose such as a knife, a rental truck, large screwdrivers or planes. Guns do have no 'other' purpose. Wearing a gun adds 'abilities' to enforce an own idea of law/right. Laws and what is right or not are written and are different depending on the country / nation. Professionals such as the police are here to support national laws. 'Private' interests can be enforced when having a gun due to the special abilities now, without a gun enforcement would be not possible, at least not that easy. The decision if a particular action is right or not is always made by the individual. But a society only works when there are collective rights and laws. Guns should be for professionals with training, or for sports with strict regulations and trainings. Nobody should get a gun without evidence of a proper training or 'professional use'. Some own thoughts.... It's something elementary. Self-awareness. Real self-awareness is not dependant on any-thing. With that one would recognize oneself in others and would never point a gun at other beings. The uselessness of guns (or any other item used as a weapon to hurt) has to be recognized out of self-awareness and self-knowledge and not by forbidding them by law. Restricting access can be a temporary measure, though.
Yes, I agree that people should be required to go through training and education on legal ramifications before being able to own firearms. But just the opposite is happening in many states- requirements for training are being eliminated. Guns do have another purpose than to cause harm- it's fun to take them to the desert or shooting range and spend an afternoon with friends target practicing. Self-awareness is one thing. Self-preservation is another thing. Take a look at that news article I linked in my previous post: A person broke into a couple's home late at night and the man was stabbed to death by a criminal. If that homeowner had a gun to defend himself, he'd be alive today and it would be a clear-cut case of self-defense. From what I read, I think the victim was a therapist, so I'm sure he had self-awareness and empathy for others. But because he was defenseless against a lunatic, his wife is now a widow. I understand what you're saying, Yen. But it's a bit out of touch when it comes to a situation where a person may be dealing with another who doesn't possess self-awareness and may in fact be a mentally-challenged criminal.
I think this issue is caused by social media and the internet! The anger and the resulting hatred! There is an article here about it https://www.technologyreview.com/s/519306/most-influential-emotions-on-social-networks-revealed/ https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.2402 It certainly doesn't help that automatic weapons are easily accessible! I think you need to treat this issue the same way you would treat a small child that you don't want lighting matched to burn down the house. You take away the matches, since the mental aspect is harder to control!
Using that logic, should we close up -all-fast food restauraunts and discontinue manufacturing -all- soft drinks? Because the mental aspect is harder to control? That makes no sense to me at all. This country is riddled with diabetes caused by obesity. These places and product makers know that they're responsible.
Food is a NEED guns are not! You can kill yourself drinking water, water poisoning, but you don't see people banning water! The issue is commonsense, which isn't very common! What's the purpose of guns? Does the general populace really need an automatic weapon? Why aren't there better checks done on the people buying automatic weapons given the history of gun violence in USA? Why aren't other sane countries having the same mass murder problems? Note two words, NEED and AUTOMATIC, don't want people to get their panties in knots!
R29K: You're confusing automatic weapons with semi-auto ones. Only a small percentage of guns in US are automatic ones. Most are semi-auto. But your point is still valid. Automatic weapons are legal to own in the US but they're much more regulated, *much* more expensive to buy. Just about anybody can go to a gun store and walk out the same day with semi-auto pistol/rifle (in my state) and that does create problems because so many people are untrained and uneducated about the responsibilities and ramifications that come with gun ownership.
@PointZero: Yes. In your state that's true. Not in mine, though. Some people feel that the government should step in and pass legislation. Personally, I don't. I think it's a matter for each individual state to decide. And that's the way it should be for everything. If something goes against Constitutional law, then that's what the Supreme Court is for.
MJ: Yes, I'm aware that NY & CA are much more restrictive on gun sales/ownership. Well, the federal government has already stepped in and passed many national laws regarding gun ownership. For example, regarding ownership of automatic weapons- that's a national law that all states have to abide by. But I understand what you're saying about each state making their own laws under the federal govt's laws (and being free from future federal laws being forced upon them). Yes, there are good things that can happen when each state does its own thing, but it also allows for tricky situations. For example, our state had a governor a few years ago who passed very harsh state level immigration laws that were challenged by the federal government, since its laws take precedence. Several of the laws were ruled unconstitutional and struck down. A lot of taxpayer $ were used up in the legal battles. But, I guess that's the way the legal system is supposed to work.
@PointZero: Believe it or not, it is. Or at least it's how it should be. Let's be realistic here. We both agree that military weapons are not something that should be running around the streets of America. We don't want our police having to worry about AP rounds piercing their vests. Not to mention the collateral damage caused by stray bullets. We all know that the innocents end up paying for the folly of the enraged. I'd like to see more LEOs carry these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangible_bullet In reality, frangibles may not provide the stopping power needed in the case of a loony with body armor.
But that’s exactly the way people think to justify a gun. The way of thinking is wrong. You state : “If somebody had a gun then…..” In fact you are not able to make that prediction since you are no fortune teller. And with that you glorify guns as something that could have prevented a misery / suffering. Nobody knows what would have happened if he had a gun! And you do probably not consider that somebody else -another human- would have died. It’s about to kill and own justification of that because the bad one has deserved that?! Proper self-awareness results to the knowledge that self-preservation is an illusion. Many people come to self-awareness after they have lost 'something/ somebody' that/who is/was very important in their (previous) life. Sooner or later there will be a situation where one has to notice that that what is considered as ‘Self’ is in danger and will be lost….. One can only be ‘relatively’ safe temporarily….. I have no gun and in my house there never will be one. If there should be the day when somebody threatens me with a gun..then….I will stay calm… To me guns/weapons are wrong, generally. I want to add a personal story…. When I was 18 here still was conscription….. I do/did not want to use weapons nor am I interested to learn to shoot. And I didn't want to become a soldier and waste my time there…I did not want to use weapons on duty. Calling to arms in its service is against human freedom…. So I had to go to a formal hearing….like a court where there were Vetarans… They came up with abstruse if somebody would then what would you do stories to make me saying I would shoot then…so they can disqualify my arguments…. The only way that time to refuse military duty was the strategy to argue to be Christian. I was pissed off to have to argue like that and to talk and talk only to demonstrate that I DO NOT WANT to use weapons! Finally I found a doctor confirming me that I am not able to use weapons…(bad eyes, lol)… And I could leave the to be Christian story alone… I posted the same example (small kids and matches). You take away matches because small kids are NOT able to handle them properly. They do lack of education and (social) experiences. The result can be own harm and harm of other citizens. It is one's duty to protect by preventing the situation...so it is the duty of lawmakers to rethink about the right to use guns. It's just a reasonable relation... Different countries have realized different laws. Federally or nationally. Right is an idea and I think from the perspective of human right guns should not be available to humans. The state has to define exceptions but they should not be allowed generally.
Yen, you are correct- I am not a fortune teller. But here's what happened in that news article I posted: a person with a history of mental illness (diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic) and had a long criminal history (see article) broke into a couple's home at 1am in the morning while they were sleeping. Husband confronted the intruder and was then stabbed to death while the wife hid under their bed. You are right- I cannot predict that he would definitely be alive if he had a gun to defend himself. But since he was killed anyway, which resulted in misery and suffering for the surviving wife, I don't think that having a gun in that situation would've made things worse. The homeowner possibly could've kept the intruder at a distance with a gun and possibly ordered him to the ground. If the intruder ran at the homeowner holding a knife and the homeowner shot him, it would be justifiable self-defense in the courts view. And the homeowner would be alive for his wife. But you are right- I don't know what really would've happened. I understand that not everyone is comfortable with firearms. I have friends who hate them. I have other friends who carry a loaded gun any time they leave their house. I don't ever carry a gun on me away from my home, but I do have firearms at home. Many decades ago, states in the US had mental asylums where people with serious mental problems would be kept. Places like in the movie/book "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". But those places were deemed inhumane and most were closed. People who used to be kept in such places are now walking the streets. There are many of those types of people in my state because they're homeless and the weather here is nice, compared to many other states. Crimes from mentally ill people happen regularly. Maybe in other countries, the seriously mentally ill are kept away from the general public. But here, they may be walking right next to you on the street. Or they may be walking through your unlocked door late at night, as happened in the news article. I hope I never am in a situation like that. But if somebody breaks into my home with a knife and tries to attack me, I'll use everything I can to try to stay alive. As I posted earlier, 99.999% of people will never be in such a situation (just as most people who wear seat belts are never in a serious car accident). But if it does happen, I hope what I have can be a tool that will help me. Nothing else. --- Here's an updated news story about that crime I posted: https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...rtis-bagley-murder-central-phoenix/484196002/ Here are pictures of the victim: https://www.gofundme.com/joshandkatrina I was wrong- he was a systems engineer at a tech company, not a therapist as I thought earlier.
Well sense were on the topic of mental illness here we go again another shooter and this time surprise is a woman.
@oldsh_t: Thanks for that breath of fresh air. I do have one question though... How do you suppose She managed to get a firearm? Did she go into a gun store and buy one? Were proper procedures / background checks followed? Inquiring minds want to know...
There are gun laws on the federal level but each state has it's own gun laws too, which makes for a varying amount (100's) of different gun laws. I do own firearms too and I do believe in the second amendment but there should be a set of gun laws that are enforceable throughout the entire U.S. so people that are unstable can not get guns legally, Does not do much for anybody getting guns off the street though. Most major cities in the U.S. can get you a .38 special in no time, no questions asked off the street
Yes Joe, all the varying laws do make things confusing. One example: a friend here decided to move back to NY state a few months ago. He sold all his guns here (due to restrictive NY laws). But he did keep one- a .380 pocket pistol. Since he was driving across the country with this pistol and he wanted to do everything legally according to all the varying laws, he said had to route his trip to avoid certain states that prohibited carry in the car or didn't recognize AZ's concealed carry permit or for some reason like that. -- One good thing about that awful situation in that news article I posted: the crazy guy didn't have a gun, either because the laws worked and he was denied one due to lack of competency or he just couldn't afford one. But knives are just as deadly, as he sadly proved. -- Yep, black markets probably for everything in big cities. ---------- MJ: I know nothing about that lady's situation, but when I saw her face, I thought it might be an evil twin of Frida Kahlo. Spoiler: Frida
Here it depends if they had attracted attention before, means they actually can do harm first before one can notice of illness at all.... There is also prison sentence with subsequent preventive detention. The question is do we need guns to prevent them attacking (by defense) OR do we have to restrict guns? From logical aspects it's clear it's the latter that is right. The principle of he's more I need more as well leads to escalation..the same was reflected in the cold war (armament).... A person can change during lifetime also the mental condition. A regular period to renew evidence and with that the right to use a gun is reasonable! Such measures can also make sense with regard to driver licenses...a vehicle can become a weapon, too. I hope I won't too.....dunno if I'll stay here where I live all the time. I'd say here where I live it won't happen.... It applies to any threatening situation..one hopes to find the right way to get it settled again. I once got attacked on the streets when I was alone at night in Amsterdam. I had no more money with me (was on the way back home to hotel)...... They were 5 people...the boss alone was a slender guy. He asked me for money..then he asked me for my leather jacket which I had got from London just a few weeks ago.... I said NO forget it....then he pulled a knife and pricked me sightly..I said OK....you can have it.... While that I was surprisingly calm..after those five went away I only thought you and me alone without knife and you had been the one going to hospital.... It was a kind of humiliating situation to receive orders against my own will...and the fact I can do almost nothing against... Well next night I had to go out alone again also late night and same district....it was important to me to do that right next night. It was like a therapy for my own...
Have no idea of how she got a gun, but a good guess would be that she may have gotten it legally. Seen an update by the cops yesterday and they said she went to a shooting range before she went to YouTube. If that is true I would imagine you would have to have a licence and legal firearm to use the shooting range.
We have the same thing here in the USA. If a person is deemed a danger to themselves or to others, they receive a court ordered psychiatric evaluation. In this country, we choose not to infringe on the rights of others, unless there's a legitimate, legal reason which allows us to step in and do something about it. Persons of unsound mind are notoriously famous for making up stories or taking unrelated things said and adding them to their own psychotic fantasy. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Danger to the public can come from the most innocent of places. For instance, a train driver takes a new blood pressure medicine and it makes him / her have an accident. I wish you good fortune finding such a place. Sadly, I feel that no such place exists in this world. You did the right thing. Material possessions can be replaced. A life can not. A bruised ego can easily be mended with the thought that you survived because of your actions. We have an expression here. "Every dog has his day..." This goes hand in hand with this one. "And as ye sow, so shall ye reap."