The real point is being missed

[JKVegas]

A ton of stuff has been written about Sandy Hook. What's not being said is the real tragedy. As a people anhd a society, we have become desensitized to violence.

Case in point: September 11, 2001. I live in a neighborhood of about 140 homes. For three weeks following the attack, every house had a flag flying on it. After 2 months, it was half the houses. After 6 months, it was about 10% of the houses. Within days of the first anniversary, it was myself and about 3 others.

We forget. Only when the next wingnut strikes do we even acknowledge that the prior attacks even happened. We have the attention span of a housefly. Six months from now we will have moved on to the Crisis DuJour of June 11, 2013 at 10.26 AM.

We are also fascinated with violence. The most popular spectator sport is an incredibly boring game which is predicated on violence. Our most popular TV shows and movies revolve around the depiction of violence. We relish hearing about it when it doesn't happen to us.

When things like this happen, I am reminded of a quote from the character Mr. Spock on the old Star Trek series:

"You humans have glorified organized violence for 40 centuries - yet you imprison those who employ it privately."

We must stop the mindset that ANY violence is justified. Or we may actually destroy ourselves someday very soon.

 

[B. Kidd]

Only those whom have a misdirected desire to kill others 'at random' have a mindset that ANY violence is justified.
Meantime, back at the ranch named 'Normalcy', the vast majority of us realize that a particular, specific, and relative use of violence is justified to insure ones' survival. And that is called instinct.

 

[JKVegas]

Violence does not lend itself to rationality. "particular", "specific" and "relative" are terms that insinuate rational reasoning. Violence is spawned by anger, one of the strongest emotions. That is probably why we are so drawn to it.

If you pull a gun on an intruder, you are doing it because you are "angry" that they invaded your space, or caused you fear.

It's a violent reaction, which only begets more violence.

 

[B. Kidd]

Violence does not lend itself to rationality. "particular", "specific" and "relative" are terms that insinuate rational reasoning. Violence is spawned by anger, one of the strongest emotions. That is probably why we are so drawn to it.

If you pull a gun on an intruder, you are doing it because you are "angry" that they invaded your space, or caused you fear.

It's a violent reaction, which only begets more violence.

If I pull a gun on an intruder, hell yes I'm angry he invaded my space. Fear, like disappointment, emotional pain, are secondary emotions that spawn anger. Controlling those emotions is rational. Otherwise, if I was too fearful (angry), I might shoot at the sonofabitch, and miss!!!!
So, it is a violent reaction, but an emotionally controlled one.
Just because we have and experience emotions does not mean we are absolved of the responsibility to control the degree of the emotion.
Emotions are what we have the most of, but know the least about.
I know about 'em.

 

[PaulS1950]

The intruder is a target - he made himself one.
I have the same right to defend myself as any other animal or plant on this earth and I have every right to use whatever means that I deem necessary to do so.
The intruder will have one chance to lie down on the floor and wait for the police. If he makes any aggressive move the police will simply take that target away, in a bag or two.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ I agree. "The best way for evil to triumph is for good to stand there and not do a thing."

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I am not saying that killing an intruder is what a person should do, but if that is what it takes to keep everyone else in the picture safe from the intruder's intentions, so be it.

 

[JKVegas]

^^^ I agree. "The best way for evil to triumph is for good to stand there and not do a thing."

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I am not saying that killing an intruder is what a person should do, but if that is what it takes to keep everyone else in the picture safe from the intruder's intentions, so be it.

But it doesn't, unless you get lucky and get in the first shot.

This country isn't all that crime-ridden, unless you count the tens of thousands of murders committed with guns every year.

You would have thought that crime would have risen because of the Recession. But it hasn't. In fact, it actually went down.

However, there will be many more Auroras and Sandy Hooks .............. and we'll pat each other on the back, cry a bit and lie to each other by saying that these are "random nutjobs who could have been stopped if only someone there had a gun.".

They are becoming less and less random. And are not stopped by the presence of guns. VA Tech wasn't. Columbine wasn't. Aurora wouldn't have been.

 

[PredFan]

A ton of stuff has been written about Sandy Hook. What's not being said is the real tragedy. As a people anhd a society, we have become desensitized to violence.

Case in point: September 11, 2001. I live in a neighborhood of about 140 homes. For three weeks following the attack, every house had a flag flying on it. After 2 months, it was half the houses. After 6 months, it was about 10% of the houses. Within days of the first anniversary, it was myself and about 3 others.

We forget. Only when the next wingnut strikes do we even acknowledge that the prior attacks even happened. We have the attention span of a housefly. Six months from now we will have moved on to the Crisis DuJour of June 11, 2013 at 10.26 AM.

We are also fascinated with violence. The most popular spectator sport is an incredibly boring game which is predicated on violence. Our most popular TV shows and movies revolve around the depiction of violence. We relish hearing about it when it doesn't happen to us.

When things like this happen, I am reminded of a quote from the character Mr. Spock on the old Star Trek series:

"You humans have glorified organized violence for 40 centuries - yet you imprison those who employ it privately."

We must stop the mindset that ANY violence is justified. Or we may actually destroy ourselves someday very soon.

Well put, here's my reply:

Curbing the violence that people are exposed to won't stop the problem. The vast majority of us who play violent video games, watch "action" movies, and watch football, do not commit violent acts and in fact are appalled when confronted with real acts of violence.

People who are emotionally or mentally disturbed might be desensitized by violence in the media, but it isn't what disturbs them. They are emotionally disturbed or mentally unstable for reasons not connected to the violence they see. The Real Point that you are looking for is not the violence they are exposed to, but the reason that they are disturbed. Why do they kill, why do they kill in ways that do the most damage and are the most horrific, and why can't we identify these people before they commit these acts? That is the real point my friend.

We cannot look at the things that this killer did, and then ban that thing. We can't say the he played such and such video game, let's ban that, or he belonged to this club right here so let's disband them. All we do in those cases is punish those who've done no wrong.

 

[PredFan]

Violence does not lend itself to rationality. "particular", "specific" and "relative" are terms that insinuate rational reasoning. Violence is spawned by anger, one of the strongest emotions. That is probably why we are so drawn to it.

If you pull a gun on an intruder, you are doing it because you are "angry" that they invaded your space, or caused you fear.

It's a violent reaction, which only begets more violence.

Not anywhere near true.

 

[PredFan]

^^^ I agree. "The best way for evil to triumph is for good to stand there and not do a thing."

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I am not saying that killing an intruder is what a person should do, but if that is what it takes to keep everyone else in the picture safe from the intruder's intentions, so be it.

But it doesn't, unless you get lucky and get in the first shot.

This country isn't all that crime-ridden, unless you count the tens of thousands of murders committed with guns every year.

You would have thought that crime would have risen because of the Recession. But it hasn't. In fact, it actually went down.

However, there will be many more Auroras and Sandy Hooks .............. and we'll pat each other on the back, cry a bit and lie to each other by saying that these are "random nutjobs who could have been stopped if only someone there had a gun.".

They are becoming less and less random. And are not stopped by the presence of guns. VA Tech wasn't. Columbine wasn't. Aurora wouldn't have been.

There were no guns at Columbine, VA Tech, or in Aurora.

 

[JKVegas]

The Real Point that you are looking for is not the violence they are exposed to, but the reason that they are disturbed. Why do they kill, why do they kill in ways that do the most damage and are the most horrific, and why can't we identify these people before they commit these acts?

Are you suggesting we throw anyone who acts a bit "different" into jail? And a mental hospital is "jail" until it helps someone.

James Holmes had a journal with stick figures being rained on by a hail of bullets. Do we start locking people up because they draw weird pictures in a notebook?

And you cry about your "freedom" being trampled upon?

Then it will be gay people being locked up. Then it will be illegal aliens. Then it will be gun-owners. The overtly religious. And on it goes ........................

"Enemies of The State".

WHO decides that? Those in power.

 

[PredFan]

The Real Point that you are looking for is not the violence they are exposed to, but the reason that they are disturbed. Why do they kill, why do they kill in ways that do the most damage and are the most horrific, and why can't we identify these people before they commit these acts?

Are you suggesting we throw anyone who acts a bit "different" into jail?

No, please point to where i said that.

James Holmes had a journal with stick figures being rained on by a hail of bullets. Do we start locking people up because they draw weird pictures in a notebook?

I think I just said no to that didn't I? Are you actually reading the posts you respond to?

And you cry about your "freedom" being trampled upon?

Hyperbole much?

Then it will be gay people being locked up. Then it will be illegal aliens. Then it will be gun-owners. The overtly religious. And on it goes ........................

"Enemies of The State".

WHO decides that? Those in power.

Oooooooooooooookkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

 

[JKVegas]

There were no guns at Columbine, VA Tech, or in Aurora.

VA Tech, as well as any OTHER university, has a campus police force. They even had a SWAT team. The shooter KNEW this.

Columbine had an armed guard who engaged the shooters. Guess he wasn't that good of a shot.

Holmes snuck in through a back entrance and used diversionary tactics (smoke grenades) . He also wore body armor and black, to disguise himself in the dark, thereby rendering the "he went there because it was a gun-free zone" argument silly. He took steps that would tend to suggest that we WASN'T aware of this fact, or didn't care. Someone with a gun may have killed HIM, but not before he got a lot of others first.

Notice how most of these knuckleheads kill themselves after taking out so many others? They are not "deterred" by the fact that they themselves may get shot.

Shopping malls are frequent targets, and everyone KNOWS that they are well- surveiled
(cameras everywhere) and patrolled by many security personnel.

I can punch holes in this theory that "more guns will protect us" all day.

These people don't care if you're armed. They want to commit violent acts, because they believe that's the way you react when you are "wronged".

THAT is the real problem.

 

[JKVegas]

You most certainly ARE suggesting that we lock up people who are "threats". Because you are suggesting that we "find these people before they can do anything". Being "forced' to undergo treatment is being "locked up".

Guess that's OK, as long as it isn't YOU. Because YOU'RE "normal", right? Can you accurately tell me what your mental condition will be seven years and three days from now? I can't tell you what MINE will be. Perhaps something is festering right now in BOTH of us, and it should be dealt with before we go berzerk.

See where that goes?

 

[Truthmatters]

a brain chemistry embalence is a medical condition.


do you treat this person or not?

 

[JKVegas]

a brain chemistry embalence is a medical condition.


do you treat this person or not?

Sure. But how do you determine that they "have" a chemical imbalance? Are we going to test everyone that gets upset about something? Flip someone off in traffic, and that lands you at the Doctor's office for a "test"?

Are we going to test everyone every six months?

Who's gonna pay for that? Will I be forced to succumb to a medical test, and pay for it myself, when I've given no indication I will become dangerous?

See where that goes?

How about removing a few implements of destruction for a while until we can get a handle on this problem? That makes a lot more sense, and is a lot less restrictive of your "rights".

You can still own a gun for protection. Just not one that can kill 30 people in a few moments.

I'd rather see that then a society where you do or say something someone else "feels" is dangerous and end up being forced into an evaluation. Or put on medication.

 

[PredFan]

There were no guns at Columbine, VA Tech, or in Aurora.

VA Tech, as well as any OTHER university, has a campus police force. They even had a SWAT team. The shooter KNEW this.

Columbine had an armed guard who engaged the shooters. Guess he wasn't that good of a shot.

Holmes snuck in through a back entrance and used diversionary tactics (smoke grenades) . He also wore body armor and black, to disguise himself in the dark, thereby rendering the "he went there because it was a gun-free zone" argument silly. He took steps that would tend to suggest that we WASN'T aware of this fact, or didn't care. Someone with a gun may have killed HIM, but not before he got a lot of others first.

Notice how most of these knuckleheads kill themselves after taking out so many others? They are not "deterred" by the fact that they themselves may get shot.

Shopping malls are frequent targets, and everyone KNOWS that they are well- surveiled
(cameras everywhere) and patrolled by many security personnel.

I can punch holes in this theory that "more guns will protect us" all day.

These people don't care if you're armed. They want to commit violent acts, because they believe that's the way you react when you are "wronged".

THAT is the real problem.

Dude, take it easy, you're all over the place. Who's saying that "more guns will protect us"? Not me.

Now you ARE getting closer to the real problem. That is what I've been trying to tell you. these people want to commit violent acts, they believe that is what you do when you are wronged. Why do they believe that? Why do they ignore the coping methods the rest of us have when life makes you eat a shit sandwich?

When we find the answer to that then we will be closer to ending the violence.

 

[PredFan]

You most certainly ARE suggesting that we lock up people who are "threats". Because you are suggesting that we "find these people before they can do anything". Being "forced' to undergo treatment is being "locked up".

Guess that's OK, as long as it isn't YOU. Because YOU'RE "normal", right? Can you accurately tell me what your mental condition will be seven years and three days from now? I can't tell you what MINE will be. Perhaps something is festering right now in BOTH of us, and it should be dealt with before we go berzerk.

See where that goes?

You know, you started off so well, now you're just going off the deep end. Please stop telling me what I'm thinking, and if you want to continue the discussion, quit being an ass.

 

[PredFan]

a brain chemistry embalence is a medical condition.


do you treat this person or not?

You treat it if you can. The problem is what side effects do the drug you are using to treat them have?

 

[JKVegas]

You most certainly ARE suggesting that we lock up people who are "threats". Because you are suggesting that we "find these people before they can do anything". Being "forced' to undergo treatment is being "locked up".

Guess that's OK, as long as it isn't YOU. Because YOU'RE "normal", right? Can you accurately tell me what your mental condition will be seven years and three days from now? I can't tell you what MINE will be. Perhaps something is festering right now in BOTH of us, and it should be dealt with before we go berzerk.

See where that goes?

You know, you started off so well, now you're just going off the deep end. Please stop telling me what I'm thinking, and if you want to continue the discussion, quit being an ass.

OK. I just don't see how you can figure out who's going to go off the deep end and who isn't without testing everyone.

We need to stop the slaughter first. Then you can work on hearts and minds.

If these things happen less often, then it will become less and less a part of our culture.

You do that by lessening the means of slaughter. Make it harder to accomplish.

I wish I could wave a magic wand, or come up with some profound words that would change the way people think.

Perhaps you can articulate it better than I. Because, as you said, that is the real issue.

I hope someone can. I'm tired of hearing about these things.