I found this to be
interesting.
So you are saying homeschooling is worse than guns, right?
So, once again, any suggestion that something other than guns (inanimate objects completely incapable of independent action) is responsible for the massacres of the past 3 decades is incomprehensible to you. And you call us close-minded...
I am trying to understand what exactly you are saying.
Are you suggesting that homeschooling is to blame? Yes or No?
That is such a disingenuous statement. There is exactly one mention of homeschooling in the entire article and it comes by way of a quote from a family friend in paragraph 4 out of a total of over 30 paragraphs. Does your scroll wheel not work?
Here's that paragraph. Everyone else feel free to read it and tell me if homeschooling is what you take away from this...
But where, I’d like to ask my colleagues in the media, is the reporting about the psychiatric medications the perpetrator – who had been under treatment for mental-health problems – may have been taking? After all, Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of the shooter and his mother, were interviewed on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: “I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldn’t deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life.” And here, Tambascio tells ABC News, “I knew he was on medication, but that’s all I know.”
So if not blaming homeschooling, what exactly did you find interesting in the article? Perhaps, part about blaming video games?
Rosetta Stone is on sale. You should invest in a copy. Clearly google-translate is not working correctly.
Come out and say already what is exactly you are trying to not say. Guns, kinds that enable you to kill multiple people in a short order, were used to cause tragedy. You are trying to insinuate that something else is to blame.
So what is that "something else" is? Stop hiding behind ambiguity and let it all hang. Come out and say it already.
I posted a link to an article that very clearly makes assertions about other possible causes and draws some interesting parallels between most of the perpetrators of these massacres. I didn't post it to suggest that the author is right, merely that he's making an interesting point. You have then proceeded to affirm every assertion folks on these boards have made about your inability to look outside your ideological box.
It just dawned on me that there hasn't been a refutation of the author's point on any of the leftist ideology sites, so perhaps you haven't been issued your opinion yet. We'll wait until the left-wing machine tells you what you think about this guy's ideas.
Kaotic, you have yet to state exactly what your point is. I have asked you multiple times in this thread.
The article talked about video games, home schooling and anti-psychotic prescriptions. Out of that list, which one do you blame?
Come out and say already what is exactly you are trying to not say. Guns, kinds that enable you to kill multiple people in a short order, were used to cause tragedy. You are trying to insinuate that something else is to blame.
So what is that "something else" is? Stop hiding behind ambiguity and let it all hang. Come out and say it already.
You clearly don't understand where that article is coming from. They are linking antidepressant medication to these types of shootings. It even gives situations from the past, back to the Reagan assassination attempt up to current situations. I'm guessing you simply don't understand English, I don't know how much clearer that article has to be.
Kaotic, you have yet to state exactly what your point is. I have asked you multiple times in this thread.
The article talked about video games, home schooling and anti-psychotic prescriptions. Out of that list, which one do you blame?
Ahh OK, it's clear now. You simply don't understand English.
Since last month’s horrifying and heartbreaking school massacre in Newtown, Conn., politicians and the press have, as everyone knows, been totally obsessed with firearms.
Indeed, President Obama has vowed to impose strong new gun-control measures on the nation – very soon, with or without Congress.
Ads by Google
Free Online RadioListen to Free Streaming Internet Radio Now with the Radio Toolbar
www.RadioRage.com How I Removed Bad Credit1 simple trick & my credit score jumped 217 pts. Banks hate this!
www.thecreditsolutionprogram.comOther possible factors – from violent video games to the “failure of our mental-health system” to the unintended consequences of making schools “gun-free zones” – have taken a back seat to guns. Within hours of the gruesome mega-crime, the media had provided extensive, round-the-clock coverage of precisely which firearms, manufacturers and calibers the perpetrator had used, how he had obtained them from his mother, where they were originally purchased, and so on.
But where, I’d like to ask my colleagues in the media, is the reporting about the psychiatric medications the perpetrator – who had been under treatment for mental-health problems – may have been taking?Read more at
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/#Vk1UsKT4p0B5PgkO.99 The person writing the article was citing Media as to saying it was video games, ect. ect. But if you pay attention the article writer goes to say under the highlighted in the quote above.
I'm not blaming anything other than Adam Lanza for the massacre in Newtown.
Come on man, even Wolfgang with his 3rd grade education is able to comprehend the point of that article. ;)
I'm not blaming anything other than Adam Lanza for the massacre in Newtown.
Come on man, even Wolfgang with his 3rd grade education is able to comprehend the point of that article. ;)
It's 4th grade... sheesh do I have to post the crayon books where I clearly stayed in between the lines to graduate? =P
They are linking antidepressant medication to these types of shootings.
Thank the lord, someone finally said it!
Linking - they implied causation, when they don't even have a correlation. Is there a study that links killing sprees with antidepressant medications? Why latch on medication and not some other factor (like home schooling, lol)? How do you know it is medication and not depressed people (that tend to be on antidepressant medication)? Would you consider that it could be that medication failure (and hundreds would-be killing sprees that it helps to stop) and not medication itself that is possible link?
Problem with these kinds of opinions is that they are baseless speculation. There might be one cause, there might be none or hundred different ones. We don't know. What we know is that these causes lead these people to pick up an implement of war, designed for killing people, and go on a killing spree. We know that in other countries, where getting your hands on such implements of war is harder, people still go on a killing sprees, but they are a lot less deadly.
do I have to post the crayon books where I clearly stayed in between the lines to graduate? =P
Hey, if you have some pictures of those that would be great for me to use to help my 3 year old nephew understand the concept.
do I have to post the crayon books where I clearly stayed in between the lines to graduate? =P
Hey, if you have some pictures of those that would be great for me to use to help my 3 year old nephew understand the concept.
LOL
Problem with these kinds of opinions is that they are baseless speculation.
As opposed to the scientific evidence you have showing that guns cause murders?
They are linking antidepressant medication to these types of shootings.
Thank the lord, someone finally said it!
Linking - they implied causation, when they don't even have a correlation. Is there a study that links killing sprees with antidepressant medications? Why latch on medication and not some other factor (like home schooling, lol)? How do you know it is medication and not depressed people (that tend to be on antidepressant medication)? Would you consider that it could be that medication failure (and hundreds would-be killing sprees that it helps to stop) and not medication itself that is possible link?
Problem with these kinds of opinions is that they are baseless speculation. There might be one cause, there might be none or hundred different ones. We don't know. What we know is that these causes lead these people to pick up an implement of war, designed for killing people, and go on a killing spree.
We know that in other countries, where getting your hands on such implements of war is harder, people still go on a killing sprees, but they are a lot less deadly. You must have forgotten about the Massacre in Norway where the guy killed 87 people because he was the only one with a gun.
Problem with these kinds of opinions is that they are baseless speculation.
As opposed to the scientific evidence you have showing that guns cause murders?
I never said guns cause murders, guns are used in murders. Access to guns make would-be murderers more deadly. Access to guns make it more likely for a violence to turn into murder. Access to certain types of guns make everyone around these guns less safe.
You must have forgotten about the Massacre in Norway where the guy killed 87 people because he was the only one with a gun.
We have been over this in the gun thread. Places where mentally unstable people can get hands on lots of guns end up with all kinds of shooting sprees. More, deadlier guns with less accountability, checks and tracking end up with more guns falling into the hands of unstable individuals.
If your goal is to decrease number of shooting sprees - then more guns for everyone is absolutely wrong approach, because it gets more guns into the hands of unstable individuals. Less guns for everyone would work. Less deadly guns for everyone would work but not as well. Stricter control over who can get guns, and making people responsible for not securing them would also work, but again, not as well.
Recent school shooting? Mentally ill kid may have pulled the trigger, medication (or home schooling) might have played a role. Who is responsible? Individual who failed to secure an arsenal of these fucking guns. Why the fuck do you leave an armory-worth of guns lying around accessible to a nutter kid?!
You must have forgotten about the Massacre in Norway where the guy killed 87 people because he was the only one with a gun.
We have been over this in the gun thread. Places where mentally unstable people can get hands on lots of guns end up with all kinds of shooting sprees. More, deadlier guns with less accountability, checks and tracking end up with more guns falling into the hands of unstable individuals.
If your goal is to decrease number of shooting sprees - then more guns for everyone is absolutely wrong approach, because it gets more guns into the hands of unstable individuals. Less guns for everyone would work. Less deadly guns for everyone would work but not as well. Stricter control over who can get guns, and making people responsible for not securing them would also work, but again, not as well.
Recent school shooting? Mentally ill kid may have pulled the trigger, medication (or home schooling) might have played a role. Who is responsible? Individual who failed to secure an arsenal of these fucking guns. Why the fuck do you leave an armory-worth of guns lying around accessible to a nutter kid?!
Looks like the mother wasn't thinking. If you have someone that's unstable you don't leave guns laying around. You lock them, they have these new things called gun safe's. Nobody can get to those guns if you have them locked up. As long as that person doesn't have a key or know the code. But I still don't lay all the blame on his mother, ultimately he was the one that pulled the trigger.
I never said guns cause murders, guns are used in murders. Access to guns make would-be murderers more deadly. Access to guns make it more likely for a violence to turn into murder. Access to certain types of guns make everyone around these guns less safe.
And a sane person with a gun in the area of a nut with a gun can render the nut harmless in fairly short order.
a person with a gun in the area of a person with a gun can render the person harmless in fairly short order.
So you arm everyone, including nuts, and have regular shoot-outs with tons of casualties, including children. This is where we are today. Some of us think that mass shootings need to go.
So you arm everyone, including nuts, and have regular shoot-outs with tons of casualties, including children. This is where we are today. Some of us think that mass shootings need to go.
Really? We have regular shoot-outs with tons of casualties? I thought we had an occasional outbreak of lunatics who had access to firearms that they eventually turned on themselves. Guess we live in different worlds. 'Course that's not really news, is it?
Problem with these kinds of opinions is that they are baseless speculation.
As opposed to the scientific evidence you have showing that guns cause murders?
I never said guns cause murders, guns are used in murders. Access to guns make would-be murderers more deadly. Access to guns make it more likely for a violence to turn into murder. Access to certain types of guns make everyone around these guns less safe.
Your religion is interfering with your higher reasoning again.
Your religion is interfering with your higher reasoning again.
Would that be the church of Not Unquestionably Worshiping the Guns?
Come out and say already what is exactly you are trying to not say. Guns, kinds that enable you to kill multiple people in a short order, were used to cause tragedy. You are trying to insinuate that something else is to blame.
So what is that "something else" is? Stop hiding behind ambiguity and let it all hang. Come out and say it already.
Do you realize that, unless were referring to muzzle loaded pistols and rifles, any gun today can kill multiple people in short order.
I don't own a gun, mostly because I live in one of the bluest, liberal, pansy cities on this country when it comes to gun laws. However, what I believe Kaotic is saying with this article is that you can't blame any one thing, guns least of all.
That's pretty darn close there Stubsy. I was merely pointing out that there are many ideas for the root cause of these massacres. This article just made an interesting correlation between mental illness/pharmaceuticals and the people who commit these atrocities. It turned out to be a bonus that the discussion highlighted Sini's ideological resistance to anything that does not toe the lefty line. I don't know if this guy is right, but he makes good sense and I'm willing to consider it. Sini, on the other hand, completely dismisses the article because it doesn't fit his paradigm of "guns are bad, mkay."
No, I dismiss the article because it does not substantiate its claims. Formally - the argument is too weak to support the conclusion.
I intentionally focused on homeschooling, not only because it is obviously false connection, but because it is equally unsubstantiated.
Here is equally baseless claim for you: Male pattern baldness causes killing sprees. Most shooters are men, all men are distressed over losing hair and some just couldn't take it and go on a killing spree.
No, I dismiss the article because it does not substantiate its claims. Formally - the argument is too weak to support the conclusion.
I intentionally focused on homeschooling, not only because it is obviously false connection, but because it is equally unsubstantiated.
Here is equally baseless claim for you: Male pattern baldness causes killing sprees. Most shooters are men, all men are distressed over losing hair and some just couldn't take it and go on a killing spree.
Taking this literally for a second. There is direct evidence Adam Lanza was home schooled. I'm not sure about the Dark Knight guy in Colorado. Nor the dude in Arizona, although he was bald, but I believe that was his choice. Virginia Tech had hair, not sure about his k-12 education though. Columbine guys had hair but they also obviously attended school.
I will do some research about.these other shootings and post a follow up, to see if there are more that fall into baldness and/or homeschooled categories.
Well if someone has a psychopathic episode due to hair loss than that substantiates the article even more. Someone flipping out into a homicidal rage due to mental deficiencies or illness is one and the same no matter what the catalyst that makes the person snap is.
The more you know.
No I wasn't serious. I was simply demonstrating how one could manufacture unsubstantiated claims. Male pattern baldness, medicine, home schooling, or video games - we have no reason to believe cause killing sprees. These are redirection tactics used by NRA and the likes to change conversation from gun control to something else.
Be skeptical of anyone claiming to have an explanation.
So to sum up:
1) We have no reason to believe mental illness causes homicidal rampages.
2) Guns cause homicidal rampages.
That's pretty much what you've said. Now read that and tell me with a straight face that you aren't full of shit.
No I wasn't serious. I was simply demonstrating how one could manufacture unsubstantiated claims. Male pattern baldness, medicine, home schooling, or video games - we have no reason to believe cause killing sprees. These are redirection tactics used by NRA and the likes to change conversation from gun control to something else.
Be skeptical of anyone claiming to have an explanation.
Actually there are numerous reasons to think that each of those things can have an effect on someone's psyche. Your problem, Sini, is that you are looking for something, not SOMEONE to blame. The blame for these massacres lies solely at the feet of the perpetrator. Everything else is just trying to figure out what made him snap so we can better prevent situations in the future.
So to sum up:
1) We have no reason to believe mental illness causes homicidal rampages.
2) Guns cause homicidal rampages.
That's pretty much what you've said. Now read that and tell me with a straight face that you aren't full of shit.
P1. We have no reason to believe any single cause exists that linked with homicidal rampages
P2. Without cause to address, we can only treat symptoms - guns
P3. Guns make homicidal rampages more deadly and widespread
----
C. To reduce effect and occurrence of homicidal rampages we need to reduce prevalence of guns.
If you come up tomorrow and show me a clear method how to stop any and all rampages without undue societal costs, then I will drop any and all objections to guns.
Dude, the point is
You can't stop homicidal rampages
There will always be unstable individuals, and they will always have access to some sort of lethal weapon, barring the possibility of some socially acceptable miracle 'crazy detection' that puts them in the care they need. You take away guns and all you'll do is make it so they have to butcher the kids with axes and machetes instead of shooting them.
So let give everyone access to nukes. Sell them 2 for 5$ at the corner store. Nuke is the ultimate weapon, so ultimately arming everyone with one should make us all perfectly safe, right?
Appealing to extremes won't win you any arguments.
So let give everyone access to nukes. Sell them 2 for 5$ at the corner store. Nuke is the ultimate weapon, so ultimately arming everyone with one should make us all perfectly safe, right?
Now your comparing Guns to Nukes? Dude, you need to go take your medication!
Nukes are so 1940's...the real threat is biological warfare...sheesh.
Nukes are so 1940's...the real threat is biological warfare...sheesh.
Watch out for the cooties!!!
I disagree that it won't win me any arguments for following reasons:
1. It works more often than not, it hasn't worked in this thread, therefore it will work the next time I try it
2. To show that I used fallacy, you need to identify all fallacies I regularly use
3. Only complete idiot would think that it is not OK to use fallacy now and then
4. You are only interested in attacking me, that is the only reason you'd point the fallacy out
5. If you start identifying fallacies, soon enough you will see fallacies everywhere, in every post.
Have fun :)
I disagree that it won't win me any arguments for following reasons:
1. It works more often than not, it hasn't worked in this thread, therefore it will work the next time I try it
2. To show that I used fallacy, you need to identify all fallacies I regularly use
3. Only complete idiot would think that it is not OK to use fallacy now and then
4. You are only interested in attacking me, that is the only reason you'd point the fallacy out
5. If you start identifying fallacies, soon enough you will see fallacies everywhere, in every post.
Have fun :)
Does this post make anyone else think of Jim Carrey doing the talking butt thing? I don't remember what movie it was but I can't stop laughing.
"So you arm everyone, including nuts, and have regular shoot-outs with tons of casualties, including children. This is where we are today. Some of us think that mass shootings need to go."
Current statistics show 25% of Texans have concealed carry permits. ANYONE who is allowed to legally own a gun is also allowed to keep it in their vehicle with them as well.
I have not seen a proportional increase in the number of mass murders in this State lately.
Talk to most law enforcement and they will very likely recommend you not only obtain a CCL, but keep it with you at all times.
But, do as you will. If you take your head out of the sand once in a while you'll find the world isn't quite the pretty place you might think it is.
If you get rid of guns, folks simply take the next step and start building bombs. ( See Middle East for examples ) They're the next step in mass killing efficiency and you have just about everything you need at home already to build them. You just don't know it.