k9nanny wrote:
Little kids, coloring or singing or listening to a story are executed by a a deranged man.
I don't buy the God angle, Piper, but thank you for being a man with a heart. Maybe if more people looked beyond themselves and figured out we're all in this together, we could make some headway.
My heart aches tonight. It aches for the dead and the bereaved.
Many years passed in my life before I accepted a God angle and it wasn't through Christianity, but via a strong determination and perserverance from a people who have seen much death and destruction in their history.
My heart aches too. Not only for those innocent children and adults who would have never dreamed they'll not go home tonight; but I ache also for what this world is coming to; a heartless, uncaring, community who's only interest is in oneself.
I have tears in my eyes as I write this. There was a time not long ago that I thought that I had cried all I could ever cry.
I guess I'll just have to brace myself; I'm not dead yet.
I hear ya, Piper and K9 ...
This is beyond sad and heartbreaking ...
The Piper wrote:It's unbelievable what this thread turned into; bashing each other over guns, rights, attitudes, etc. when beautiful, innocent little children had their lives snuffed out by an uncaring, probably undisciplined, nut case.
Rest in peace little children, you won't have to grow up in an increasingly heartless, hate-filled society.
The train for any effective gun control has long left the station. There are at least three guns for every man, woman, and child in the US, and a long history of gun culture and gun violence. Get used to it, guys. It's not going to get better. We've made our bed, and we'll live in it. We'll keep living in a bed that makes the Constitutional right to have guns more important than the effect that right has has on our society. We'll keep telling ourselves that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and of course there's some validity in that view. But what is a little more difficult to sweep under the carpet is that killing equipment is really really easy to get, whether you're a guy who likes to play macho dude or a real psycho. In the case of this Connecticut killer, it looks like he used his mom's guns. I don't have an answer - there really isn't an answer as far as I can tell. We have a gun culture. We worship guns and gun ownership. Anything us "rational" people can get is also available to the psychopaths. The killing isn't going to go away. It's just going to keep getting more frequent and a higher body count. Does anybody remember the "Tate-LaBianca" murders? It's what got Charlie Manson in prison for life. That crime would be a page three footnote today.
O Really wrote:The train for any effective gun control has long left the station. There are at least three guns for every man, woman, and child in the US, and a long history of gun culture and gun violence. Get used to it, guys. It's not going to get better. We've made our bed, and we'll live in it. We'll keep living in a bed that makes the Constitutional right to have guns more important than the effect that right has has on our society. We'll keep telling ourselves that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and of course there's some validity in that view. But what is a little more difficult to sweep under the carpet is that killing equipment is really really easy to get, whether you're a guy who likes to play macho dude or a real psycho. In the case of this Connecticut killer, it looks like he used his mom's guns. I don't have an answer - there really isn't an answer as far as I can tell. We have a gun culture. We worship guns and gun ownership. Anything us "rational" people can get is also available to the psychopaths. The killing isn't going to go away. It's just going to keep getting more frequent and a higher body count. Does anybody remember the "Tate-LaBianca" murders? It's what got Charlie Manson in prison for life. That crime would be a page three footnote today.
This morning we are learning more and at this point it appears the shooter had some issues that were known. Unfortunately, we have become so PC we are reluctant to address these "signals". I certainly don't have the answer, but I do think we need to be more honest so these troubled people can receive the help they need and some of these events can be prevented.
Supsalemgr wrote:This morning we are learning more and at this point it appears the shooter had some issues that were known. Unfortunately, we have become so PC we are reluctant to address these "signals". I certainly don't have the answer, but I do think we need to be more honest so these troubled people can receive the help they need and some of these events can be prevented.
Oh, that's easy- blame it on PC.
Do you have an inside source? Do you know his condition and what was or wasn't done about it? Did he ever do anything observably bizarre? Was his descent into this state of mind songradual that neither he nor his family suspected anything beyond reclusiveness? There are many questions, few answers.
Even as mental disorders don't carry the stigma of the past, we as a nation have dropped the ball in the mental healthcare system.
Your dismissive comment is about as logical as saying a child with cancer isn't treated because having cancer isn't PC. But I understand; coming up with a simplistic explanation protects your own sense of powerlessness.
Vrede and K9nanny obviously did not read my last sentence. My point is we, as a society, have gooten away from addressing some personal issues that ned to be addressed.
Supsalemgr wrote:Vrede and K9nanny obviously did not read my last sentence. My point is we, as a society, have gooten away from addressing some personal issues that ned to be addressed.
I probably agree with you, Super-S - but it seems unusual for you to expect "we, as a society" to do anything for the benefit of individuals. Welcome to the Light Side. How would you propose we, as a society, identify and address those personal issues?
And then there's the irony of the Lash-Out-At-Everything-Obama-We-Hate-Him-So-Much crowd's attacking Obama for "disrespecting" military vets because the Department of Homeland Security recommended that mentally ill vets not be allowed to own guns.
Just in the last few days, the Pubs were up in arms in the last few days because they had a bill to stop a Veterans Affairs' policy that places a vet deemed too mentally incompetent to handle his own finances on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, thereby preventing said vet from buying firearms.
Apparently the Pubs are find with mentally incompetent people buying firearms as long as they're vets.
And any attempt by sane people to prevent that is yet another in a list of egregious Obama-sins.
Supsalemgr wrote:Vrede and K9nanny obviously did not read my last sentence. My point is we, as a society, have gooten away from addressing some personal issues that ned to be addressed.
I probably agree with you, Super-S - but it seems unusual for you to expect "we, as a society" to do anything for the benefit of individuals. Welcome to the Light Side. How would you propose we, as a society, identify and address those personal issues?
I wish I had an answer, but as I posted in my original post I do not. I am not suggesting this as it would never be approved, but most of us remember when people who were identified with serious mental issues were instutionallized. That was not deemed PC, so we now have them on the street. Are there medications, yes, but so many of these folks either do not take them voluntarily or they forget. Without going into details I have experience with close family members who were diagnosed and treated for mental illness. One is doing quite well and the other took her own life. There are no easy answers.
Supsalemgr wrote:...but most of us remember when people who were identified with serious mental issues were instutionallized. That was not deemed PC, so we now have them on the street. ...
"PC"?? Seriously?
Beware incoming from those loaded with data showing more likely causes.
For example...
ABSTRACT
Conventional wisdom suggests that the reduction of funding for social welfare policies during the 1980s is the result of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. With such a backlash, it should be expected that changes in the policies toward involuntary commitment of the mentally ill reflect a generally conservative approach to social policy more generally. In this case, however, the complex of social forces that lead to less restrictive guidelines for involuntary commitment are not the result of conservative politics per se, but rather a coalition of fiscal conservatives, law and order Republicans, relatives of mentally ill patients, and the practitioners working with those patients. Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness
I trust this does not negatively impact Vrede's self esteem, but I am not obligated to respond to any question or desire he wishes. Sorry if that bothers him.
I'm relieved it's not just I who think supe's PC theory is BS.
Again, if we can pinpoint a reason, we feel protected, because that kind of thing won't happen to me.
It's even more ridiculous to think we put them on the street in order to be PC. If memory serves, Reagan cut funding in California, and there was nowhere to go except the street. When Trend closed here, there was nowhere to go but Pardee or private providers. I knew a nurse whose primary job was to get people involuntarily committed, and not against their will. It was the only way to get treatment for those who were underinsured or uninsured.
The inevitable rally for gun control is also an attempt to feel as if we're doing something.
While I have no problem with guns or with stricter laws, does anyone think such laws could have prevented this atrocity?
k9nanny wrote:
While I have no problem with guns or with stricter laws, does anyone think such laws could have prevented this atrocity?
The easy and somewhat obvious answer - and the one preferred by the gun people - is "probably not." Even if gun purchases were illegal (not that that is in any way feasible), there would be a black market and guns would still be available. Too many of them, too easy to hide and trade. On the other hand, looking a a broader and longer term question, one might wonder why some of these nuts don't kill people with ricin, or some other biological or chemical stuff. One answer that comes to mind is that it's not easy to get - I doubt it's because they're just nice guys. So how do you make guns more difficult to get by the nuts and still deal with that pesky Second Amendment? You can't, as long as the nuts have rights, and you can't use Israel as an example because they don't have a Second Amendment equivalent. IMNVHO, the gun nuts have won. The NRA owns the country, and the only thing we can do is focus on better security, knowing there will be other attacks, and soon.
