NRA

Not really. It sets in place the idea that some people need killing. It's not that big of a stretch that a killer would think the same thing. Tons of people don't kill for money or profit, some people think they kill because the person or persons they kill had it coming. That's exactly what Timothy McVeigh was all about. He was executing, however deranged his logic may have been, an eye for an eye.

Posting an armed officer in every school in the USA would be no more than a weak band-aid fix to a big issue that needs addressing. Fighting fire with fire is not the solution, removing the ability to purchase assault weapons would be a start.

From the death penalty on down, the use of violence to suppress violence does indeed reinforce the lesson that the answer to problems is violence.

"Violence"... one side is offensive where there are innocent victims, the other side is defensive to protect the innocent before they become victims.
The difference is as opposite as night and day.

It sets in place the idea that some people need killing.

Your logic is built on sinking sand. It must be a wind up because you can't be serious!

Timothy McVeigh and Adam Lanza did need killing. It doesn't matter what was going on in their warpped minds. Their intentions were to commit evil deeds of murder on a mass scale and they succeeded with virtually no initial resistance.

An analogy to what you are pointlessly arguing would be to say that the U.S. military shouldn't arm themselves for defensive purposes because it sets in place the idea that some people need killing. Your irrational logic makes no sense whatsoever.

... Tons of people don't kill for money or profit, some people think they kill because the person or persons they kill had it coming. That's exactly what Timothy McVeigh was all about. He was executing, however deranged his logic may have been, an eye for an eye.

Timothy McVeigh falls into the "offensive" catagory (in case it was too complicated for you to figure out).

Posting an armed officer in every school in the USA would be no more than a weak band-aid fix to a big issue that needs addressing.

I agree.

Fighting fire with fire is not the solution, removing the ability to purchase assault weapons would be a start.

Unfortunately, removing the ability to purchase assault weapons would be no more than a weak band-aid fix, also.

History tells us that mass murders can easily be committed without the assistance of assault weapons.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Posting an armed officer in every school in the USA would be no more than a weak band-aid fix to a big issue that needs addressing.

I agree.

Fighting fire with fire is not the solution, removing the ability to purchase assault weapons would be a start.

Unfortunately, removing the ability to purchase assault weapons would be no more than a weak band-aid fix, also.

History tells us that mass murders can easily be committed without the assistance of assault weapons.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Yes, but how often does that happen in comparison with mass murders at schools with assualt weapons?

Timothy McVeigh and Adam Lanza did need killing. It doesn't matter what was going on in their warpped minds. Their intentions were to commit evil deeds of murder on a mass scale and they succeeded with virtually no initial resistance.

No, they did not need killing.

They needed help.

They needed a society that was not going stigmatise either those men or their families for admitting that they had mental health issues.

They needed a mental health programme that was able to help those men when either they or their families sought help.

They needed to be kept far away from weapons intended to kill or wound a large amount of people.

If all three of those things occurred then the shootings themselves would not have taken place, the two shooters in question would be leading a better life, families would not be grieving, and we would not be having this conversation.

In other words, instead of fighting fire with fire, America needs to look in the mirror and change.

Timothy McVeigh and Adam Lanza did need killing. It doesn't matter what was going on in their warpped minds. Their intentions were to commit evil deeds of murder on a mass scale and they succeeded with virtually no initial resistance.

No, they did not need killing.

I don't know what fantasy world you're living in, but I live in the real world.

They did need killing on the way to their crime scenes or when they arrived there. By then it was too late for any counseling sessions.
That's my point.

However, there was no way for anyone to know what Timothy McVeigh was up to on the day he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.
He was secretive about what he was doing.

The final result of their terrorist acts was no different than what occurred on September 11, 2001.

They needed help.
They needed a society that was not going stigmatise either those men or their families for admitting that they had mental health issues.
They needed a mental health programme that was able to help those men when either they or their families sought help.
They needed to be kept far away from weapons intended to kill or wound a large amount of people.
If all three of those things occurred then the shootings themselves would not have taken place,
the two shooters in question would be leading a better life....

America needs to look in the mirror and change.

Timothy McVeigh and Adam Lanza did need killing. It doesn't matter what was going on in their warpped minds. Their intentions were to commit evil deeds of murder on a mass scale and they succeeded with virtually no initial resistance.

No, they did not need killing.

I don't know what fantasy world you're living in, but I live in the real world.

They did need killing on the way to their crime scenes or when they arrived there. By then it was too late for any counseling sessions.
That's my point.

However, there was no way for anyone to know what Timothy McVeigh was up to on the day he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.
He was secretive about what he was doing.

The final result of their terrorist acts was no different than what occurred on September 11, 2001.

They needed help.
They needed a society that was not going stigmatise either those men or their families for admitting that they had mental health issues.
They needed a mental health programme that was able to help those men when either they or their families sought help.
They needed to be kept far away from weapons intended to kill or wound a large amount of people.
If all three of those things occurred then the shootings themselves would not have taken place,
the two shooters in question would be leading a better life....

America needs to look in the mirror and change.

Yes, it was too late by the day of the killing. Which is exactly my point. If those people had lived in a society where there was not such a stigma towards their problems, then the day of the killing would not have happened. We are living in 2012 and not 1712. People with mental health issues can be helped long before events such as these shootings take place. But they and their families will not seek that help if there is a stigma attached to their problems. That is something which needs to change in America just as much as the gun laws. However, if you combine the two issues together and educate the population about mental health issues and get rid of semi-automatic and automatic weapons, then the shootings we have seen this year would be unlikely to happen in anything like the quantity they do.

Sadly those against the changes to the law will find anyone and anything to blame except what is staring them in the face.

If those people had lived in a society where there was not such a stigma towards their problems, then the day of the killing would not have happened.

Wishful fantasyland thinking on your part.

It's bewildering how you choose to blame society instead of blaming the irresponsible, cold blooded murderers... but hey, that's how you roll.

With your way of thinking I'm certainly glad that you don't own a gun of any kind!

Sadly those against the changes to the law will find anyone and anything to blame except what is staring them in the face.

Changing some laws isn't going to stop the unlawful people that are determined to carry out their criminal and murderous activities.

Common sense is staring you in the face, but sadly you can't see the forest for the trees... but hey, that's how you roll.

Just curious - Have you considered seeking help for your mental health issues? The programmes are out there waiting for you, but you'll have to seek them out... they're not gonna' come to you.

If those people had lived in a society where there was not such a stigma towards their problems, then the day of the killing would not have happened.

Wishful fantasyland thinking on your part.

It's bewildering how you choose to blame society instead of blaming the irresponsible, cold blooded murderers... but hey, that's how you roll.

With your way of thinking I'm certainly glad that you don't own a gun of any kind!

Sadly those against the changes to the law will find anyone and anything to blame except what is staring them in the face.

Changing some laws isn't going to stop the unlawful people that are determined to carry out their criminal and murderous activities.
Perhaps not, but it would have stopped the killings in Connecticut...

Common sense is staring you in the face, but sadly you can't see the forest for the trees... but hey, that's how you roll.

Just curious - Have you considered seeking help for your mental health issues? The programmes are out there waiting for you, but you'll have to seek them out... they're not gonna' come to you.

What a "high class" response...

If those people had lived in a society where there was not such a stigma towards their problems, then the day of the killing would not have happened.

Wishful fantasyland thinking on your part.

It's bewildering how you choose to blame society instead of blaming the irresponsible, cold blooded murderers... but hey, that's how you roll.

With your way of thinking I'm certainly glad that you don't own a gun of any kind!

Sadly those against the changes to the law will find anyone and anything to blame except what is staring them in the face.

Changing some laws isn't going to stop the unlawful people that are determined to carry out their criminal and murderous activities.

Common sense is staring you in the face, but sadly you can't see the forest for the trees... but hey, that's how you roll.

Just curious - Have you considered seeking help for your mental health issues? The programmes are out there waiting for you, but you'll have to seek them out... they're not gonna' come to you.

My own mental health issues have been discussed honestly and openly on these boards in a bid to help others with similar issues. (N.B. it might be in your favour if you refrained from insulting members of this forum. To my knowledge you have been suspended twice during the last couple of months, so unless you want people to continue reporting you, it might be worth your while thinking before you speak unless you fancy making it a hat-trick. )
If you really believe that those men who carried out those shootings were irresponsible cold-blooded murderers and not people with mental health issues, perhaps you enlighten us with your suggestions for possible motives for the attacks. After all, only an insane man would murder all those kids without a motive, so I'm quite curious for your thoughts.

Who knows what would have happened to Timothy McVeigh in another world where Waco and Ruby Ridge didn't happen. However, he saw the wholesale of like thinking people by the US Government because those people, according to the government needed killing. That's the example they set. Most people who kill think in some way the person they've killed has it coming, leaves them no choice etc. If you don't blame the society in some ways, you can't be surprised when the next mass murderer arrives. People like Adam Lanza and Timothy McVeigh don't grow up in a vacuum.

The army is a false equivalency. The soliders on patrol carry weapons in self-defense, in case someone attacks them. When the soldiers invade or engage in battle, they are fighting an enemy who is also armed for the purpose of Gods know what any times, but it's not a slaughter of an unarmed man/woman no matter what they may have done. The end goal is the defense of a post, the acquisition of some land, etc. It is not the direct killing of the opponent.

On the assault weapons ban, you miss the point. It doesn't eliminate the person's ability to kill, it minimizes the mayhem they can cause. If you have a weapon that fires twenty rounds in a minute, it's a lot different than one that can shoot six and needs to be reloaded.

Similarly with a gun it is just much easier to kill than with your hands or other weapons. With a knife, you have to get right up to the person. With a gun you can be ten feet away or more. It just makes it very easy to kill.

History tells us that mass murders can easily be committed without the assistance of assault weapons.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

If removing the ability to buy assault weapons is just a bandaid fix because mass murders will happen anyway perhaps ALL weapons should be available to everyone, everywhere for legal purchase.

Bad things will happen, that is inevitable. How often and on what scale can be limited, and reducing the ability to legally obtain certain weapons is an obvious start.

On the assault weapons ban, you miss the point. It doesn't eliminate the person's ability to kill, it minimizes the mayhem they can cause.

No, sir. You miss the reality of the valid points that I've already brought to your attention, yet you conveniently choose to ignore the truth.

Timothy McVeigh carried out his actions without assault weapons. So much for your misguided theory of "minimizing the mayhem".

The Bath School disaster was carried out without assault weapons. So much for your misguided theory of "minimizing the mayhem".
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Changing some laws isn't going to stop the unlawful people that are determined to carry out their criminal and murderous activities.

Perhaps not, but it would have stopped the killings in Connecticut...

Not necessarily. With Adam Lanza hell-bent on killing many innocent people he could have (and probably would have) chosen a different method to carry out his mass killings if he hadn't been able to get his hands on an assault rifle.

If you really believe that those men who carried out those shootings were irresponsible cold-blooded murderers and not people with mental health issues...

Please get a clue... they were irresponsible, cold-blooded murderers with mental health issues!
Their so-called "mental health issues" does not excuse what they did.

If you guys want to continue making excuses for them and blaming everyone except the murderers, then have fun with that for the rest of your lives.

I'm not buying into any of that nonsense.

On the assault weapons ban, you miss the point. It doesn't eliminate the person's ability to kill, it minimizes the mayhem they can cause.

No, sir. You miss the reality of the valid points that I've already brought to your attention, yet you conveniently choose to ignore the truth.

Timothy McVeigh carried out his actions without assault weapons. So much for your misguided theory of "minimizing the mayhem".

The Bath School massacre was carried out without assault weapons. So much for your misguided theory of "minimizing the mayhem".
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Changing some laws isn't going to stop the unlawful people that are determined to carry out their criminal and murderous activities.

Perhaps not, but it would have stopped the killings in Connecticut...

Not necessarily. With Adam Lanza hell-bent on killing many innocent people he could have (and probably would have) chosen a different method to carry out his mass killings if he hadn't been able to get his hands on an assault rifle.

If you really believe that those men who carried out those shootings were irresponsible cold-blooded murderers and not people with mental health issues...

Please get a clue... they were irresponsible, cold-blooded murderers with mental health issues!
Their so-called "mental health issues" does not excuse what they did.

If you guys want to continue making excuses for them and blaming everyone except the murderers, then have fun with that for the rest of your lives.

I'm not buying into any of that nonsense.

So you think they would have committed murders even if they did not have mental health issues? How do you come that conclusion? And considering the law takes into account mental health issues and diminished responsibility when passing sentence, you seem to be in the minority in thinking that people are a murderer first and mentally ill second.

If removing the ability to buy assault weapons is just a bandaid fix because mass murders will happen anyway
perhaps ALL weapons should be available to everyone, everywhere for legal purchase.

C'mon Matthew, please don't insinuate that that's what I believe... because it isn't. You know better.

Bad things will happen, that is inevitable.

True.

How often and on what scale can be limited,

Maybe, maybe not.

and reducing the ability to legally obtain certain weapons is an obvious start.

I agree. I don't have a problem with that at all, Matthew.

... you seem to be in the minority in thinking that people are a murderer first and mentally ill second.

I haven't said that. That's something you've dreamed up. Don't twist my words to fit your agenda.
It doesn't matter to me which order you want to put it in. That's something that's obviously important to you, but not to me.

So you think they would have committed murders even if they did not have mental health issues?

None of us will ever know the answer to that for certain, but that's not what's important to me.
What is important to me is that they did commit their crimes and they are the ones that should ultimately be held responsible for their actions.

I've stated my case enough on this subject, Peter, as I think you have, too. I don't have anything else to say other than we will just have to agree to disagree.
If you want to continue arguing, please go find a mirror.


Goodnight

This is the argument I hear from the Right wing on every issue. Because an entire problem can't be completely eradicated it somehow doesn't make sense to do anything about it. Mass murder is something that can be significantly mitigated by things like assault weapons bans. That's a common sense fact. If the most you can shoot is six times, then your ability to do mass damage is significantly mitigated. Some people will be able to find a way around it. Yet far more won't.

It's like guns, and this is not an argument to ban guns, but in England where there is a prohibition on guns there are still murders but the rate is well below the US rate. And there is still the occasional murder but those crimes are in the double digits, as opposed the five digits we have here. It doesn't eliminate the crime but it severely mitigates it.

As for the creation of a culture of violence, to paraphrase Malcolm X when you put out chickens you can't complain when those chickens come home to roost.