Mom of suspected school shooter -- first to die -- was avid gun enthusiast

[petros]

It really doesn't matter what is done, we are never going to make more than a "dent" in the situation.

Only 10% of the 10% with acute mental health disorders are diagnosed and treated. If you want to see a major change in our society, the other 90% of the 10% would need to be treated.

 

[JLM]

Only 10% of the 10% with acute mental health disorders are diagnosed and treated. If you want to see a major change in our society, the other 90% of the 10% would need to be treated.

How do you find/identify them?

 

[SLM]

How do you find/identify them?

I think what we all can do is work to create an atmosphere in society where they feel no shame in coming forward and asking for help. For starters.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Banning firearms solves that issue. You're never going to eliminate stupidity. Eliminate firearms and you can guarantee less events like this re-creation of the dunblane massacre.

I wish it were true but history has seen that its not. Banning something NEVER solves the issue. Too simplistic. Alcohol prohibition is only one example. Ciggaretts, drugs, "ma jaw ana"....all are examples of failed "banning".

JMO

 

[JLM]

I think what we all can do is work to create an atmosphere in society where they feel no shame in coming forward and asking for help. For starters.

I think that is starting to happen. I notice at we approach Xmas that there is more concern for marginalized people in general.

 

[captain morgan]

So let's play Devil's Advocate. We ban all the guns, somehow in some way we round every single last one of them up and toss them all and the ability to make more into a black hole.

It's done.

Then what? The world is all happy and life is rosy for everyone?

Knives, baseball bats, machetes, bow/arrow, sharp pointy sticks

Setting back technology doesn't address the underlying issue that has been brought up; mental illness or humanity's innate aggressive tendencies, etc.

Problem, there are a myriad of replacement tools to act as the medium

 

[petros]

How do you find/identify them?

Removing the stigma that mental health is different than any other health issue would be the first place to begin.

 

[taxslave]

There's another angle I hadn't thought of. How many nutcases would start applying for the 100,000 guards required? Just like prior to 9/11 the U.S. had these AlQaeda bastards taking flying courses at various flying schools around the country. There's a million other ways of harming kids like putting anthrax in the water systems!

Quick. Ban Anthrax. Oh wait it is naturally occurring. That worked so well for everything else we don't like.

 

[SLM]

Knives, baseball bats, machetes, bow/arrow, sharp pointy sticks

Setting back technology doesn't address the underlying issue that has been brought up; mental illness or humanity's innate aggressive tendencies, etc.

Problem, there are a myriad of replacement tools to act as the medium

Where there is a will there is a way. So we should by all means keep focusing on the way and totally ignore the will.

Removing the stigma that mental health is different than any other health issue would be the first place to begin.

Absolutely! The greatest obstacle for the mentally ill is the attitude society has towards it.

 

[Ron in Regina]

OK, I'm not up on guns. Don't own one. Haven't owned one. At this point,
have no urge to own one. I see a basic flaw in this debate though....

I've done some reading over the last couple of days, as I, like everyone else
here, has been inundated with opinions from many sources over this issue.
I wanted to be clear as to what was being debated, as it's coming across
like the "occupy movement" nonsense in that nobody seems to be on the
same page in what they're debating.

I know little, but I've learned this much. An 'Assault Rifle' has a very clearly
defined definition, and an 'Assault Weapon' does not....and the two terms
are NOT interchangable.....though they are being used interchangeably as
folks attempt to debate this issue.

It's like using the terms 'Dog' & 'Wolf' interchangeably in a debate about breed
specific legislation. How on Earth can anyone intelligibly debate something
without clearly defining what is being debated?

It's not just happening here on this forum, but in the media by news people
and politicians and other talking heads....& is contributing to the overall debate
going absolutely nowhere.

The first order in mental health review should be to have the heads
examined of anyone attempting to purchase an assault rifle.

All of the semi-auto weapons being used in these various shootings in Malls
& Schools & Theaters & so on & so forth....are not 'Assault Rifles.'

We're about 250 posts into this love-fest, so isn't it time to define what we're
actually debating banning here?

FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle
that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be
confused with assault weapons.

Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault
rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more
for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which
fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

 

[taxslave]

Cops are put through some strict testing. Psychological, physical as well as academic. I can't imagine the same level of preparedness would be applied to hallwalkers at a school. So yes I would feel much more at ease with a cop than a half-ready packing heat around kids.

Apparently the RCMP does not hire the ones that passed the final exam. Vancouver does not get many graduates either. They must be all in eastern cities.

 

[Risus]

The difference between you and I Risus, is that I am interested in actions that may actually save some lives, while you are only interested in maintaining an illogical and unrealistic philosophical standard.

More guns will save lives? You are delusional. You think my philosophical standard is illogical, because you don't have logic in the first place, considering your asinine stand on guns.

If the already gong show-like 270 million guns can't reduce gun violence how many are needed? 500 million? 2 billion?

It is illogical to think more guns will reduce gun violence. It's statistically impossible.

Unfortunately, there are some here that just don't get it....

 

[DaSleeper]

.


Unfortunately, there are some here that just don't get it....

I agree.....

To find out who?....just look in the mirror..

 

[Ron in Regina]

The "270 million guns" figure that's been used here often in this Thread, is just
one number being used in the media over the last week. The highest figure I've
heard is "approximately 400 million." There aren't 400,000 people in the USA.

A properly maintained firearm has a lifespan of what? How long? A hundred
years or more?

There are over 51,000 different stores & shops selling firearms in the USA, and
to put that in perspective....there are about 17,000 McDonald's fast food outlets
in the same country. I'm assuming that any numbers that we hear about the total
number of firearms in the USA, much like the numbers here in Canada, are very
conservative, as nobody really know just how many currently in existence are
still functioning items from decades (or a century or more) gone by.

The true number, if ever accurately discovered and released, I'm assuming would
be truly staggering. On that note, they are not just going to fade away, ban or not.

 

[petros]

OK, I'm not up on guns. Don't own one. Haven't owned one. At this point,
have no urge to own one. I see a basic flaw in this debate though....

I've done some reading over the last couple of days, as I, like everyone else
here, has been inundated with opinions from many sources over this issue.
I wanted to be clear as to what was being debated, as it's coming across
like the "occupy movement" nonsense in that nobody seems to be on the
same page in what they're debating.

I know little, but I've learned this much. An 'Assault Rifle' has a very clearly
defined definition, and an 'Assault Weapon' does not....and the two terms
are NOT interchangable.....though they are being used interchangeably as
folks attempt to debate this issue.

It's like using the terms 'Dog' & 'Wolf' interchangeably in a debate about breed
specific legislation. How on Earth can anyone intelligibly debate something
without clearly defining what is being debated?

It's not just happening here on this forum, but in the media by news people
and politicians and other talking heads....& is contributing to the overall debate
going absolutely nowhere.



All of the semi-auto weapons being used in these various shootings in Malls
& Schools & Theaters & so on & so forth....are not 'Assault Rifles.'

We're about 250 posts into this love-fest, so isn't it time to define what we're
actually debating banning here?

FROM: Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle
that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be
confused with assault weapons.

Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault
rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more
for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which
fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

There was a guy on here who posted that he was impressed by Global news for using the correct term of "assault style rifle" being used by Lanza.

'Sharp fellas (and gals) like him help bring clarity to debates such as these.

More guns will save lives? You are delusional.

Check the crime stats on El Paso TX sometime and compare to a city with heavy restrictions on citizens being armed.

Is it still crazy that we have cops in our schools in Regina?

 

[gerryh]

Do you feel the need to defend yourself from the neighbourhood police officer??

with your love and reasoning for possessing weapons, it is blatantly obvious that you do.

 

[talloola]

No, I certainly don't feel good about it, I have 7 grandkids in schools, but for the big picture there is not a heck of a lot we can do about it, tragedies happen on every front. I would say the biggest thing we can all do is to train our loved ones to be aware of their surroundings at all times, but you know people have to be able live normal lives in a more or less relaxed fashion. As the old saying goes "Sh*t happens". As a matter of fact I'd say if we have cops and armed guards in the schools more of this sh*t will be happening not less, simply because there are always those who will do it just to prove they can. People keep assuring me that things are no worse now than they were back in our generation.........it's just the media............and most of us got through school without any major incidents, so things being the same I expect they will for the most part continue that way.

my opinion is that the most recent killer would 'not' have gone to that school knowing he would
have to face some armed people, whether they are trained teachers, or armed security guards.
He would have gone somewhere else, or nowhere at all.

 

[JLM]

my opinion is that the most recent killer would 'not' have gone to that school knowing he would
have to face some armed people, whether they are trained teachers, or armed security guards.
He would have gone somewhere else, or nowhere at all.

I think you are right in that case, but had he gone elsewhere would it have been better or worse?

 

[L Gilbert]

.. and not one is killing people with an assault rifle.

..... you think. Personally, I think there are a few people with scrambled marbles in the gangs in Vancouver and other cities. And people do get shot in cities like that.
Anyway, I had to deal with a poor dude who was off the rails one time. He refused to take his meds and was staying with some neighbors. The mother didn't trust him around her son. But, eventually, he moved into town. Because of the poor dude's illness he ended up being a vegetable for the province to take care of because his illness caused him to annoy the hell out of people and a couple of them nearly beat him to death. So you can continue to make excuses for the wingnuts in society if you wish, but ignoring them and what they can cause is definitely not the answer.

Give us a flippin break, the day you can identify who will be the next school shooter is the day hell freezes over. As JLM said, they let everyone out of institutions in BC 25 years ago. None of them are killing people. Only the ones you would never suspect. Mental health is a bogus deflection of the real issue. The more guns there are the more gun killings there will be.

lmao
No, the more people there are, the more deaths there will be. The wackier the people, the more deaths there will be. Guns don't fire themselves. I'm not sure why some of you gun-haters can't realize that.

I gave you a greenie because your comment was the first one I saw in here today that made me laugh.

 

[gerryh]

Guns don't fire themselves. I'm not sure why some of you gun-haters can't realize that.

and I'm not sure why some of you gun lovers can't understand that if there were no guns then there would be no gun deaths, period.