Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Early today there was a shooting in Connecticut. Dude came and killed 8 kindergartners and other teachers all who were either students (the kindergartners) or friends (other teachers) who knew his mother.

http://news.yahoo.com/man-kills-26-conn-school-including-20-kids-212835177.html

I heard it on the news, so sad for those children :(

yes that's why i said children if I'm not mistaken that's the plural form of child, or kid, I didn't know the exact number, I have no idea what was going on in that person's mind but i feel it's not going to be long until someone tries to blame violent videogames.

you mean 20 kids....What was going on in his mind, I wounder.

He wanted to hurt his mother in more than just one way.  He believed that if hurting the kids she loved would hurt her more, he would do it to hurt his mother even more.  It's illogical, since she was dead before he killed the kids.

I don't know the problems he had with his mom, but does children were all innocent.

If you actually cared, you would know that his mom was a kindergarten teacher.  Despite those children's innocence, they were connected to the mother in a sense as if they were rival children.  Because of the guy's jealousy of the mother's love towards her students, he wanted to kill the students like killing off a rival for love.  

It's a bit sketchy as to what exactly happened in his past, except for his parents' divorce.  That probably gave him a hard time early on in his life, and I guess it didn't work out at all for his family.  He got in an argument with his mom before the shooting.

Summed up from the news.

That doesn't at all change that the kids had nothing to do with his relationship with his mother. Screw him and his "hard time", plenty of other of kids have gone through parents divorces, and other bad times like that, and they haven't gone on mass murdering sprees.

My dad is a deadbeat heroin addict and I'm not shooting little defenseless children. Fuck his divorce being "hard on him."

Swiftstryker you're talking about these statements as though they are fact. Those were the words of the "ex-FBI profiler" when he had absolutely no evidence or information about the case and was wildly speculating.

Who cares if the kids had some sort of connection with the motherr that changes nothing the fact they were all innocent.

That's so fucked up.

worst part is they were all so young, those kids got so much to live :(

The massacre was terrible but I can't say I'm surprised given America's gun laws. It was bound to happen again. I wish all the best for the families of the victims and I hope that the journalists stay out of their lives.

Relevant Twitter activity between Rupert Murdoch (media king who owns News Corp and Fox News) and Malcolm Turnbull (a Liberal Party (the conservative party in Australia) MP) for anyone interested:

Actually, after Congress tried to ban automatic weapons for private use (I forget the name of the Act, but we debated it when I tried out a pragmatic debate style) the number of school shootings with automatic weapons actually rose by large numbers, along with other automatic weapon-related crimes. I don't think it's the legal access to weapons that affects the amount of shootings, but rather the mentality of the shooters. Guns will always be available in one way or another, it's the people who use them that matter.

After all, the amount of people who own guns who actually go on shooting sprees is incredibly small. When we take that into consideration and note that 25% of American adults own at least one gun, for a total of 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns, and then consider that only 12,996 murders were committed with firearms in 2010 in the United States, we then see that the base rate for a legal gun owner to commit a murder with said gun is equal to 12,996murders/77,897,979gun owners=0.0001% of gun owners using them to murder, or possibly even fewer of those gun owners committing more than one murder. Therefore, all the worrying about gun control every time there is a random shooting spree is irrational.

Of course, it is a very unfortunate event that took place, but if we're going to ban what has the chance to cause harm just because people misuse them, we might as well ban kitchen knives, hammers, and baseball bats as well. All of these can prove to be very lethal in the wrong hands, and they all have murder rates of their own.

Banning guns wouldn't work in the US anyway. Their culture prizes it too much. You'd just have an increase in illegal gun ownership, with roughly the same amount of violence.

And the whole "why don't we ban anything that causes harm" argument holds no weight. The sole reason for a gun is to harm something, which is not true for any of the things you mentioned.

No, there are so many other reasons to own a gun. The number one for me, and the reason I keep one in my closet, is self defense. If self defense is the what you mean by "The sole reason for a gun is to harm something" than yes I totally agree with you. "Those that hammer their guns into plows will plow for those that do not."

You're defending yourself by shooting them before they shoot you, so yes, self-defense is included in harming something.

Really, in a situation where you feel at risk for not having a tool to kill someone, the issue isn't with the tool itself, it's with the mentality of the population.

amendment: "shoot, stab, bludgeon, strangle, me" There are more murders with baseball bats than guns.

So what? I don't see what that has to do with this.

Agreed on the point of the culture. America as a whole (especially in the south where I live) prizes gun ownership, or at least their ability to own a gun. However, I disagree on the purpose. The purpose of the gun that I own is to prevent my own harm. Whether it's by causing harm to another before they do it to me or scaring them off doesn't matter.

You prevent your own harm by gaining the ability to cause harm to other though. Whether or not you actually harm them is up to you, but the only reason they'd be afraid is because they're afraid of being shot. It's not as though the gun has another function that they would be afraid of.

Of course, but you're implying that the fact that they were made with the function to cause harm means they are primarily used for harm, which couldn't be farther from the truth. A gunmaker doesn't have to make a gun with the thought "Hmm, let's build something to cause pain and/or kill people". He'd be thinking "Let's build something to protect the gunowner" or "let's build something for sport shooting", the fact that the same instrument can be used for harm or that harm is used to accomplish the goal is irrelevant. Unless of course you're talking about a bazooka or AK-47, which is begging the question

They.....are......

I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise, when the only other function you've given them is intimidation, and the only reason they are intimidating is because of their potential to harm.

You ninja edited, but your further point doesn't change much. A gunmaker just designs a gun to be effective at it's job, and its job is to cause harm. What it's harming and why doesn't have much to do with it.

Yeah, I edited (not sure what you mean by "ninja", I didn't do it secretly :P) to elaborate on what I believe, not add a new point :).

But yeah, what I'm arguing on is the fact that you're implying the only purpose is to cause harm just because it has the ability to. When a person goes out hunting (assuming it's someone who needs the meat, not for sport), his purpose is to gather food, not go out and massacre innocent animals, even though that's what happened. A purpose is a goal, not an effect.

Ninja meaning you did it after I had done my initial reply without me noticing it lol.

The goal of the gun is to kill the animal though. The overarching goal for the human may be the food, but the purpose of the gun in relation to that goal is to kill the animal. 

Not really, the purpose of that gun, just like the human, is to gather food. True, that's done by killing the animal, but that' doesn't mean the gunmaker was sitting there saying "muahahaha, time to murder animals!", just like someone who manufactors, say, a Beretta doesn't sit there saying "muahahaha, time to murder humans!".

What does this gunmaker have to do with anything here lol.

Not to mention you have no idea what their intentions are. They could very well be going "buhahahah, die you cute little bunnies, die!", while they create them.

You said "The sole reason for a gun is to harm something", so I replied with the real reasons, which evolved into purpose and so on and so forth. The gunmaker, is, obviously, the one who creates the gun, and thus the one who provides for it's existance and reason. You can make that into gun designer or whatever you want, the point is the same.

Moot point, that also means that you don't know if the purpose is to harm :)

Given that its only use is to harm things, it's natural to assume its purpose is to harm....

You're trying to argue that the goal of something supersedes its use with regards to its purpose. (I think that makes sense...)

I could do the same thing by saying if my goal is to kill as many people as possible, and I use a car, the purpose of that car is now to kill as many people as possible. It's not though. That's my goal, the car simply moves, like it was always meant to do. Likewise, if I use a gun to defend myself, the purpose of the gun does not change to "defending me". The purpose of the gun is cause harm to whatever I shoot at, regardless of what I'm shooting at or why.

The purpose of the item, any item, is the purpose that was set out for it when it was created. I'll use your example of a car. Like you said, the car's purpose is that it "simply moves", it's purpose isn't to burn fossil fuels and erode the Ozone layer even though that's an effect. Likewise, a hunting rifle was built with the purpose to hunt, not to rip holes in defenseless animals, even though that's an effect. 

Now, if you said  the purpose of automatic weapons is to harm people, then I'd agree. There's really no other point, it's overkill if used in defense (a bit of evidence we used in the debate mentioned above was how an AK can shoot through a person, 7 layers of drywall, and then still hitting people on the sidewalk with deadly force before stopping if used to shoot a robber of other reason of defense), isn't needed for hunting, and although some may be used in competitions that's certainly not why they were created.

Okay....But those holes in the animal is exactly what you're aiming for (lol) when you shoot the animal. That IS the purpose. An effect would be the loud noise, or knockback of the shot. The actual shot itself is the entire reason you have the gun.

No, the meat on the table is the entire reason you have the gun. That goes back to the car example where even though you have a car to drive, and driving it gives off polution, you don't don't a car just so you can pollute.

You have a car to drive places. Where you actually go and why doesn't matter, the cars purpose is just to drive. Likewise, you have a gun to shoot things. What you shoot and why doesn't matter, the guns purpose is just to shoot things.

But the shooting of things doesn't mean you wish to cause harm. You could go skeet shooting or tournament shooting.  Or, like I said before, you could own a gun to go hunting, which doesn't mean you own a gun to cause harm to animals, it simply happens, like with a car and pollution.

Pollution is just a by-product of a car running.

Are you really attempting to claim that killing things is just an unfortunate by-product of shooting things?

I think he is......

I'm saying that the only reason to own a gun isn't to harm things, which is what you said that started this, and is what I said i disagreed with -_-

Edit: It might be phrased to say that harming things isn't the only reason to own a gun :P

"Or, like I said before, you could own a gun to go hunting, which doesn't mean you own a gun to cause harm to animals, it simply happens, like with a car and pollution."

Kind of makes it seem like you're saying death is just an unfortunate by-product of shooting things lol.

And yes, you do own a gun to harm things. Shooting things harms them, a guns purpose is to shoot things, thus a gun is meant to harm things.

It looks like you're not quite grasping the logical processes.

Let A = purpose B = what happens to achieve that purpose and C = what the user does through that item

A.) Man owns gun to hunt -> B.) Gun kills animal to hunt -> C.) Man kills animal to hunt, but that doesn't mean that a man owns a gun to harm animals. Just like A.) Man owns car to get places -> B.) car releases pollution to get places -> C.) Man releases pollution to get places, but Man doesn't own a car to release pollution. Yes, it's a neccesary action to acheive the purpose, but that's not the purpose, or "reason". Simple as that.

I grasp it just fine, you're just twisting it to help fit your view.

Killing the animal is the purpose of the hunt, not a by-product, while pollution is a by-product of driving, not it's purpose. We can invent cars that don't pollute (and we are), we can't invent ways to hunt animals for food without harming them.

This is getting rather redundant.

Agreed.

Agreed, it's redundant. What you can't grasp is that the purpose is not the same as the effect. 

the purpose to buy the gun was to harm something. It's not an effect either in self defense or wanting to cause harm it's not an effect.

Haha, brush up on your grammar and google the definition of effect before you start getting in debates, but good job getting in there :)

I don't see how you can claim shooting things is merely an effect of using a gun. It's the reason you have the gun. Without the ability to shoot, the gun is useless.

No, you're just twisting what I've said to make it look worse. I'm saying that people don't only own a gun with the purpose to harm, which is what you're suggesting. They could want to defend themselves or hunt or whatever, which includes harming but isn't the same reason.

Purpose: The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal:

A gun exists to shoot things. Shooting things harms them. Guns exist to harm things.

Simple as that. I never claimed anything like everyone who owns a gun does it with the intention of harming others, I said the purpose of a gun is to harm others, regardless of how they are used (although all their uses involving harming anyway).

Shooting does not harm the clay disk used in skeet shooting, because there inanimate objects, so not all shootings harm things. Guns were invented though, to harm things.

Harm doesn't involve pain. You can harm inanimate objects by breaking them lol.

Yep, your right I was confusing it with hurt in meaning.

Well, I pretty clearly lost this little debate, but I enjoyed the exchange of ideas :)

:D

Yes. This This This This This.

You're right. It works for Australia but I don't think it would help in the US.

Horrible tragedy. Normally I don't say that with these shootings, but if someone is able to gun down children, well, that's a different story. That said, I found the coverage disgustingly hilarious. They had "ex-FBI Profilers" wildly speculating on the motives of the shooter, threw around terms like "schizophrenia" and "personality disorder," whipped "video games and movies," and "gun control" all into the same sentence.

Now we've got people explaining about Asperger's-Autism spectrum disorders. None of these illnesses explain this act. I bet the toxicology report comes back negative.

At the risk of sounding like I've fallen off some deep-end, I wouldn't doubt that some organization has purposely engineered these gun massacres all around the country - possibly using a heretofore unknown psychedelic-amphetamine-untraceable substance on various suggestible patsies. The purpose? To cause fear and panic so that the general population will be more than willing to allow passage of laws which will again restrict privacy in the name of "security."

We saw it with 911 and the "Patriot Act," for Homeland Security, with CISPA and SOPA for Internet Security, and now I would not be surprised if all handguns were banned and only the police and government organizations had them. Why not, in fact, place cameras everywhere to ensure such horrors don't occur again?

I feel for the families and the children and my beliefs are in no way contradictory to those feelings of empathy.

Whether or not the attacks are orchestrated or not, they still give ammunition to the "security over freedom crowd" and that's really scary.

Amen.

^ This

I believe the same way.

Agreed, definitely.

Usually, I would say that what you are saying is nuts, to be honest. But with the recent events, (batman shootings, and others) as well as the fast and furious scandal, I'm willing to believe in such a conspiracy.

Admittedly, there's been an increase in those events here recently, but just like I'm not gonna believe the recent natural disasters and/or Obama's reelection are heralding the end of the world, I'm not gonna believe that the recent shootings are linked to a conspiracy.

For what it's worth, I don't think 9/11 is a conspiracy either. I think the government unethically capitalized on it, but there isn't enough proof to link the two together.

Haha, I even had the thought a day or two ago that "hey, a lot of shootings happened recently, wouldn't it be weird if they were related?", but there's not any proof whatsoever. Yeah, they happened, but there's no correlation.

Hey, a lot of printers malfunction, wouldn't it be weird if printer corporations made their printers just break down and make their users trouble over them :P

I believe I read that something (can't remember what) was built to break over time so that we would have to buy another one. But, like you said, we don't have any proof of this kind of any coralation, currently it only speculations.

Also in the Constitution it states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That right there make gun laws very hard to get passed in the U.S. Honestly one could argue the American culture was founded on three things-- guns, alcohol, and religion. In some states there still have local Militia. I honestly believe all a ban of guns would do is have gun owners go underground. Like what happened in the prohibition.

My heart does go out for these families. The holidays should never be filled with this much death and sorrow. I could not image losing someone this close to Christmas.

I feel really sad for the families of the children too, and it's got to be hard with Christmas coming up.

Over here people have been talking about gun death figures compared to the USA, in regards to countries that have gun laws.

Annual death rate by firearm:

Germany: 269 death by firearm.

Canada: 144 deaths by firearm.

Poland: 111 deaths by firearm.

Spain: 97 deaths by firearm.

Australia: 59 deaths by firearm.

Japan: 47 deaths by firearm.

United Kingdom: 14 deaths by firearm.

Total deaths: 741

I listed these countries because, totaled up, it's only a little bit larger in population than the USA.

USA death by firearm: about 10,000

I hadn't considered that, it's pretty high.

I don't put much faith in the "regulated militia" argument. Mostly because a bunch of rednecks running around with shotguns and hunting rifles doesn't benefit the state's militia (much less be neccesary to it), nor does it replace the already present state militias and national militia :P.