My Rant about Connecticut Shooting/How Firearms are Viewed Negatively

[nightraider717]

.

[unfy]

violent games and movies/tv

Rants will abound concerning the subject... but... no no.

[nightraider717]

.

[Sincendiary]

Extremely emotional responses to events like these are natural. 

It's just wrong to use the kneejerk crying and screaming reponse for political decisions of any kind.  Everyone needs to take a deep breath and think rationally. 

I have extremely emotional reactions to shootings myself.  I am sickened by the media treatment of those involved in the event every time. 

Without too much detail, I've been directly involved in a mass shooting, and had you interviewed me the same day...hell same week...you would have gotten tears and irrational ranting about gun restrictions.  They would have been unrealistic as well.  I would have said things like "If I had my weapon...no one would have died but the shooter" through raw and reddened eyes.  This is not a realistic statement but I'll be damned if I wouldn't have believed it at the time. 

I can forgive anyone directly involved for having ANY emotional kneejerk reaction.  The world is currently upside down for them and they're in pain.

Keep the poor folks off camera for a bit and let them cope.

Giving the shooters this much attention isn't particularly good for the culture as a whole but ignoring the event certainly seems wrong.

Violent media really doesn't appear to have particularly adverse effects on adults who have a good seperation of reality and fantasy from all of the journal articles I've read over the years.  I don't really think that there's a good way to stop an at risk adult from getting exposed to this content without severely limiting the rights of the much larger portion of population that is normal. 

Even an avid game nerd like myself will admit that giving appropriate supervision and context to children who are still forming that seperation is neccessary.  It seems like a cop out but the responsibility really is on the parent to filter that content.

I need to step away from this subject for a bit or my blood pressure is going to be horrible.

[nightraider717]

.

[Lorimor]

I think the violent TV and video games are symptomatic of a society addicted to violence.  I cannot believe what people want to put in their heads and call it "entertainment." 

In our increasingly urban environment, people are becoming more and more detached from reality.  By that I mean, 100 years ago, most of us lived on the farm (or close to it) and produced our own food.  We knew death was a part of living.  We knew that dead was dead!  Butchering animals for food was normal, everyday occurrence. 

Now folks are surprised to find out milk comes from cows and not the supermarket. 

Some kids cannot distinguish between real life and the "reality" of their video games and TV.   Add in absentee/neglectful parenting, the welfare state that ultimately instills the notion of a consequence free life, an education system that appears to place self-esteem over developing critical thinking skills.... well I think it's all a recipe for disaster, as we're now seeing. 

[cckyle]

The weird thing is that your friends somehow think that banning standard capacity magazines (the 30 round magazine for your sporting rifles like the AR, which is not high capacity but standard) is somehow going to protect children in schools.   The only thing that is going to stop a bad guy who wants to kill people from doing so, is a good guy with the tools, ability, and guts to do something about it.  I saw in another site someone was ranting about the news calling this guy a shooter.  He said, "that guy wasn't a shooter, I am a shooter; that guy was a killer/murderer." 

I don't blame these killings on tv or video games(although I don't deny that may contribute), and I definitely don't blame firearms.  IMO it could be linked to lack of recognition and proper treatment of mental illness, as well as parenting/abuse in many cases.  In the past we had more psych hospitals.  Today these people are EPC'ed, they put em on drugs for a week or two until they are stable, and send them back out for the process to be repeated or until they end up in prison.  Taking those out of the picture though, sometimes there are just bad people in the world that are going to do bad things.   

[wallace11bravo]

I officially christen this "The Rant Thread"

Anyone else loosing sleep over this?

[Lorimor]

Yep.

Stolen from another forum I visit:

As a kid that played violent games: football/lacrosse from 8-18, kill the guy with the ball in b/w these seasons.

Watched and acted out every Ahhnold and Sly action film.

Shot at my friends with plastic guns as we ran around as a platoon every Halloween; shooting a bow/arrow and pellet gun by 10, shotgun by 12, handguns shortly after and martial arts at 13, I'd say I'm the antithesis of the modern day kid in the Northeast of the US. Most of the things I did are considered to be things that 'shouldn't be spoken about' in a large portion of my community. They are things that 'other' people do in b/w watching NASCAR and having sex with their cousin or pig.'

I see a lot as a martial arts teacher, and I will say with some authority, that the lack of physical confrontation and peer management of social 'ills' or 'distractions' is what has a huge effect on a child's ability to navigate the intricacies of logic and emotion in the social stratosphere. The zero tolerance bully concept is routed in a fear of 'reality based learning', ignoring that life has consequences on both ends of the sword.

Instead of children learning this, all self-defense decisions are made by a conscientious objector that isn't there to see the act, but gives a consistent Solomon like punishment for both 'evil doers' to stop this common and genetically ingrained behavior. Fascinatingly, these are the same people that will teach your kids just how amazing it is to watch the Alpha wolf control its pack through violence and aggression. Aren't animals fascinating?

These kids are boxed in bubble wrap; they are bombarded with exacting instructions (play dates??) on when and how to comport themselves......when playing, but when they meet someone like me, where they get to 'move their body in an organized fashion', they buck at first and for years, before they are rehabilitated into enjoying the actual movement of their own body. I have teenagers telling me my warm ups are harder than their gym classes.

Why? B/c they have such little free movement of their bodies coupled with crappy diets, over stimulation of video games, iPods, iPads (not feeling the violence aspect) and poor sleep habits that they don't know how to be self-disciplined, b/c their bodies don't know what consistency of free movement and thought are like.

They are taught to multitask and speed learn subjects so they can check the box off for their college resume by the time they're in middle school. All of their thoughts are on the future and never the present and when an event finally pushes itself up in their face and forces them to look at that moment dead in the eyes, they crack. Like an embarrassing moment (I achieve that daily, thank you), a bad grade, someone who tells them they're not gonna be like Mike, a friend who turns on them or a girl who stands them up.

Ever tell something so profound and truthful to a kid? If you have, then you know the look.

When talking with overachiever parents that want lil' Johnny to become Jackie Chan by the time they're 12 and don't want to see him 'fail at anything', I ask 'when do you want them to fail? When they're 18, alone in college and stressed out and they turn to drugs, alcohol or promiscuity to drown themselves out of the reality that they've just failed for the first time in their lives and it's so devastating to their fragile ego, b/c everyone around them kept them in a hermetically sealed box? Is that when you want them to fail?'

I call this the speed bump/brick wall phenomenon. It's better for people to hit many speed bumps in life versus getting a greased track right up until they crash head first into a brick wall.

We've failed our kids and not b/c of legislation, video games, diets, sleep, etc. We've failed our kids, b/c we tried to make our lives and their lives 'more convenient', 'less messy' and without consequence to failure, b/c no one fails anymore, we all get participation trophies. Sounds a lot like unconditional support without the tough love, which equals enabling.

[wallace11bravo]

Very well written.

I for one don't have kids, will probably never have kids, and generally don't care for kids. Don't ask why, it's none of your ****ing business

But I would say that is fairly accurate. Unfortunately, I grew up in a milder version of the participation ribbon system, but I was still allowed to fail. I'm still paying for some of those failures today. But failure is a part of life, and I was raised to learn from it and move on.

[NE Bull]

As a Scout leaser, I can say I wold back up most every word written. My boys are 10-11 ish now and i get the- Oh my don't let them start the fire, no- no don't let them cook on the fire. You shoulda heard the negatives when instead of soap and the plastic knives I was supposed to use, I bought each of my Scouts a nice pocketknife for Christmas and they earned their Whitling Chip with them. Making them carry their own pack of gear on hikes in the dead of summer at camp.  My boys whine when we have to sit down and plan out the course of the next few months and parents complain that I need to engage the kids in some activity 'cause they are "soooo boooored!"  Oh, and don't get me started on snacks that we just have to have at each meeting!  I could go on and on, but you get the drift.  We are raising a bunch of wussies!  I fear for the future of this nation.  I look back at our history and wonder, where the heck did we take a wrong turn?

[FarmerRick]

The short rant I posted on Facebook last night:



What could have prevented today's tragedy? Well, we know what DIDN'T prevent it, now don't we...

Laws intended to prevent such violence are only effective if obeyed, and are certainly ignored by those who are determined to do harm. "Feel-good" policies of gun-free zones are seldom(if ever) effective in protecting anyone from harm. They only indicate to the bad guys where nobody is allowed to lawfully defend themselves. These end up being a target-rich environment as was demonstrated today.

Until our society decides to actually return to teaching our children morals and the difference between right and wrong, events such as what happened today will continue to occur. Those that have evil or damaged thoughts need treatment along with separation from the rest of the population. We used to have places for those people, but now they are given drugs and released back into the general population. Our up-coming healthcare laws will certainly not help the situation any.

It is time for the responsible citizens of this country to take a stand and demand that our children have at least some protection from wack-jobs like today's shooter. A bill was introduced a couple years ago in the Unicameral that addressed this very issue, but it never made it out of the liberal-controlled Judiciary Committee(chaired by Brad Ashford). It was deemed as being "extreme and unnecessary" for any school staff member that was trained and qualified to have the OPTION to have a concealed weapon on their person.

Could a law like this have prevented the shooting today? We will never know. Would the shooter have been a little hesitant to try to go to a school where some of the staff members had the option to carry and might possibly shoot back at him? Hard to say, but that option of armed resistance and the God-given right of self-protection would have been a nice option for those at Sandy Hook School to have today.

[OnTheFly]

How about restricting the First Amendment? No...I don't really think we should, but no one is considering how freedom of speech, as employed by the press, may be feeding this fire.

Is it not possible that these copycat killers are committing these violent acts because of how the media glorifies it?  "Glorifies" may seem like the wrong word to most normal people who are horrified by such acts.  But to these mentally ill perpetrators, they see a way for the rest of the world to experience their pain and for them to live on forever.  Every anniversary (year, five year, ten year, twenty year, etc.) these killers will have their names and likenesses forced on us.  The intent is to remember the victims and the tragedy befallen the community (not to mention boost ratings), but does it serve a negative purpose?

I know that these people and their lives are studied to determine what makes them tick and why they do what they do, but has anyone approached it from this angle? 

In the end, the Second Amendment is attacked while no one considers the effects of the First.  Though don't expect the media to agree not to show the killer's face or divulge their name while still reporting the story.  After all, the First Amendment is apparently more sacred than the Second.

Fly 

[HuskerXDM]

How about restricting the First Amendment? No...I don't really think we should, but no one is considering how freedom of speech, as employed by the press, may be feeding this fire.

Yeah, see how far a law restricting the killer's name, face, or any information to be published in any way whatsoever would get...

[wallace11bravo]

Firearms are used to deter and terminate attempts to kill, capture, or destroy property and persons every day. We have armed security to protect money, valuables, executives, politicians, celebrities, but "all of a sudden" the idea of using firearms to protect children is a major point of contention.

I also find it disturbing that people would trust a teacher or school staff member with their children, but not with a firearm.

We know that the model of arming teachers to deter works through pure statistics available from Israel. We know that the model of arming teachers to terminate an attack works, as displayed in Pearl Mississippi. We know that mass shooters almost always give up at the first sign of armed resistance, as displayed in numerous case examples, most recently at a mall in Oregon. Yet we refuse to use reason and logic to come up with a solution, instead we blame "gun culture" and desire our freedoms to be arbitrarily constricted as they once were before, to no effect on the problem.

We know that school massacres are not new, and the worst one in history, in Bath Michigan in 1927, was not carried out with firearms. We know that the frequency of mass shootings is not increasing or decreasing, in fact, there is no real trend. Passing laws only serves to make people feel better. After the laws are passed, and the next one happens, and it most certainly will, we will demand more restrictions on our rights, and another one happen, and this cycle will continue endlessly until we have sacrificed all our liberties for a fictional security. But we will "feel" good about it, and tell ourselves it is for the best. As displayed in case examples.

"Emotion trumps reason. Every time."
-L. Hadfield, Professor of Political Science, Doane College

[zofoman]

Is it not possible that these copycat killers are committing these violent acts because of how the media glorifies it?  "Glorifies" may seem like the wrong word to most normal people who are horrified by such acts.  But to these mentally ill perpetrators, they see a way for the rest of the world to experience their pain and for them to live on forever.  Every anniversary (year, five year, ten year, twenty year, etc.) these killers will have their names and likenesses forced on us.  The intent is to remember the victims and the tragedy befallen the community (not to mention boost ratings), but does it serve a negative purpose?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the extreme movies/tv/games are as much to blame for tripping off the mentally unstable as it is for the attention getting/last ditch claim for fame that is sensationalized by the media.   My point is, whenever there is a tragedy such as this, the media go all out for 'breaking news' and specialized event coverage and blitzing their regular news coverage with whatever they can do to get their logo (cnn, abc, cbs, nbc, fox, etc.) on top of the heap for the viewing public.  Those that are unstable see the global shock & public reaction and that gets them to thinking....."Wow, I can do something like that and people will remember ME!"   "And (like stated above) ...they'll remember me on every anniversary."   Then the wheels for planning their own "claim to fame" go into motion.
   
I just don't get it why some people do what they do sometimes and now I find myself carrying more often than I have in the past....I just hope the day never comes that I have to pull from the holster.   

[cracked junior]

I grew up with guns, violent movies and video games.  I don't think its the problem. 

My thoughts on arming teachers.   I think its a good idea. But the majority of teachers have no firearm experience and won't go armed anyways or put it in the desk door while at lunch.   

I just wish that people will stop talking about this guy to stop his fame. 

[GreyGeek]

A story by Robert Ebert, the film critic:

On Glorification ?

"Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song;  these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."
 -- Roger Ebert

[GreyGeek]

Here is a timeline  of the approximately 62 "mass murder" shootings in the US from 1980  to yesterday's events:
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

Mother  Jones  gives a similar timeline breakdown but inlcudes a map  of the locations:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

A couple things stand out from their data:
1) most of the shooters obtained their weapons legally, and
2) most  of the shooters  showed signs  of mental instability or were being treated for it.
3) the locations on the map indicate that the shootings took place in locations where gun control is tight.

The shooting yesterday fits the pattern:
1) the shooter's mother went through gun checks essentially identical to  those we go through to get a CHP,
2) he was a 20 year old autistic loner, player of violent games, and a "goth"  (just like the Columbine boys),
3) Connecticut has  some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US.

Other facts:   
The school was in a "firearms free zone", which did absolutely NO good but gave those who believe in such nonsense good feelings.   The school had installed a new, locked door security procedure.   The shooter had to push a button to get the staff's attention so he could explain his purpose and convince the  staff to unlock the door remotely.   The staff inside were viewing him through security cameras.   Apparently they refused him entry, so he used a pistol to shoot out the glass panes beside the door and walked in.   Windows are never good security unless they are bullet proof against multiple rounds.

Guns kill people  the same way pencils make spelling mistakes.

We tried nationwide prohibition of alcohol but it didn't work.    All  it did was introduce the  Mafia to our culture.   It doesn't matter how strict the gun laws are.  Even if gun ownership and possession are outlawed, over the bones of the 2nd  Amendment, those who have violent uses for guns have and will continue to  ignore the laws, obtain the guns illegally, and use them to do what ever they want.   They don't care about the  laws relating to where one can carry a gun and where  one  cannot.   They don't care that they don't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, they'll carry  one anyway.   They don't care where the muzzle of a gun sweeps  because they don't care  about the safety of others.   They don't care about who or  what is behind what they are shooting at.   And, to make matters worse, our own Federal  government has been a major supplier of weapons to the criminal element along our Southern boarder, and the guns they gave  to the drug gangs are showing up around the country!

The major media have an  agenda against gun ownership and against the defensive use of guns, which occurs more than 1 million times a year in this country.   http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html  Defensive  uses of  the gun is rarely reported on the national level unless the  story can be twisted  to favor anti-gun legislation.

Those advocating gun control explain away  the fact that high numbers of shootings occur in areas with stricter gun control laws, like in Connecticut, passed by city and state governments controlled  by  Liberals (Democrats) by asserting that those are the areas of higher poverty, racism, etc... and the violence  is a "socio-economic" problem.   One journalist wrote:

Death by gun clearly reflects the class divides which vex America, being substantially more likely in poorer, less advantaged places. And this concentrated nature of gun violence makes it easier for those in more affluent and sheltered places to ignore its consequences. Yes, our nation is in desperate needs of strategies to bridge its burgeoning class divide, but if we truly care to limit the carnage caused by guns in our society, controlling them is the best place to start.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/

[GreyGeek]

Examples of armed self-defense.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/self-defense-example/