OT: parenting and the santa barbara shooter

[joec]

[quote=livinincali]

If you actually bothered to open the link and look at the charts, the researchers plotted number of gun homicides vs per capita gun ownership and didn’t find a strong correlation. If you pull out all the developing countries and South Africa and are left with the 25 or so western countries there does seem to be some correlation between gun ownership rates and number of homicides.

So let’s just say the solution is to become like Japan. Repeal the second amendment, make gun ownership illegal and confiscate most of the 300 million guns in this country. That would probably be effective at preventing mass killings by guns. Do you think that is feasible in this country. I would argue that an attempt to go down that path probably gets fairly bloody and might end in civil war. There’s a fairly large segment of the population that isn’t going to give up their guns voluntarily and likely would fight to the death to keep their weapons. This would likely be an effective solution but you might have decades worth of mass killing deaths to implement it.

Solution 2 add more gun control that was discussed after Sandy Hook. Enhanced back ground checks, assault riffle bans, ammunition buying limits, etc. Does anybody here think those additions would have prevented this current tragedy. Do you have any scientific evidence it prevents any future tragedy? If so then this is a reasonable debate to have. It obviously can’t prevent a mass killing from ever happening, but maybe there some evidence that it creates fewer mass killings. I honestly don’t think anybody knows although I’m sure some will argue it’s worth doing even if we can’t measure the results.

Solution 3. Address the mental illness problems in this country. In pretty much ever single one of these cases you have a total nut job that goes on one of these killing sprees. In all the cases there were significant warning signs, but effective action was not taken before the tragedy happened. I personally think it would be more effective to spend the money and resources on identifying and helping those citizens that exhibit these warning signs.

Solution 4? Do nothing. The most likely solution in our current political climate and maybe the only realistic solution in a country that values it’s right to own guns. I’d like to see the debate focus on solution 3 because I think it can get broad support. It might mean taking on the pharmaceutical lobby but I think it’s at least reasonable doable.

Solution ? Do something that isn’t a violation of the second amendment and has a measurable reduction in the number of mass killings? Tell me what it is and we can debate it. It’s not enough in my eyes to say do this because we had to do something. Demonstrate how you think it would reduce mass killings preferably using this case. What do you advocate for that would have prevented this particular case.[/quote]

+1

Agreed…with Solution 3.

Again, the fight over gun control is a losing battle and a waste of money/time/resources…I wouldn’t support it neither since having so many guns in America seems to make us impossible to take over by a foreign power. I’m sure some folks have enough guns to arm a small army. I also don’t trust our government neither…

Aside from all that personal believe, I think…Solution 3 won’t be challenged by many groups and the NRA can’t be against getting help for people who do this since it puts them on the defensive yet again.

If it takes drugging more people and it shows it helps to prevent this, then the drug companies would be happy too.

It is sad not much/anything seems to be done since we are wasting all our time/resources on the gun debate issue.

Incremental steps…small wins first.

[livinincali]

[quote=ocrenter]
Remember this guy did have mental health Care. He went off his meds, remember? Remember people on this forum were blaming medications for his actions? When it was the lack of that was the problem. So how do we force him to take meds everyday? Had we had a national registery on gun ownership that the police had access to, maybe they could have accessed it to see how much of a threat he was to society? Especially if he stockpiled his 40000 rounds within the last month.
[/quote]

Maybe he needed to be institutionalized. He did show signs of violence prior to committing this act. This is always a tough area because your taking away somebody’s freedoms.

The number of rounds is certainly excessive but obviously he did not use anywhere near that many rounds when he went on his spree. He could have accomplished the damage he created with 50-100 rounds. Do you flag somebody that buys a lot of ammunition, I suppose you could, but in 99% of those instances it’s probably going to flag a normal law abiding citizen that’s just an avid shooter.

[quote=ocrenter]
Point is accountability of the gun owners and elevating the bar of ownership. If my gun was used and accidentally killed a neighbor’s little girl, I should be at fault. And guns should be just as hard to obtain as a car. And just as every car is registered, every gun should be too.[/quote]

These things are already true. It is harder to buy a gun than a car in this state. There’s a waiting period, a registration requirement, etc. I’m not arguing that we remove the current restrictions.

[Dukehorn]

[quote=CA renter]
Millions of crimes are thwarted every year because people use guns in self-defense. Why would we want to prevent people from protecting themselves, especially when killers, rapists, and other violent criminals will not be tamed by taking away guns?

[/quote]

Millions a year?? Bullshit. Stop with the hyperbole and debate with facts.

Going to use those false analogies about cars and knives? Again, bullshit. You have arms specifically designated in the 2nd amendment, we all know it’s a defined category and gun owners have rights. Argue this appropriately.

As for the 2nd amendment, I want the lawyers here to debate it based on the actual wording. There is a clause stating the right to bear arms but it’s still modified by the “well regulated” militia language in the introduction. That means there should be some regulation (I would like registration and wait period). In fact the NRA from 50 years ago agreed with this proposition. I want any lawyers here to argue whether the 2nd amendment right is truly unfettered.

Gun control doesn’t mean banning guns. I refuse to argue with the current NRA types that use language like police state to argue that no regulation is necessary for firearms. Again, it’s bullshit.

Open carry prevents crimes? Maybe, but it also increases the likelihood of anger related killings. Like the ex-cop who shot the dad for texting in the movie theater. Or the guy who sprayed the SUV of black kids for playing their music too loud. Hard to judge the numbers since Congress won’t let any gun related violence research be conducted.

As for the police state hyperbole. Get back to me after you visit the “police states” like: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the UK, Canada, Argentina. Then look up the definition of police state and see if it works.

Frankly this kid was in a tough spot. His mom made peanuts in the world they lived in. Dad had declared bankruptcy. He was the poor kid in a world of rich kids, which explained his fixation with money (and how winning the lottery would improve his world).

[spdrun]

Small nit to pick: South Korea, Taiwan, and Argentina had rather nasty governments up until 1990 or so. Read about the dirty war in Argentina or military law and the banditry laws in Taiwan.

I’m not sure if registration or wait period would have helped prevent what that guy did. He bought his guns legally, and long before the crime. Wait periods only help deter people who act rashly. Registration doesn’t matter, since the guy never intended to avoid being “caught” and the police saw no cause to take action against him before the crime.

[Dukehorn]

Yeah, but that tends to support my argument. They were police states and now they are functioning democracies with gun control. I’m very aware of how our anti-communism policies propped up the KMT in Taiwan, the Fourth Republic in Korea and the Pinochet regime in Chile.

Wait and registration isn’t a fix-all but it might prevent certain crimes “of passion” (and I’m not using that in the strict legal sense). I’m wondering if we could have a different mental health trigger if a certain number of firearms are purchased in a certain time period. I know the NRA will squawk at that but if someone is trying to build an arsenal legally to conduct a massacre, it could be a deterrent. Again, lots of different ways to approach this if people are willing to talk about it.

I don’t know how to fix these random shootings when “law abiding” people get angry. I guess as a society we’re willing to live with those costs.

[ocrenter]

[quote=joec]
+1

Agreed…with Solution 3.

Again, the fight over gun control is a losing battle and a waste of money/time/resources…I wouldn’t support it neither since having so many guns in America seems to make us impossible to take over by a foreign power. I’m sure some folks have enough guns to arm a small army. I also don’t trust our government neither…

Aside from all that personal believe, I think…Solution 3 won’t be challenged by many groups and the NRA can’t be against getting help for people who do this since it puts them on the defensive yet again.

If it takes drugging more people and it shows it helps to prevent this, then the drug companies would be happy too.

It is sad not much/anything seems to be done since we are wasting all our time/resources on the gun debate issue.

Incremental steps…small wins first.[/quote]

Solution 3 sounds wonderful! If it really is workable. Most of these patients have very poor insight about their problems. Getting them to even agree to go to see psychiatry is a big question, because most of them do not think there’s anything wrong with them. The very few that do end up there are not very good about medication compliance either. Again, “there’s nothing wrong with me and I don’t like to put chemicals in my body.”

Solution 3 does make for great talking point and great way to keep spinning the wheel and pretend we are doing something…

[joec]

It maybe a waste of time, but look at how far something like the Amber alert has come. I and everyone around me just got an alert last week I think. It’s pretty hard for a child kidnapper to get away when everyone is looking for a type of car with a certain license plate…

In this case, he emailed and posted right before his act and the mom called the ex-husband immediately.

Maybe something could be done to notify authorities to keep an eye out if someone is deemed a high enough risk by parents, etc…or if something like this is done. You already have folks monitoring terrorist and social networks, a lot of these kids also already scream for attention posting messages/videos frequently.

Clearly, this guy being treated since age 8, off his meds now, has purchased guns in the past month or whenever, etc….should fire off an alert to at least warn an area, etc…after he posts something or calls his parents, etc…

They can keep tweaking it, but it’s a start to try something.

[spdrun]

I got an some type of alert (trivial weather issue) on my phone once. When I was asleep. Afterwards, I figured out how to turn all alerts off, including the Amber ones.

I suspect most people have done the same to preserve their sanity.

[NotCranky]

We put more and more kids on Meds about the time this kid was young and we have more psyhco young men going on killing sprees than before and we think them getting off meds is the problem, not putting them on meds in the first place? Man I would have been really angry if my dad and the system succeeded at putting me on meds shortly after their divorce and my moms death , knowing what I know now that would have been a travesty of justice of a high order.

Living with the stigma of mentally ill, 6,7 ,8 years old, with all the normal expectations and a prescription is really a raw deal. It doesn’t set these kids up well in anyway. Most adults can’t even go out in public if our car isn’t late model …how about living with your being not good enough through grade school and forever after?

The kid going off his meds is just part of his decision to finally say fuck you. But the decision was likely made before he quit the meds BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WORK! Big pharma must love it when society at large deem the meds successful and getting off of them being the cause of tragedy. I don’t believe it.

[NotCranky]

Drugs don’t take care of kids, people do…or not.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]We put more and more kids on Meds about the time this kid was young and we have more psyhco young men going on killing sprees than before and we think them getting off meds is the problem, not putting them on meds in the first place? Man I would have been really angry if my dad and the system succeeded at putting me on meds shortly after their divorce and my moms death , knowing what I know now that would have been a travesty of justice of a high order.

Living with the stigma of mentally ill, 6,7 ,8 years old, with all the normal expectations and a prescription is really a raw deal. It doesn’t set these kids up well in anyway. Most adults can’t even go out in public if our car isn’t late model …how about living with your being not good enough through grade school and forever after?

The kid going off his meds is just part of his decision to finally say fuck you. But the decision was likely made before he quit the meds BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WORK! Big pharma must love it when society at large deem the meds successful and getting off of them being the cause of tragedy. I don’t believe it.[/quote]

100 years ago we medicated our kids with tinctures of booze and opium. Doctors orders…

Probably that would ensure better drug compliance…

[NotCranky]

G-d we’re stupid.

[scaredyclassic]

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

an article by a very thoughtful fellow who likes to carry a gun from harpers mag., my favoritest mag, 4 years ago…

[scaredyclassic]

pepper spray and a knife, frankly seem better for reality.

consider this: an unarmed dirtbag is closing toward you rapidly. you’re armed. you could fumble to get your gun out and maybe get it out before he gets to you, maybe not. then what? you shoot an unarmed dude?

he gets to you before you get armed, of course he’s sneaky and fast, and slams your face into the car, instantly disorienting you. fight may be over.

alternatively, you quickly draw your belt pepper spray, have a shivworks clinchpick at the ready for stabbing, you spray the motherfucker, froma distance, not too much of a judgment call required, no potential murder charges witha dselfdefense claims.

knives by the belt and pepper spray and hyper alertness beat a gun in a holster on your leg. any day of the week.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]G-d we’re stupid.[/quote]

stupid? perhaps. i prefer lazy, uncaring, cold, distant, impatient, disgusted and lame.

[Author]

Posts