Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
  1. #141
    Pandaren Monk Auloria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    i want to know what that women was thinking why did she have those weapons that could be accessed by her son if she knew he was capable of hurting himself did she not think he would take the next step and hurt others
    Well, hurting yourself is a sign of serious emotional distress, but I would not say it's true that violence is the logical next step. Very different mechanisms are often at work there.

    In any case, it's still hard to speculate at this point what warning signs were there and why this happened. I wouldn't expect that the mother wasn't taking steps to defuse the situation, but it clearly escalated past her control. The breaking point may well have been her trying to address the problem.

  2. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by Althalus View Post
    @ Vyxn

    I have seen your reply but not an answer to my question, what domestic tyranny have armed civilians prevented since US independance that wasn't halted by law enforcement?

    And yes Poland and France were taken over very fast same as with the Netherlands and most of Europe for that matter however Germany had changed how wars were being fought it is called Blitzkrieg, no country in Europe was prepared for that. Also the superior arms of the Germans added to that. As mentioned by Ethes the Dutch were not even given a chance after Rotterdam was bombed to hell (and I mean hell as the center of town was a firestorm) they had to surrender or Amsterdam would be next. Look it up the pictures of Rotterdam look somewhat the same as Hiroshima or Nagasaki http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...jpg?uselang=nl

    You mentioned the Vietnamese and Agfhans again you fail to see the simple fact that these 2 peoples were game changers to war, the VC managed to bring the entire US military to a halt, the same with the Afghans the forced the Russians to commit massive amounts of equipment and personel to a conflict which both these superpowers couldn't and didn't win. However both these peoples were ready willing and able to go far beyond what there enemies were willing to do in general as in living under ground or in caves, murdering their own populace on a whisper of disobediance.

    What you also fail to see is that the US is in a position like few other countries you have NO enemies at the gate to the east you have the Atlantic, to the west the Pacific, to the north Canada and the south Mexico.
    So that leaves what either the chinese going to war with the US or a lone man with a suitcase nuke neither of which will be stopped by a regular joe with a gun, the former by the military and the latter (if you are very lucky) by your law enforcement (including all spy agencies in that catagory, you know the alphabet soup people).

    Enemy invasion of the US currently is almost not possible with the exception of the chinese or if the entire South American continent moves on you the logistics make it nigh on impossible unless you can dominate the air & sea between, enemy infiltration sadly is possible and almost impossible to guard against.
    And lets be honest if China would invade forget about the Geneva convention or any form of humane treatment they would move in and be there till hell freezes over the only thing you could do to stop that is by going nuclear.


    look im not going to get into a hypothetical argument over a hypothetical scenario unless you can predict the future you have no idea what threats we will have 10, 20,30 years from now you want to say it is a straw man argument to have a armed civilian population based on the state of the world now but you have no idea what the world will be 10,20 or 30 years from now so go ahead make your laws for the present with out any thought on how it would effect the future

    Just like any liberal when it comes to spending dam how it will affect the future of this nation as long as i get want i want today

    you do know that every male in Switzerland between the age of 20 and 30 is trained and issued a 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle which is a full automatic military assault rifle and they do keep it at home with them

    why don't we hear about mass shootings in Switzerland? why aren't these young adults going out and mowing people down with their automatic rifles?

    Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world but one of the lowest rates when it comes to gun violence

    so maybe we should start examining our culture and not gun control
    Last edited by Vyxn; 2012-12-17 at 10:53 PM.

  3. #143
    The Lightbringer Seranthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In your dome.
    Posts
    3,563
    Quote Originally Posted by ipaq View Post
    And you are responsible for 27 death because you refuse to evolve from 1791.
    Then you are responsible for the 32,000 per year that die from drunk driving murders because you refuse to ban cars; You are responsible for the 778k deaths from cardiovascular disease because you refuse to ban cheeseburgers; You are then responsible for every rape, robbery, assault and theft that occur because you refuse to support a way to keep them safe.... Shall I go on? or do you have enough blood and anguish on your hands?

    --- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal.

  4. #144
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    we don't know how intensive of a mental evaluation he had if he one at all Asperger's could have just been symptom of a worse mental illness
    Doesn't work that way. In fact, if anything, Asperger's actually "causes" other disabilities (not really that it causes them, but they often go in pair with Aspeger's), such as bipolar disorder and other fairly harmless stuff.

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Althalus View Post
    @ Vyxn

    I have seen your reply but not an answer to my question, what domestic tyranny have armed civilians prevented since US independance that wasn't halted by law enforcement?

    And yes Poland and France were taken over very fast same as with the Netherlands and most of Europe for that matter however Germany had changed how wars were being fought it is called Blitzkrieg, no country in Europe was prepared for that. Also the superior arms of the Germans added to that. As mentioned by Ethes the Dutch were not even given a chance after Rotterdam was bombed to hell (and I mean hell as the center of town was a firestorm) they had to surrender or Amsterdam would be next. Look it up the pictures of Rotterdam look somewhat the same as Hiroshima or Nagasaki http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...jpg?uselang=nl

    You mentioned the Vietnamese and Agfhans again you fail to see the simple fact that these 2 peoples were game changers to war, the VC managed to bring the entire US military to a halt, the same with the Afghans the forced the Russians to commit massive amounts of equipment and personel to a conflict which both these superpowers couldn't and didn't win. However both these peoples were ready willing and able to go far beyond what there enemies were willing to do in general as in living under ground or in caves, murdering their own populace on a whisper of disobediance.

    What you also fail to see is that the US is in a position like few other countries you have NO enemies at the gate to the east you have the Atlantic, to the west the Pacific, to the north Canada and the south Mexico.
    So that leaves what either the chinese going to war with the US or a lone man with a suitcase nuke neither of which will be stopped by a regular joe with a gun, the former by the military and the latter (if you are very lucky) by your law enforcement (including all spy agencies in that catagory, you know the alphabet soup people).

    Enemy invasion of the US currently is almost not possible with the exception of the chinese or if the entire South American continent moves on you the logistics make it nigh on impossible unless you can dominate the air & sea between, enemy infiltration sadly is possible and almost impossible to guard against.
    And lets be honest if China would invade forget about the Geneva convention or any form of humane treatment they would move in and be there till hell freezes over the only thing you could do to stop that is by going nuclear.
    Ok i will give you a recent example why we need a armed civilian population

    in 1947 civilians in Athens Tennessee took up arms against its city and county government they did so because of rapid corruption and voter fraud
    the civilians took control of the government and held fair elections

    you can read more about it here
    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm

  6. #146
    Stood in the Fire Mcaffee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    480
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    look im not going to get into a hypothetical argument over a hypothetical scenario unless you can predict the future you have no idea what threats we will have 10, 20,30 years from now you want to say it is a straw man argument to have a armed civilian population based on the state of the world now but you have no idea what the world will be 10,20 or 30 years from now so go ahead make your laws for the present with out any thought on how it would effect the future

    Just like any liberal when it comes to spending dam how it will affect the future of this nation as long as i get want i want today

    you do know that every male in Switzerland between the age of 20 and 30 is trained and issued a 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle which is a full automatic military assault rifle and they do keep it at home with them

    why don't we hear about mass shootings in Switzerland? why aren't these young adults going out and mowing people down with their automatic rifles?

    Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world but one of the lowest rates when it comes to gun violence

    so maybe we should start examining our culture and not gun control
    You still haven't answered my question what domestic tyranny have armed civilians prevented since US independance that wasn't halted by law enforcement?

    And with regards to the swiss item you brought up, yes that is true however all ammo was sealed and this was inspected on a regular basis. Since 2007 now new ammo was issued for storage at home and 99% of issued ammo has been returned, the remaining 1% is being investigated by law enforcement. The swiss have no standing army unlike the US, they do however have militia's. When your time in the militia is up you surrender your weapon so it can be made semi automatic.
    Also weapon permits are only issued after a full psych evaluation.

    So as the US has a fully functioning military civilians don't need a gun unlike Switserland who do not have a standing army and only have a militia to defend themselves.

    Predicting the future is not one of my abilities granted or my arse would be parked on a sunny beach somewhere however the simple fact is the US has a very large, very powerfull military to defend its country from enemies, the US also has a very large and well trained law enforcement (again the entire alphabet soup is included) to protect you from domestic troubles, there simply is no need for individual to own guns save for a few who need it for defence (wild life) or proffesions (hunters).
    The US has not been invaded in the last 100+ years and most like will not be in the coming future due to its military power (unless its aliens). Now I can look it up but if the earlier 2000 numbers hold true each year that means that since 2000 over or close to half a milion people have died due to guns in the US, half a million thats just insane, thats 10 times the fatalities of US soldiers dying in vietnam in half the time. Do you like living in a war zone?

    So again answer my question what domestic tyranny have armed civilians prevented since US independance that wasn't halted by law enforcement?

  7. #147
    Bloodsail Admiral Ethes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan (日本東京)
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    Ok i will give you a recent example why we need a armed civilian population

    in 1947 civilians in Athens Tennessee took up arms against its city and county government they did so because of rapid corruption and voter fraud
    the civilians took control of the government and held fair elections

    you can read more about it here
    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
    Modern society has evolved far beyond that point to be honest, but believe what you want. It's your good right! But we're getting off-topic and personally I still feel that the best way to prevent these tragedies is to both increase gun control, strongly accessability to guns, increase social responsibility from parents, inform parents and improve mental healthcare.

    As for examples of people with guns, I'd like to read recent (after '95) examples of how somebody used his weapons in a way to prevent a school shooting, protected someone from being raped or a civilian that stepped in a stopped a robbery. Otherwise they're not relevant!
    On the otherhand, bad examples of usage of weapons show up all the time "Houseowner shoots 2 teenages" "Police officer shot for stepping on property" this shooting or any of the many others we've seen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbringer O'Mrogg
    Left: Me Hungry.
    Right: You're always hungry. That's why we're so fat!

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Althalus View Post
    You still haven't answered my question what domestic tyranny have armed civilians prevented since US independance that wasn't halted by law enforcement?

    And with regards to the swiss item you brought up, yes that is true however all ammo was sealed and this was inspected on a regular basis. Since 2007 now new ammo was issued for storage at home and 99% of issued ammo has been returned, the remaining 1% is being investigated by law enforcement. The swiss have no standing army unlike the US, they do however have militia's. When your time in the militia is up you surrender your weapon so it can be made semi automatic.
    Also weapon permits are only issued after a full psych evaluation.

    So as the US has a fully functioning military civilians don't need a gun unlike Switserland who do not have a standing army and only have a militia to defend themselves.

    Predicting the future is not one of my abilities granted or my arse would be parked on a sunny beach somewhere however the simple fact is the US has a very large, very powerfull military to defend its country from enemies, the US also has a very large and well trained law enforcement (again the entire alphabet soup is included) to protect you from domestic troubles, there simply is no need for individual to own guns save for a few who need it for defence (wild life) or proffesions (hunters).
    The US has not been invaded in the last 100+ years and most like will not be in the coming future due to its military power (unless its aliens). Now I can look it up but if the earlier 2000 numbers hold true each year that means that since 2000 over or close to half a milion people have died due to guns in the US, half a million thats just insane, thats 10 times the fatalities of US soldiers dying in vietnam in half the time. Do you like living in a war zone?

    So again answer my question what domestic tyranny have armed civilians prevented since US independance that wasn't halted by law enforcement?


    the issue is not way they issue all men between 20 and 30 a full automatic assault rifle. the question is if assault rifles are to blame for these mass shooting then why we don't see it happen in country where ever young male has one. why do they have one of the lowest rates of gun crimes?

    It goes to prove assault rifles are not the problem it is our culture. that is the problem. so unless you address the problem with our culture you are just wasting your time with this gun control debate

    And lastly i already listed a time recently that civilians was forced to take up arms against their local government because of corruption and voter fraud
    it happened in 1947 in Athens Tennessee

  9. #149
    Bloodsail Admiral Ethes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan (日本東京)
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    the issue is not way they issue all men between 20 and 30 a full automatic assault rifle. the question is if assault rifles are to blame for these mass shooting then why we don't see it happen in country where ever young male has one. why do they have one of the lowest rates of gun crimes?

    It goes to prove assault rifles are not the problem it is our culture. that is the problem. so unless you address the problem with our culture you are just wasting your time with this gun control debate

    And lastly i already listed a time recently that civilians was forced to take up arms against their local government because of corruption and voter fraud
    it happened in 1947 in Athens Tennessee
    It isn't the assult rifle, it's guns in general and specifically the accessability to weapons. If you're half a nutjob and your mom has her tools for murder laying around when you're having a bad day. There's going to be an other school with a class less children!

    So by removing guns from society you'll end up with less dead children, seems pretty logical don't you think?
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbringer O'Mrogg
    Left: Me Hungry.
    Right: You're always hungry. That's why we're so fat!

  10. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    Ok here is the hypocrisy. How is it right to violate a persons right to bare arms for the safety of society even if most people who own a gun are not a threat, but it is not fair to violate the rights of some individuals who are diagnosed by doctors that there is a chance they can be a threat and need to be treated or restrained for the safety of sociality
    This is not hypocrisy. As the law currently stands, medical professionals are required to report a person to the authorities if it is believed that they could harm themselves or others. That isn't a recommendation, it is a requirement for all medical professionals.

    The bill you pointed to is used to give medication to noncompliant patients with mental illness who's health would deteriorate without treatment. How do you know that the shooter was currently prescribed medication for a mental disorder? How do you know that he was not compliant with taking the medication? I don't think that we know either of these things. The law isn't a bad law, but we don't know if it would have helped in this case because we don't even know if he was refusing treatment.

    As to your analogy, taking a mind altering medication changes a person much more than taking their guns away. Do you think that changing your personality is less invasive than removing guns?

  11. #151
    The Patient wxcopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post

    And lastly i already listed a time recently that civilians was forced to take up arms against their local government because of corruption and voter fraud
    it happened in 1947 in Athens Tennessee
    Nobody could stand up to the US Gov and thier agencies at this point. It's gone too far now.

  12. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    None of what you brought up would have kept Adam Lanza from his evil act

    The guns he used belonged to his mother which she obtained legally and I'm quite sure she was trained properly in their use. she belonged to a gun club and used them for target practice and no American or Canadian law would have kept her from obtaining those weapons

    What would have prevent that tragedy if she would have been warned by a professional that her son Adam mental illness could lead to violence and he could be a threat and needed to be treated. she would had at east kept those weapons safe and out of his access

    here lies the problem there was warning signs there has been enough people who has come forward to claim that Adam even though he was a very bright kid he had mental issues and if he would have been evaluated by a professional and people woildd have been warned they could have taken measure to prevent him access to guns

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-17 at 10:33 AM ----------



    But when is it ok to take away one individuals right so we wont have to violate another?
    And this is what we are seeing discussed by some they want to take away the right to own a gun even though a better solution would be to keep the person from who commits the violent act from ever becoming violent, but by doing that on some occasions we would have to violate that persons civil rights



    So if the mentally ill refuses treatment other percussion could have been used to prevent what happened. A professional could have atleast evaluated his condition and warned his mother and others that he could become violent and caution should be exorcized
    The issue with this is that you are performing as certain violation of civil and individual rights in order to possibly prevent a potential violation of civil rights.

    Not to mention even if a patient doesn't wish to go to therapy or be evaluated and is forced to do so, he/she is more likely to provide false information just to get the ordeal done with. There are a great deal of individuals who fall under the classification of what Adam Lanza had: many people have personality disorders, and a great deal of people have Asperger's Syndrome. Yet neither of those two classifications guarantees an individual will do anything at all, and anyone who tells you "a sociopath will always commit mass murder" or "a person with Asperger Syndrome will always be a reclusive person" is providing you with foresight based off ignorance.

    There are an enormous amount of people with antisocial personality disorder who do not go on killing sprees or destroy everything around them. There are a lot of people who have depression who won't kill themselves, and will seek help if they want it or perceive it as being available to them. But for many people, mental health issues are something which are incredibly stigmatized, and brutally difficult to confront and seek help for both financially and personally, and creating legislature which enables a professional in the field to recommend that a person go through involuntary psychological treatment for a mental health issue will only further stigmatize mental health issues and make it more difficult for people who only have moderate difficulties with their disorders to seek treatment.

    Forcing an individual to go into therapy is not only reprehensible, it is counter productive, based off of fear of what may happen, is not something many people who have mental health issues would want, would be extremely costly, and would only further shatter the fragile image mental health professionals have in socialized individuals and in the cultures that they are present in.

  13. #153
    Pandaren Monk Auloria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohgodspiders View Post
    Forcing an individual to go into therapy is not only reprehensible, it is counter productive, based off of fear of what may happen, is not something many people who have mental health issues would want, would be extremely costly, and would only further shatter the fragile image mental health professionals have in socialized individuals and in the cultures that they are present in.
    Further, therapy has been shown to be helpful ONLY when the patient trusts the therapist.

  14. #154
    Fluffy Kitten Callei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Δ Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground
    Posts
    9,951
    A better way to have prevented this tragedy would have been for his mother to have observed better gun safety--kept the guns locked away, kept any keys in a location her mentally-unstable son couldn't reach (i.e., on her person while at work and maybe with a spare set in her car, and on her person at all times while at home). I don't see why she needed an assault rifle, but that's neither here nor there. If she knew he was unstable, she should have encouraged him to see a therapist he could build a rapport of trust with or, if she could prove he posed a danger to himself and others, sought to get the courts to mandate therapy.

    Sandy Hook was a matter of improper gun safety observations and not enough people working to get someone the help they desperately needed. Forcing therapy, however, more often than not leads to a higher chance of a mental break as they more often than not see going to the therapist as an obligation, a chore to be slogged through (and creative individuals with severe disorders can sometimes fake it well enough to fool the therapist into thinking they're making progress, which is a common problem with individuals diagnosed with more severe forms of antisocial personality disorder) rather than a time where they can work toward bettering themselves with someone they can trust.

    Awesome sig by Elyaan is awesome.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •