Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut • Hacker News Board

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#291

Post by dradtke » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:05 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #281

dradtke wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work under the assumption that there aren't any "bad guys," there are just people who wake up one day and snap. If somebody snaps, I would rather they not have a gun, even if they originally bought it for self-defense. But yes, I agree that guns are only a tool, and that the underlying cause is psychological and/or cultural. No matter what we do with guns, it won't prevent future incidences; I just don't see how pe…

If wishes were horses... Why stop at merely hoping that someone not have a gun when they snap? Why not hope that they are in a jail cell when they snap? As far as arming teachers, it's not a perfect solution, nor is it going to "make everything alright". When you have people like this who end up being so bent on destruction and violence things are not going to be alright, it's a matter of degrees. However, there have…

Honestly, I don't even care about gun control laws, I just don't want packing heat to be a cultural norm. We Americans, on the whole, have a huge obsession with guns. They're iconic, from the wild west to world war II. We romanticize righteous killing sprees (in war it's called "honor"), and all it takes is one person to think their cause is "righteous" to get shit like this happening. Giving everyone else guns is like putting a band-aid over an infection. Sure, it may help prevent it from spreading, but does nothing to target the cause.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#292

Post by nollidge » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:10 PM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #258

codegeek wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem is his mental health, not his access to guns" The problem is that he had access to guns when he was mentally ill. Thats the problem. You cannot isolate the two.

What's easier to solve: remove all access to any weapon, or treating mental illness?

Or some of both? Because neither is a perfect solution?

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#293

Post by InclinedPlane » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:10 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #286

InclinedPlane wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with gun control. Guns exist, that can't be stopped any more than preventing alcohol from existing (prohibition), and some bad guys will always have access to guns. Or knives, or diesel fuel, or explosives. Was the Oklahoma-city bombing a wake-up call for "explosives control"? Was the 2009 Chengdu bus-fire ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chengdu_bus_fire ) a wake-up call for diesel control?…

Guns are the problem. Yes a gun is a tool, one that is specifically created to multiply the efficiency of killing. It's purpose is inherently one of magnifying violence. The technology itself deserves condemnation. Note that I am not advocating getting rid of all guns. But we need to have an honest discussion about them, and that starts with being truthful with ourselves about their very nature.

Guns are designed for killing, but they're not the only thing so designed. Swords and bows are also designed for killing. Does that mean we should crack down on archers and fencers?

Overwhelmingly guns are owned and used by peaceful, law-abiding civilians. That they can be misused does not mean we should punish those who have done no wrong.

And the idea that we can live in a simple world where we can divorce ourselves from violence, death, responsibility, and from tools of lethal force is simply naive. Pacifism is a luxury of those who have never experienced the threat of violence. In the real world there are violent men with bad intentions and being able to forestall such men by using lethal force can save lives, your own life and the lives of others. You can either turn away from that truth or foist it off on the responsibility of others or you can face it directly. But you can't make it simply go away.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#294

Post by jlgreco » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:20 PM UTC

ry0ohki wrote: post #144

untog wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with everything you've just said, I'm not sure what the answer is. You have to go and purchase a gun, it's extremely difficult to manufacture one yourself. So, there's a point of control, where we can check people (including, yes, for mental illness). But mental illness itself has no check point. How can we ensure that people do not have untreated Schizophrenia? Mandatory checks for everyone once a year…

All the gun control in the world doesn't prevent you from getting someone else to buy you a gun (or getting one on the second hand market). I'm certain if we banned guns completely there would be a drop in gun violence, but tragedies like this are clearly a mental issue and I think they would probably just drive their car through a playground at recess if they didn't have a gun.

Require a license to buy a gun first or second hand, or own a gun. Require a mental health exam to get the license (in addition to the usual background/felony check). Make the license free or close to it.

Do all of that, and anyone who tries to buy a gun without a license can safely be assumed to be up to no good. You don't even need to license firearms themselves, which is unpopular.. just the owner themselves.

Most of these nutters are buying their guns legally. Hell, I bet a lot of them buy their guns not even fully realizing what they will eventually do with them.

Illegal sale/ownership of guns is just an issue for the police to handle. I don't think there is much progress to be made on that front.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#295

Post by malkia » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:25 PM UTC

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #129

Listen, there are two parts to this: 1. The horrible tragedy, and 2. The hopes to prevent this from happening again. If we are going to talk about this, we need to all fall under the assumption that we agree that this is both a very tragic act perpetrated by someone who is obviously disturbed/mentally ill, and that it is all of our desires to do what we can to make sure senseless acts of violence like this never happ…

Do you think a gun would help you survive? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#296

Post by jlgreco » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:25 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #284

jevinskie wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely true. You need not look further than America's troubled middle east wars to see how devastating a small guerrilla force can be. Some of the insurgents are using Mosin-Nagant rifles, a Russian bolt-action rifle that dates back to 1891!

This argument is silly. The only reason why the US has trouble against small guerrilla forces is because the world is watching. The US has the military power to literally take over the world if it could get away with it (barring nukes). War is hard in modern times because of moral outrage, not because of some intrinsic power of a firearm against an oppressive government

Why did the Soviets have so much trouble with Afghanistan then? Were they concerned with what the world thought of them?

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#297

Post by InclinedPlane » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:31 PM UTC

dradtke wrote: post #291

InclinedPlane wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If wishes were horses... Why stop at merely hoping that someone not have a gun when they snap? Why not hope that they are in a jail cell when they snap? As far as arming teachers, it's not a perfect solution, nor is it going to "make everything alright". When you have people like this who end up being so bent on destruction and violence things are not going to be alright, it's a matter of degrees. However, there have…

Honestly, I don't even care about gun control laws, I just don't want packing heat to be a cultural norm. We Americans, on the whole, have a huge obsession with guns. They're iconic, from the wild west to world war II. We romanticize righteous killing sprees (in war it's called "honor"), and all it takes is one person to think their cause is "righteous" to get shit like this happening. Giving everyone else guns is li…

Personally I think quite the opposite. I'd like to see a society where it was more the norm for individuals to be responsible enough to where they would carry guns. Not to be heroes, not to indulge in power fantasies, but simply to be responsible citizens who look after their own safety and the safety of those around them. To me that sort of behavior goes hand in hand with learning CPR, keeping jumper cables in my trunk, having an emergency supplies kit at home, and so forth. We've spent the last several decades destroying the idea that personal responsiblity and seriousness is important, largely as a response to the overly oppressive culture of the 1950s, but some of it has gone too far. I think people should be free to decide how they want to live as adults, and if that includes partying every week, playing videogames all night, or having a ball pit in their home that's fine by me. But if it means that everyone is going to act like children when it comes to matters of self-defense, emergency preperation, etc. then I think that is vastly dangerous to society. And I think the idea that guns are too dangerous for peaceful individuals to own is part and parcel of that abrogation of responsibility.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#298

Post by entropy_ » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:42 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #189

king_jester wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that the shooter in this case was disturbed or had mental illness (I've seen no reports to conclude this, btw) then the first thing you would demand is 1) better mental health care facilities and treatments for the public at large and 2) universal health care systems to provide the least possible friction in accessing those mental health care services. Also, you don't have to be either for banning guns…

Is sanity really a possibility here? Sure, we don't have a diagnosis, at least yet, but I would say by definition this person was not sane. A mass shooting is no crime of passion. It seems to me that there are two problems here. The first is that we suck at finding/handling the mentally ill. These mass shootings are rare, but the connection between crime and mental illness in this country is anything but. The second…

Are serial killers sane? Their crimes are not crimes of passion. Lots of serial killers kill complete strangers to them.

Do they get to plead insanity in court? Should they be sent to mental hospitals or prisons?

I'm not being facetious, I'm asking seriously, what definition of sanity are we running on here?

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#299

Post by jlgreco » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:48 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #267

king_jester wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that the shooter in this case was disturbed or had mental illness (I've seen no reports to conclude this, btw) then the first thing you would demand is 1) better mental health care facilities and treatments for the public at large and 2) universal health care systems to provide the least possible friction in accessing those mental health care services. Also, you don't have to be either for banning guns…

If this was a mental illness issue and we agreed to provide better or universal mental health care, how would one have everyone who needed treatment submit to evaluation and treatment? Assuming we agreed upon and used professional guidelines to evaluate people's mental health. Would people be coerced? Would it be voluntary? If voluntary, I suspect only a fraction of those who had serious issues would seek help. On th…

A consultation with a mental health professional could be ethically made mandatory in the same way that background checks or eye examinations are made mandatory in an ethical manner. Requiring everyone to get their eyes checked would be unethical and probably illegal, but requiring people to get their eyes checked before being licensed to pilot a giant piece of metal down city streets is a-okay.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#300

Post by jlgreco » Fri, Dec 14, 2012, 10:53 PM UTC

entropy_ wrote: post #298

jlgreco wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is sanity really a possibility here? Sure, we don't have a diagnosis, at least yet, but I would say by definition this person was not sane. A mass shooting is no crime of passion. It seems to me that there are two problems here. The first is that we suck at finding/handling the mentally ill. These mass shootings are rare, but the connection between crime and mental illness in this country is anything but. The second…

Are serial killers sane? Their crimes are not crimes of passion. Lots of serial killers kill complete strangers to them. Do they get to plead insanity in court? Should they be sent to mental hospitals or prisons? I'm not being facetious, I'm asking seriously, what definition of sanity are we running on here?

I would say there is no way in hell serial killers are sane. Are there those who actually suggest otherwise?

I don't care if they are placed in prisons or mental hospitals, so long as they are not set free. People who are interested in revenge will likely prefer they be sent to prisons, and those interested in helping the individual will likely prefer they be sent to mental hospitals. I don't care, so long as there is a lock on the door.