Another School shooting spree in the US

[usahockey]

If you are a female who is alone, walking in a larger city, and one or two thugs runs up to you, that right there gives you the right to self defense.  You don't have to wait and see whether or not they will attack you, rape you, kill you, or snatch your bag.  You have the right to defend your personal space.  Being accosted, and physically threatened, which is implied by the individual(s) violating your personal space in an aggressive manner, is certainly grounds for self defense. 

If you expect some little old lady, or other female to fight off an aggressive male attacker, who will outweigh the woman by probably 50-100 pounds, and is most likely under the influence of some drug, then you are crazy.  Using a gun as self defense in this situation is perfectly justified, and really the judgement just depends on which court the incident is tried in (and the lawyers). 

If someone is attacking you, your first instinct is to survive.  You don't know their intentions.  It's just too bad for the lowlife rapists, thieves, and woman beaters if they decide to pick a fight with the wrong person and get shot.  They should have considered those consequences when they started their career as a criminal.  And if all the women out walking on streets alone carried guns, they would be much less likely to be victimized.  We should be concerned with protecting the victims, not the criminals.

[pianolearner]

If you are a female who is alone, walking in a larger city, and one or two thugs runs up to you, that right there gives you the right to self defense.  You don't have to wait and see whether or not they will attack you, rape you, kill you, or snatch your bag.  You have the right to defend your personal space.  Being accosted, and physically threatened, which is implied by the individual(s) violating your personal space in an aggressive manner, is certainly grounds for self defense. 

If you expect some little old lady, or other female to fight off an aggressive male attacker, who will outweigh the woman by probably 50-100 pounds, and is most likely under the influence of some drug, then you are crazy.  Using a gun as self defense in this situation is perfectly justified, and really the judgement just depends on which court the incident is tried in (and the lawyers). 

If someone is attacking you, your first instinct is to survive.  You don't know their intentions.  It's just too bad for the lowlife rapists, thieves, and woman beaters if they decide to pick a fight with the wrong person and get shot.  They should have considered those consequences when they started their career as a criminal.  And if all the women out walking on streets alone carried guns, they would be much less likely to be victimized.  We should be concerned with protecting the victims, not the criminals.

Yes...and any man who even thinks of walking up to a woman to ask for her number deserves to be shot! Stupid lowlife criminals should use internet dating!

[prometheus]

And all that firepower is working so well in Iraq? The "insurgents" in Iraq are validating the amendment, every minute of the day. 

Insurgents in their own country always win. Unless they get whiped out, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.
Also goes for US citizens vs US government. But all the tanks and planes the US uses in Iraq are still a huge advantage. That's the point.
Otherwise they would need 10 to 20 soldiers for every potential insurgent, which starts to shift to every non-Kurdish male in fighting age.

[prometheus]

If you are a female who is alone,..

Law is equal for both males and females.


Anyway, the violence in the case I described was used in retaliation. Not in self-defense. And even in the case that it is self-defense, deadly violence is always disproportionate in a handbag robbery against unarmed males.

This case I described was on the edge.


If all females on the street are armed I will never look at any one of them and I will never come in a 4 meter range of any of them.


There are also other cases where female is chronically abused and beaten by their husband. Then one day the female plots and carried out revenge and attacks and kills her husband. That's murder. Yes, there are significant punishment-lowering circumstances, but still. Even for irrational victims a crime is a crime.

[usahockey]

Law is equal for both males and females.

In theory, you are correct...in reality, you are dead wrong.  The legal system is certainly more favorable to victimized females than to males, and this is a fact.  It is also a fact that, on average, a female will not be able to protect herself from an attack as well as a male (simply due to body size, muscle mass, hormones, etc).

Anyway, the violence in the case I described was used in retaliation. Not in self-defense. And even in the case that it is self-defense, deadly violence is always disproportionate in a handbag robbery against unarmed males.

If all females on the street are armed I will never look at any one of them and I will never come in a 4 meter range of any of them.

There are also other cases where female is chronically abused and beaten by their husband. Then one day the female plots and carried out revenge and attacks and kills her husband. That's murder. Yes, there are significant punishment-lowering circumstances, but still. Even for irrational victims a crime is a crime.

Shooting an assailant while they are coming at you in an aggressive manner is self-defense.  It happens all the time.  If they stole your purse and were running away from you, and then you shot them, then it would be retaliation and murder.  The lethal effect of defending with a gun may be disproportionate to the attack waged by an unarmed thug, but it doesn't matter.  Someone who is being attacked, and who will react on impulse, does not know whether or not the person also has a gun, a knife, or could even decide to use a lethal attack with their body.  Technically you are always allowed to use "one level" of force above that of your attacker in order to subdue them. 

Again, if an elderly person is being attacked by 2 or 3 young, fit, people, there is no way that they can defend against it without using a weapon.  Their choice is either a) submit to the beating, robbery, and potential rape or murder (it is certainly unclear to a panicked person at the time what the attacker intends to do, or is capable of doing), or b) use whatever possible means is available to you in order to disable your attacker, as it is certainly within reason that they could intend to kill you.  If your best and only line of defense is shooting these criminals with a gun, then you are justified to do so.

[usahockey]

Yes...and any man who even thinks of walking up to a woman to ask for her number deserves to be shot! Stupid lowlife criminals should use internet dating!

It's pretty easy to tell if someone is nicely approaching you, keeping a safe distance, and just wanting to talk...as opposed to some drugged up/homeless criminal running up and attacking you or robbing you.  Most people have enough common sense not to go with a strange person they might meet out on the street, or trust them enough to make themselves vulnerable.

[pianolearner]

Most people have enough common sense not to go with a strange person they might meet out on the street, or trust them enough to make themselves vulnerable.

Maybe you do some research and find out the statistics. You will be very surprised. The drugged up crazed ciminal running towards a woman is something you might see in a playstation 3 game.

[usahockey]

Maybe you do some research and find out the statistics. You will be very surprised. The drugged up crazed ciminal running towards a woman is something you might see in a playstation 3 game.

No...it's actually quite a common occurence in the evening hours, in larger cities, or even smaller ones.  Maybe read/watch the news on occasion?  Do you even live in the US?

[emill]

Thank God !!!!  the discussion here is so much civil and saner ... 
does that speak for people who love music ? 
perhaps a higher spirituality ??

In so many fora,  HATRED AND RACISM spew like a runaway volcanic eruption.
I can not imagine the flood of hatred being traded by supposed civilized peoples
throughout the the Net.  Just  skim through this :

and you will feel immediately miserable.

What has the world come to ?!?!

[usahockey]

You mean like this guy's post?

RIPSeungHui

hahaha you *** white america!!!! with each bullet hit the pink pigs body rupples with every bully you torture. CHO SEUNG HUI is going to LIVE longer that any of us and especially longer than those racist white bullys

Yea...youtube is pretty much worthless, and so are many of the people who post there.

I actually knew a girl who was shot and killed in this tragedy.  We went to the same middle school and high school, rode the same bus in middle school.  I only talked to her a couple of times maybe, but I do remember that she was a very nice person, did well in school, I'm sure had a lot of great things in her future to look forward to...just like all these other kids did.  She was not a "bully" and I doubt any of the other murdered were either.  They even just said on the news that one guy who had tried to make friends with Cho time and time again, to get him out of his shell, was shot dead by him.  I guess that's what he gets for trying to be his friend.

  This guy was just pure evil, completely monstrous, and even had the nerve to call himself and the columbine killers "martyrs", as well as compare himself to Jesus.

[timothy42b]

You mean like this guy's post?

  This guy was just pure evil, completely monstrous, and even had the nerve to call himself and the columbine killers "martyrs", as well as compare himself to Jesus.

I like the rest of what you've said but this part I think you've missed.

I was astounded by the earlier comment that Europeans feel the criminals deserve protection too, but I guess it is part of the social welfare mindset.   I don't feel the person who is in the act of committing a violent crime deserves any consideration whatsoever.  Afterwards of course I support full legal rights, would insist the police treat him humanely, etc.  But the European poster would insist the victim be nice to criminals too, even at the risk of her own life, and that seems bizarre. 

However, calling this guy evil is making a judgment not supported by the evidence so far.  He was apparently seriously mentally ill.  You have never known misery comparable to being mentally ill and probably can't imagine it.  It is probably not an exaggeration to say he was just as much a victim as any of those he shot, and possibly as innocent. 

Now, that doesn't mean I would cut him any slack while he's in the middle of a violent act.  The nearest cop should have shot him, or if any of his victims were capable I'd fully support selfdefense, with or without any type of weapon.  But you can't apply the same amount of blame as you do with a sane person who made an evil choice, like those two pursesnatcher/rapists that the woman shot.  The Virginia shooter may not have had much choice at all.  He may have at the end mustered the last bit of sanity and responsibility available when he shot himself. 

[timothy42b]

If someone attacks you then you will not know if the intention is murder or rape. So you can use self-defense. The point is that the gun is the force-multiplier.

I guess I'm going to have to read between the lines and interpret what you said.

Here goes:

If he intended rape she is not allowed to defend herself.  Don't worry, medical care and counseling is covered by the Krankenkasse and the EU social system.

If he intended murder she is allowed to defend herself.

Since she didn't know, you would give her the benefit of the doubt.  In cases where you can't tell, you are allowed to defend yourself.  However, you are not allowed to use a gun because it is a force multiplier.  (which means you have a chance) 

Now, you used the word cowboy, and so did I, but we mean different things by it.

I'll show that by example.

Suppose somebody raped your daughter.  If you later got your gun (or ax, doesn't really matter) and killed him, by American definition that would be a cowboy act.  We wouldn't do it.  Don't be fooled by the movies, in real life we don't do this, we leave punishment to the criminal justice system.  There is a small difference here:  most of us would have some urge to do so, but would not respond to it.  Most Europeans would not have the urge, and would find the thought repugnant.  Perhaps you really are more civilized.

Suppose someone broke into your house with the intention of raping your daughter.  Now by American definition grabbing your gun or ax is NOT a cowboy act, and few of us would hesitate.  I think however that this is different in Europe.  Most of you would fully define this as a cowboy act and would not do it.  You have delegated selfprotection to your government, and you expect them to do their job.  You do not have the death penalty for a violent rapist, therefore you are not allowed to use lethal force to prevent someone from committing that act.  You do not make a distinction between immediate response to a threat, and to eventual punishment. 

[emill]

It is obvious that there was premeditation ... a lot of carefull planning ...
video clips shot ... positions and justifications written ... steps taken
to tell the world how bad it has become and needed cleansing.

Yes, his perceptions of reality were monstrously distorted; but the steps he
took were deliberate and well executed, making me wonder whether he was
really insane or just, as usahockey said ... pure evil!

[usahockey]

However, calling this guy evil is making a judgment not supported by the evidence so far.  He was apparently seriously mentally ill.  You have never known misery comparable to being mentally ill and probably can't imagine it.  It is probably not an exaggeration to say he was just as much a victim as any of those he shot, and possibly as innocent. 

Now, that doesn't mean I would cut him any slack while he's in the middle of a violent act.  The nearest cop should have shot him, or if any of his victims were capable I'd fully support selfdefense, with or without any type of weapon.  But you can't apply the same amount of blame as you do with a sane person who made an evil choice, like those two pursesnatcher/rapists that the woman shot.  The Virginia shooter may not have had much choice at all.  He may have at the end mustered the last bit of sanity and responsibility available when he shot himself. 

You are making a judgement here as well.  I see what the guy did: acts of evil.  He is evil to me, that is my opinion.  There has been no official diagnosis released saying that he was in fact mentally ill, at least to the point where he needed to be hospitalized.  Trying to determine whether or not one person is sane or insane is entirely subjective too.  The only diagnosis I am aware of, was that he was depressed.  Thousands of teenagers are diagnosed as being depressed, especially in college.  Many have to take drugs, go to counseling, and some even decide to kill themselves.  This guy decided that his problems were the fault of others ("you made me do this!"), and decided to take innocent people with him..he planned this thing out.

  He is evil either way, in my opinion.  Saying that he is innocent is just not true.  He committed crimes, he is guilty of those crimes.  Maybe his mind didn't consider his actions as well as the minds of most people (but we don't know this for sure, he could have known full well what he was doing, and decided to go right ahead and do it)...that doesn't make him innocent.  He was evil.

They are even reporting now that in middle school he was caught with a "hitlist".  His criminal ways were obviously developing from a young age.  Which brings the family into question.  They claimed in their statement that they had "no idea" he was capable of committing these acts.  Yet surely they would have been aware of a hitlist he drew up in middle school, and should have sent him to counseling.

[prometheus]

What is evil? What made this person 'pure evil'? I don't understand.

[usahockey]

What is evil? What made this person 'pure evil'? I don't understand.

Evil- Profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Yea, I'd say that describes this guy pretty well.  If you don't agree that he's evil, I don't really care.  If you want to debate the meaning or interpretation of what is "evil", then find some discussion board on philosophy and have at it.  He's evil in my book.

[timothy42b]

  If you don't agree that he's evil, I don't really care.  If you want to debate the meaning or interpretation of what is "evil", then find some discussion board on philosophy and have at it.  He's evil in my book.

I think you are confusing evil with tragic and horrifying. 

There is no doubt his actions were the latter.  There is considerable doubt he had the capacity to control his actions.  If that is the case, it is very hard for me to call him evil.  To me he would appear to be one more tragic victim.  Unless, of course, your religion doesn't believe in mental illness and thinks he was possessed by a demon - I guess that would make him evil, but still not capable of making choices and controlling his responses. 

It is not an academic distinction.  If you are going to try to prevent future actions you need to be aware of what causes them and what remedies might work.  Mentally ill people who can't control themselves fully cannot be dealt with the same way you would with a sane but criminal person out for revenge.  (On the one hand, fear of punishment means nothing if you can't stop yourself;  on the other hand for some mentally ill medication is effective, but it doesn't do anything for the criminal.) 

I was attacked by a mental patient once.  Well, quite a lot of times actually, but let me tell one relevant story.  This guy was organic brain syndrome, damage from auto accidents.  He had a whole range of symptoms as a result, but among them feeling frustrated and "wrong" all the time, and given to rages he couldn't control.  He was in numerous fights when on the street, and when hospitalized had committed numerous unprovoked attacks and injured a number of nursing staff.  He was an averaged sized guy, about 5'10" and 180 pounds, or 1.8 meters 85 kg for you metric types.  I walked by one day at the wrong moment, paying insufficient attention, and he jumped out of his chair and punched me in the head.  Now, he had nothing against me personally;  that day the combination of his internal state and a medication change had left him a ticking bomb. 

His punch spun me around so I wasn't looking at him.  The adrenaline dump shrunk my vision to a tunnel, and I actually never did see him again during the incident.  I stumbled back across the room, getting punched each time I stepped back but not knowing where he was.  After 5 or 6 times it occurred to me to step forward instead of back.  Found him, subdued him.  A couple hours in seclusion and he was back in control and out on the ward again. 

Blame him?  No, I couldn't.  He was difficult and unlikable even when not violent.  But when you understand him a little you can't call him evil.  In the wrong circumstances his actions could produce results as bad as in Virginia.  Once you've dismissed it as evil you stop thinking about it and the chance of coming up with rational ways of dealing with it end.

[counterpoint]

It is not an academic distinction.  If you are going to try to prevent future actions you need to be aware of what causes them and what remedies might work. 

That's exactly the point. Preventing future accidents.

Mentally ill people who can't control themselves fully cannot be dealt with the same way you would with a sane but criminal person out for revenge.  (On the one hand, fear of punishment means nothing if you can't stop yourself;  on the other hand for some mentally ill medication is effective, but it doesn't do anything for the criminal.) 

You say, medication is effective. This guy got medication. It didn't help. I doubt that medication helps.

And then, how to distinguish between "mental ill" murderers and "mental sane" murderers?
Is there such a person, you can call "sane", if he is a murderer?

I think, in the actual case, the guy was extreme frustrated and as it looks, no one really cared about. All knew about his violent fantasies, but nobody looked for the cause of these fantasies. He got medication from a psychiatrist. Well, if that's the only help you can get, if you are desperated, it's even more desperating!

[timothy42b]

That's exactly the point. Preventing future accidents.

Yes.  Well, preventing the preventable ones.  I suspect this one was preventable.  He didn't suddenly snap, he had a long history of bizarre behavior and many people including law enforcement and mental health staff were aware of it.  Except in rare circumstances the mentally ill, like any other medical patients, have the right to refuse treatment.   They are often prescribed medication that they refuse to take, usually for reasons due to their illness.  Forcing treatment would prevent the majority of incidents like this, yet there are potentially severe impacts on the civil rights of the individual.  There is not an easy solution to this problem.

For the rest, though, you lack basic knowledge about mental illness.  Like most people, of course, if you haven't worked in the field like me or had a family member become ill, you don't know enough to make these judgments. 

[counterpoint]

Forcing treatment would prevent the majority of incidents like this, yet there are potentially severe impacts on the civil rights of the individual.  There is not an easy solution to this problem.

If you are working yourself in psychiatry, you surely know, that medication in many cases (as not to say in most cases) doesn't help. Often patients get real illnesses of the supposed "medication".

Despite this you support forced treatment 

I'm really shocked.

And why do you think, I would "lack basic knowledge about mental illness"? You mean all these fairy tales about brain chemistry, dopamin, serotonin, heredity etc. Believe me, I know a lot of this "basic knowledge". It's complete bulls...

[timothy42b]

And why do you think, I would "lack basic knowledge about mental illness"? You mean all these fairy tales about brain chemistry, dopamin, serotonin, heredity etc. Believe me, I know a lot of this "basic knowledge". It's complete bulls...

I rest my case. 

[usahockey]

For the rest, though, you lack basic knowledge about mental illness.  Like most people, of course, if you haven't worked in the field like me or had a family member become ill, you don't know enough to make these judgments. 

You are still making your own judgement- that he was mentally ill.  The only diagnosis I am aware of, was that he was depressed.  A loner, sociopath, outcast, isolated, shy, depressed, evil kid.  He had been planning this thing for quite some time it appears.  Had enough mental ability to decide which building to attack, to purchase weapons a couple months before he did the deed (probably spent time at the range perfecting his shot in the meanwhile), wrote a long statement about why he did it (revenge against the "bullies", rich kids, women, etc), videotaped himself in violent poses.  The kid even had a hitlist during middle school.

Mentally ill people are out there, sure.  If you consider a person who is depressed to be mentally ill, then something like nearly 50% of college kids are mentally ill.  This guy didn't just have a break with reality that caused him to snap one day.  He planned this out, and that takes foresight, ability to consider the consequences of one's actions, reasoning about what to do/what not to do in order to kill the most people...such as chaining the doors shut in the building so that people could not escape his rampage.  As for being "mentally ill", you're still making that judgement on your own, because for some odd reason you don't want people to blame the guy for what he did.  We don't know what was going through his head, but we do know he put a lot of thought into this.

[prometheus]

I agree with timothy42b.

[pianolearner]

I agree with timothy42b.

Yes, I do too.

[jlh]

Yet ANOTHER school shooting!!!!

My second cousin goes to a highschool in St. Louis and they were hosting a multi-school dance competition Friday night, when someone started shooting.  One kid was shot in the back but is expected to recover.  My second cousin usually goes to these events, but thankfully didn't that night.

Here's the story if you're interested:

https://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=118009

[ramseytheii]

I read that the state had declared him mentally unstable, and it was an oversight that the judgment never entered into his record, because if it had, he wouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun.

Walter Ramsey

You are still making your own judgement- that he was mentally ill.  The only diagnosis I am aware of, was that he was depressed.  A loner, sociopath, outcast, isolated, shy, depressed, evil kid.  He had been planning this thing for quite some time it appears.  Had enough mental ability to decide which building to attack, to purchase weapons a couple months before he did the deed (probably spent time at the range perfecting his shot in the meanwhile), wrote a long statement about why he did it (revenge against the "bullies", rich kids, women, etc), videotaped himself in violent poses.  The kid even had a hitlist during middle school.

Mentally ill people are out there, sure.  If you consider a person who is depressed to be mentally ill, then something like nearly 50% of college kids are mentally ill.  This guy didn't just have a break with reality that caused him to snap one day.  He planned this out, and that takes foresight, ability to consider the consequences of one's actions, reasoning about what to do/what not to do in order to kill the most people...such as chaining the doors shut in the building so that people could not escape his rampage.  As for being "mentally ill", you're still making that judgement on your own, because for some odd reason you don't want people to blame the guy for what he did.  We don't know what was going through his head, but we do know he put a lot of thought into this.

[timothy42b]

Even though I've advocated more focus on the tool user and less on the tool, it's not at all clear that we need to do anything.

The US has about 17 million college students at any one time and we're averaging a multiple shooting every 41 years.  Let's face it, the risk to any of our kids is essentially zero.

When I send my daughter off to college, I'm not going to give her a bullet proof vest, or give her a gun and teach her to shoot back.  And I'm not going to demand she attend a college in a gunfree state.  There's just no chance either would help.  Realistically what she has to worry about is date rape.

Of course, this assumes that we care about being safe as opposed to feeling safe.  Gun control is pretty much exclusively about feeling safe, so much of our conversation is not relevant. 

[counterpoint]

Gun control is pretty much exclusively about feeling safe

You can say the same about gun ownership.

Why is it, that so many people in the US think, they need private weapons?

Will safety increase or decrease, if the number of weapons is reduced dramatically?

[usahockey]

And so you don't live in the US...then you wouldn't see the local/national news of people being shot all the time.  Of course we all want guns! 

[pianolearner]

Even though I've advocated more focus on the tool user and less on the tool, it's not at all clear that we need to do anything.

The US has about 17 million college students at any one time and we're averaging a multiple shooting every 41 years.  Let's face it, the risk to any of our kids is essentially zero.

When I send my daughter off to college, I'm not going to give her a bullet proof vest, or give her a gun and teach her to shoot back.  And I'm not going to demand she attend a college in a gunfree state.  There's just no chance either would help.  Realistically what she has to worry about is date rape.

Of course, this assumes that we care about being safe as opposed to feeling safe.  Gun control is pretty much exclusively about feeling safe, so much of our conversation is not relevant. 

Counterpoint raised a very good point. Does owning a gun make you safe or does it just make you feel safer? If, as usahockey implies, people are being shot all the time, is it because too many people have guns or not enough people have guns?

[jlh]

Counterpoint raised a very good point. Does owning a gun make you safe or does it just make you feel safer? If, as usahockey implies, people are being shot all the time, is it because too many people have guns or not enough people have guns?

Let's put it this way, if you were crazy enough to decide to go on a shooting rampage, would you do it in a place where you knew that the person standing next to you probably has a gun and he will have no hesitation in defending himself with it, would you think twice about starting something?

There's a reason many other civilized countries have a lower gun crime rate, and that is because they don't have the same gun laws we do in the USA. 

In the last several years there have been many new gun control laws passed in the USA.  What has been the result?  Are there fewer gun crimes, or more gun crimes since then?  That's right, there have statistically been more.  Gun control laws will never solve the problem because, just like drug laws, they don't keep people who REALLY WANT guns from getting them, and these are the last people that should have them.  So gun control laws are not effective, but they DO make you people FEEL safer.  That is the paradox.

[pianistimo]

yes. in oklahoma (or las vegas?), i believe, students are allowed to bring a hand gun to class. but then, how safe do the instructors feel if every student has a gun?

personally, i feel it's sort of like a terrorist plot - but different.  i joked with my son about it being an 'al quada' plot - but in a sense, there is a spiritual warfare that many people fight daily.  the mental one.  they are - in a sense - feeling alienated.  sure - gaming does not help, imo.  and medication - i think with certain depression drugs - if you go off of them suddenly - they can produce anger/outrage/or suicidal feelings.  when you are on them - a sort of non-existance - or not knowing exactly WHAT you feel.  the fact that people who are not mentally stable are not diagnosed or helped before this point makes it harder for the common student or person to identify them without personally knowing them.

perhaps we need to look deeper at several things.  culture (what is expected - and the pressures of different youth), integration (is it working as well as it could?), family support, diet (big one - because people sometimes don't feel the same when not eating properly), and for me personally - a connection with the spiritual side of life.  having a day to rest and regain mental peace and stability.  stressed out individuals make a stressed out culture. 

about rape.  it is my feeling that our society promotes a look but don't touch mentality.  i mean - superstars don't realy worry that they provoke feelings (both men/women) - and assume that most guys now are gay and are not much of a threat anyways.  and visa-versa- men probalby don't worry so much about women because they think they might be attached to career, etc.  but, if lust starts with clothing - perhaps women should rethink exactly what they want to provoke.  and, men should rethink what they are going to a bar or nightclub for.  i mean - if a guy is really feeling that way - he should be private about it and take care of the problem on his own.  there are choices in life.

also, in this day and age - it's just not very wise to go out alone without a bunch of friends.  the woman in nyc who was leaving a nightclub alone wouldn't have been attacked probably even if she had had several girlfriends to leave with.  a lot of deaths are associated with nightclubs.  people assume everyone is going with the intention of just having a good time - probably.  seems to me that if one wants a long-term relationship - they'd look elsewhere besides nightclubs and internet.

i am actually for guns because usa founding fathers needed to use them for the independence of our country.  also, if you learn to use a gun - you can actually avoid killing someone and only maim them.  if i was without my husband and had to defend myself - i'd find a really heavy gun and never even get it out of my purse.  i'd just swing it around and hit them in the head.  it is always to a woman's advantage to scream.  or perhaps the panic button for the car.  but, you have to practice finding it fast.  perhaps keys should be snapped in place instead of dropped inside the purse.

[pianistimo]

ps i think there is a definate time to teach children that they have choices to make in life - and that they are not at the whim of their own desires.  people learn this at one and two years of age.  perhaps some violence is a direct result of no supervision at home.  expectations of parents have to be reasonable.  i think there is a scripture about not 'disheartening' a child.  having too high or low of expectations.  to just enjoy the child as a person in their own right - and yet show them how to become integrated into a family structure.  the larger the family - the more teaching is possible.

[pianolearner]

Let's put it this way, if you were crazy enough to decide to go on a shooting rampage, would you do it in a place where you knew that the person standing next to you probably has a gun and he will have no hesitation in defending himself with it, would you think twice about starting something?

There's a reason many other civilized countries have a lower gun crime rate, and that is because they don't have the same gun laws we do in the USA. 

In the last several years there have been many new gun control laws passed in the USA.  What has been the result?  Are there fewer gun crimes, or more gun crimes since then?  That's right, there have statistically been more.  Gun control laws will never solve the problem because, just like drug laws, they don't keep people who REALLY WANT guns from getting them, and these are the last people that should have them.  So gun control laws are not effective, but they DO make you people FEEL safer.  That is the paradox.

I think the problem with gun laws in the USA is a bit like closing the the stable door after the horse has bolted. You can't make child pornography any more illegal than it is and it has been illegal from the start,  but more and more sites are popping up on the internet. Imagine how bad it would be if it were completely legal. They would be as prolific as internet dating sites!

[pianistimo]

but pornography is truly illegal.  defending oneself has never been from the start of the constitution.  the right to life and liberty is being taken away. 

do you want to rely soley on the state?  people talk about the dark ages.  i think terrorists are bringing us back into one - because they know they can get some people in government to change laws.  for everyone to be 'afraid' because of one person's actions.  or a couple of people.  i say - go work out.  get into shape.  learn how to use a gun properly.  and , jump on the bandwagon for nipping terrorism in the bud.

but, my deepest thoughts and wishes are for people to be truly happy so they won't be feeling apathetic or sad and depressed. 

and, for those addicted gamers.  i think the real thing is much better.  to work out at the ymca.  go to gun training classes.  become part of the national guard.  whatever.  sitting at a computer only gives you dexterity with a mouse.  real life counterterrorism will be much different than jumping around buildings that look like they are in iraq.  closed situations are losing propositions, imo.  the larger the area - the more chance of success.  i mean small groups hidden in many locations.  just like terrorists.

true intents are a problem today,though - because we have a multi-national society.  we don't discriminate - and shouldn't.  but, also our national security is often left to those who are naturalized and not born here.  or, perhaps disillusioned politicians making some money.  perhaps a lie dectector test before every appointment.

[timothy42b]

Counterpoint raised a very good point. Does owning a gun make you safe or does it just make you feel safer? If, as usahockey implies, people are being shot all the time, is it because too many people have guns or not enough people have guns?

You are basically correct.  People in the US do not feel safe, even though statistically most are.  When you don't feel safe, you act out of fear, and some of what you do is not productive.  Fear causes one segment of the population to arm themselves, and another to demand that everybody be disarmed.  In some limited cases either solution can improve actual safety, but normally not.  So inevitably the fear returns, and you feel you need more restrictive measures.

The US has a homicide rate of about 6 per 100,000 (I'm rounding heavily) with 4 due to guns and 2 nongun.  Most European countries have a total rate around 2, or about the same as the US nongun rate.  Of those 2, about .5 are gun and 1.5 nongun.  While there are all sorts of analyses you can apply to these, even the US rate is really not high enough to make people afraid. 

But fear causes you to make some irrational choices.  England and Australia, for example, had low homicide rates, highly restrictive gun laws, and small percentages of population who actually owned guns.  In each country after basically one bad shooting, legislation was passed that effectively banned guns, and confiscated and destroyed most of what purely sporting guns remained.  (The 2012 olympics in London will include shooting events.  The govt has issued an exemption to allow them to happen.  UK can theoretically enter shooting teams, but they will not be allowed to practice in their own country, or own the kind of guns that are used in competitions.)  This legislation did not make sense, but was done because people did not feel safe.  Since it will not make them actually safer, eventually stronger measures will be taken, which also will not work. 

[jlh]

and medication - i think with certain depression drugs - if you go off of them suddenly - they can produce anger/outrage/or suicidal feelings.  when you are on them - a sort of non-existance - or not knowing exactly WHAT you feel.  the fact that people who are not mentally stable are not diagnosed or helped before this point makes it harder for the common student or person to identify them without personally knowing them.

A close friend of mine committed suicide last December, right after finals -- she was scheduled to graduate college and walk with the other graduates the very next day after she did this.  She was on antidepressants for some time.  I have learned since then -- and this has been featured on national news -- that certain antidepressant drugs actually CAUSE people to have suicidal thoughts, and many people in that frame of mind actually go through with it.  It's sad that when you think you're doing the best thing you can do for your depression by getting professional help, sometimes it has the opposite effect.  So it's not just stopping using them that can produce anger/outrage/or suicidal feelings, but anyone using them can also still go through those feelings.

[pianistimo]

dear jlh,

that is very sad.  my son had a bad experience with one anti-depressant - but a much better experience with welbutrin.  i think it depends on the individual's own brain chemical deficiencies.  he is doing better - but it's not a 'simple cure.'  i'm realizing that it's a committment to the person to really attempt to understand the underlying causes of depression.

the anti-depression medicine made it possible for my son to start going and working out.  working out seemed to balance the natural brain chemicals a bit better.  but, consistency is hard to maintain for him sometimes.  it takes internal motivation as a child grows older - to work out exactly how they feel and what they should do about it (exercise being a really great option).  thankfully, my son seems to be doing some constructive things and is now thinking about his future more.  i never take a day forgranted though.

there's a really great place that uses natural things, too, in case anyone is interested.  it is through a place called the 'the brain institute' or something like that.  i'll look it up again.  my sister-in-law told me about it.  they actually test to see what brain chemicals are deficient and do a lot of brain analysis and then attempt to treat it as gently and naturally as possible.

[prometheus]

Yes, I heard that after blaming rock music first in previous cases, and violent computer games second, it is now being blamed on anti-depression medicine in the US media.

I agree with Pianistimo.


Except I have some doubt about the 'the brain institute', thingy. Because of Pianistimo's record, it may be psuedo-medicine.

[pianistimo]

yes.  my husband and i disagree about some things.  usually he wins - so we tried the traditional way.  but, for some people i think some drugs are too 'harsh.'  they actually can cause other problems.  and you have to take them as prescribed.  keeping a diary of how the drug works is a really good idea.  we tried some other drug first and it made my son sleep all the time and be unaware of how he felt.  it seemed like some kind of psychiatric drug that would allow counselors to have a lot of control and the patient none.  now, he's really active and functional and gets along better and is able to keep up with expectations of him as best as possible as school.  the best of both worlds.  he knows what is going on and also does not feel situations are hopeless.

perhaps options should be open to people so they know what is available and can choose. 

ps i kinda think rock music and gaming should still be included in possible causes.  that's a mom speaking.

[shortyshort]

sorry. I haven't really followed this on the news, or in here. But were they not all lined up and shot one at a time ?

[pianistimo]

from the little i've read - i thought he randomly walked around a portion of one building (after he shot some of his dorm mates) and doors that were not blocked - he walked into and just shot at people.   

[prometheus]

Your husband opposes the use of anti-depression medicine by your son?

[pianistimo]

no.  at first i did because i thought they might be too harsh.  now - i am glad myhusband just said - let's try other meds until we get it right.  i thought they were all sorta similar.  turns out there are very many different kinds of depression meds.

[pianolearner]

sorry. I haven't really followed this on the news, or in here. But were they not all lined up and shot one at a time ?

No. As far as I know that was just a load of crap made up by the media who were desperate to provide news, however inaccurate, to the craving public. There was also some nonsense about him being a jealous jilted lover.

I despise the media.

[cmg]

 So it's not just stopping using them that can produce anger/outrage/or suicidal feelings, but anyone using them can also still go through those feelings.

First, jih, sorry to hear about your friend.

RE:  antidepressants.  Without boring everyone to death, most of the AD's used today act by regulating serotonin levels in the brain, thereby stabilizing moods.  The biochemistry of these drugs is still under investigation and often paradoxical results occur, i.e. a deepening of the depression.  That's why any one using them should be seeing a psychotherapist weekly to be monitored.  Usually, these drugs are prescribed by physicians who don't insist that patients come in for weekly sessions to evaulate their moods.  This is essential, because no physician can be totally sure which AD is correct for any one patient.  You can mke a rough guess on experience, but, often, you have to experiment with different ADs.  It's a tricky process and weekly, regular evaluation is necessary, but rarely done these days to cut costs.

And these drugs don't "cure" depression -- only reduce the symptoms.  Negative thoughts that become habitual and barely conscious create the dark feelings we know as depression.  Very, very few depressions are simply the result of brain chemistry imbalances.  People want to believe that depression is just another illness, like a bacterial infection, that can be treated soley with medication.  That's rarely the case. 

Depression is most often the result of perceived or real negative experiences that, in turn, produce negative thinking.  Negative thinking produces feelings:  sadness, despair, hopelessness, lethargy.  It's helpful to view ALL feelings as the physical manifestion of thinking.

These ADs, by the way, when prescribed and monitored by a competent practitioner, are often remarkably effective and safe.  But weekly monitoring is the key here.