Mass violence... have instability and will then there is a way...
I just read this great post by @thecryptofiend that also has a good video in it that is worth watching. I commented on his post, but it really made me think of something I thought worth considering and opening for discussion.
The mass killings/violence have all involved people that were unstable. Many of them had a lot of different factors contributing to where they were AT when they committed the act. A lot of them were on pharmaceuticals. Some of them were also bullied on top of that which is something leading to suicides and other acts these days. Some of them (some not a factor) had parents who didn't seem to be involved or paying attention. In fact, out of those the pharmaceuticals are likely a more common commonality than the presence of a specific class of weapon.
Yet even without the pharmaceuticals we are going to have unstable people. It happens. Statistically these types of events are actually supposedly lower than they have been during the past. Whether this is accurate or an agenda/bias I cannot say. One thing is for certain they are definitely reported far more than they were before. Many (not all) forms of violence are reported far more than they used to be. They may be happening less, but the coverage is way more extreme. Other forms of violence that at one point might have gotten a mention on the news, may not be reported at all. This makes it very difficult as an information consumer to get an accurate READ on what really is going on if those are the only sources available.
Now let's get down to the brass tacks...
I am right now sitting in my bedroom... It is also an office... I am going to look around myself like a psychotic person (hopefully I am not really such a person)
Lot's of various clothing options available... useful for wrapping things up so I can hold sharp things, and for wrapping up heavy things so I can make flail like implements.
As to sharp edges... broken CDs can have sharp edges... I have a 43" 4K TV/Monitor, and a 19" Monitor... those screens if broken can provide sharp edges...
Screw Drivers, Pens, Pencils...
guitars... Guitar String Garottes....
Heavy things... dead hard drives I need to recycle.... the other parts of the monitor... a few nick nacks...
Lot's of weapons...
So then comes up the idea that YES BUT A GUN makes it easy so you don't have to get close...
TRUE... yet it does not stop me from inflicting violence... how devastating I end up being would end up being more tied to how much thought I put into it, how much I know, and how much I have access to...
I only covered what I have handy in my bedroom... that isn't where all of the good stuff is if I wanted to make a weapon. In fact with simple household stuff I could make pretty devastating stuff that wouldn't require me to get close.
You see... that is not hard. So why doesn't it happen more?
I'm kind of thinking that leads back to the unstable mind. Why are they unstable? Why are they doing it? What is their motive? Is there some element of the location that ties into that motive?
Are they seeing it as their swan song before suicide?
All of these things matter...
What can we do?
First... stop looking at tools (guns, knives, etc) as the problem. If people want a weapon they will get them. The problem is not with the TOOL it is with the TOOL USER. Why did they do what they do? Learn that and you have at least something to look at in terms of trying to reduce, prevent such events in the future.
You will not stop a screwed up mind by taking the tool out of their hands. You need to find out what screwed their mind up and see if there are ways to help with that.
Look at everything... don't let your bias or dislike of something cause you to single that out and ignore other factors. It is likely not going to be caused by a single thing, but a combination of things.
Banning doesn't solve anything. I can't find a case where it has anyway. So we should look for things that might actually work that don't require making blanket bans, etc.
As technology increases (which it is doing rapidly) the number of things that could be used as a weapon are likely only going to increase... all it takes is motive... and thought.
Where is that Samsung Galaxy Note.... - Strap that sucker to a jug of gasoline. :)
EDIT: If this post makes you uncomfortable to read. It makes me uncomfortable too... and I wrote it. The truth is not always comfortable and if this isn't the truth then I suspect aspects of it may be at least in the ballpark.
Steem On!
Governments have killed their own people, not even considering war. FAR out of proportion to anything individuals have even considered. Ever wonder why governments don't want their citizens to be armed?
Yes, and that is another important MOTIVE (when I am speaking of Agendas).
I get it... Much the same reason they don't teach critical thinking in school. Control.
Much the reason racism, or religious persecution, or capitalism vs communism vs socialism are constantly recycled and used effectively over and over again in history to keep us divided.
While we are divided and fighting over things like guns, race, religion, sexual preference, etc we leave our so-called "representatives" free to pass bills and laws that truly bend us over more than any of those divisive things...
Or one of my recent favorites...
The fact that they use the term "Collateral Damage" like the cure all that justifies killing unintended targets. It has become the excuse that can be used to justify killing anyone.
unless we're speaking of a bomb or some such, so called 'mass violence' is no such thing. It's sequential violence...one act of violence after another after another.
The solution is to stop it fast.
If an armed citizen is present when a crazy pulls a gun (knife, hammer,) and runs amok... The citizen can put a STOP to that silliness right quick.
You don't want less guns...you want MORE. Everyone who can handle a gun should have one at all times. Kind of like smartphones..
When seconds count the police are only minutes away...
Good point. Serial vs Parallel violence. I also think you already know I agree with you.
Yes that kind of use of language is straight out of 1984.
There are some basic truths about the entire gun debate that most people either completely miss or refuse to acknowledge. I'll try to list them here, as I see them. Some may disagree, so I'd like to get some feedback on where exactly anyone thinks I may have gone wrong.
1 - You cannot "ban" guns.
Even if we assume that a government was capable of completely banning firearms, they would very likely need to do it by having firearms themselves. They can't exactly go around taking guns away from people who have guns with billy clubs and tasers. We know that passing some magical law will not result in guns disappearing, so they will need to be found, confiscated, and destroyed. Never mind that finding them all - in and of itself - would be a daunting and essentially impossible task, but forcing unwilling people to hand them over would require force. What kind of force? Deadly force. And how would deadly force manifest itself against a person with a gun? It would be another person with a gun or multiple people with guns - or something even deadlier.
And if such guns were ever eliminated, can we reasonably expect that government agents will simply destroy their own supply? That they will not want to retain the upper-hand over the newly disarmed societies that they rule over with coercion?
2 - You cannot put toothpaste back in the tube.
Firearms cannot be un-invented. No matter how hard a government may try, the fact that firearms can be easily made again will undoubtedly result in more of them existing, even if it was possible to remove all of the ones currently in existence. So, unless there will be a force of agents scrutinizing all people in all places and preventing them from even acquiring the materials to create such firearms, they will continue to be made - whether they are legally banned or not. This leads us to...
3 - Criminals do not abide by laws.
This is a no-brainer. If you want to eliminate the possibility of criminals owning firearms, then you'll need to eliminate firearms entirely - which is practically impossible, as already mentioned. Criminals will find a way to acquire them - whether by theft or via black markets from other "criminals" who produce such firearms, despite the legal ramifications.
So, guns will exist and bad people will likely have them, which leads to...
4 - The gun is the great equalizer.
Firearms allow the most physically weak in society to adequately protect themselves against those who are physically dominant. You don't need to be a mammoth of a human, a martial arts expert, or a skilled swordsman to defend your life or the lives of your friends and family. Imagine a 6' tall man weighing over 200 pounds attempting to beat a smaller man to death with a club - or trying to abduct (or worse) a 5'4" and 110-pound woman. Imagine a lynch mob of 25 people walking to your front door as your wife and children cower inside. How do you suppose such people could adequately defend themselves from being beaten to death or kidnapped/raped/murdered? Would you be willing to forfeit your right to defend your life because you don't like guns or because guns are just too deadly?
If we already acknowledge that guns can't be realistically eliminated, then such a proposition is simply putting anyone who cannot physically defend themselves at an unnecessary and inevitable disadvantage.
So, in essence - banning guns is a fantasy and it's one of the most explicit rejections of the right to life and self-defense that I've ever heard. But the former is so absurd that the latter is basically an ancillary argument. Guns aren't going anywhere. The best you can do is disarm law-abiding people, which defeats the entire purpose.
I can go to the hardware store , buy ten or twenty dollars worth of 'black pipe'...and make a gun in about twenty minutes...it's called 'slam fire'...u-toob is your friend.
a little bit more work is all it takes to make it as sophisticated as desired. Oddly enough full auto is easier than other sorts.
exactly...in a technological society it is NOT POSSIBLE to eliminate weapons. Australia is a case in point. They are developing some VERY sophisticated home made guns. Easy to make too.
Consequently, the talk of 'banning guns' is about as useful and realistic as prohibiton or 'the war on drugs"...all it is is an an excuse for government to gain power. It has no other purpose.
Or what happens here is people buy replicas and convert them.
Well said. Thank you for adding this and taking the time to give such a well thought out response.
No problem. I hope it adds some value to your post.
And the opposite thing, what is missing on the news? Grandma protected herself, because she had a gun. A lone, crazed gun man goes on a rampage and dies, because a citizen was concealed carrying. So many of these stories, and never once does the MSM report them.
On the other hand, a gun is one of the best things to give an insane person (if you have to allow them to have a weapon). Guns use bullets, and they are not unlimited. They become bulky and heavy quite quickly. Most of the bullets fired quickly in anger miss. So, the actual damage done is quite minimal compared with someone using a machete. Another thing about a gun is it is loud, and draws attention.
If I wanted to kill people (and I don't. Not even the pizza-gate bad guys) then there are so many more ways to do it. Like, drive a gas tanker truck into an electric sub-station and light it up, just when New York is entering a real cold-spell. Really, really easy, and there aren't contingency plans for it.
Thankfully, the people that go nuts are usually the type of people that have low IQ and are just angry, want to lash out at the world. They never think of big things.
Spot on... As to what is missing from the news. It depends upon the agenda at the time. BLM is popular now so in the same time 5 white guys may have been killed by the police you kind of have to dig in a local paper to find it. Yet if it is a black guy the news will cover it extensively, because that fits with the current popular agenda.
The times when someone does major damage with another weapon such as a knife, don't get hardly any coverage. Yet it happens.
They will report (the guy in the video @thecryptofiend shared covers this) that gun violence and deaths are down in Australia after banning guns.
What they won't report is that actual violence and deaths are UP.
So it didn't actually reduce death and suicides. Those increased. It just changed the TOOL used.
The news likes to scare us. That kind of stuff would not fit their agenda.
Great post. You make some great points. There are weapons all around us. I think the most dangerous one is probably the car!
I suspect it would be very expensive to deal with actually having proper mental health screening and care for those that need it. I doubt that issue will get confronted because of that.
Actually confronting the issue is difficult. EXTREMELY difficult.
Giving a man a fish, easy, if you have extra. Teaching a man to fish is a lot of time, money and effort.
The govern-cement does do anything it can't just throw money at. Because doing anything real requires effort.
If everyone went to court and fought their speeding ticket, the entire govern-cement would grind to a halt.
If everyone busted for pot fought it in court, the entire govern-cement would grind to a halt.
If it isn't as simple as catch someone, throw them in a cage. Govern-cement wouldn't do it.
Helping the poor and homeless is a PAIN IN THE ASS. Makes herding cats seem easy. This actually helping. Trying to get them a place to stay, getting them into a routine, help them get a job or any sort of skill... Hard, hard work.
Helping out the mental health needing people... Insanely hard. Usually it ends up, drug them until they sit still.
What the govern-cement wants is, "Oh, looks like our records show that you were diagnosed by your school psychologist with ADD and put on SSRIs a decade ago, well, you can't have a gun.
Govern-cement.... heheh... never heard that one before.
Spot on. Great points:)
The guy that killed a bunch of people with a truck in France kind of backs you up on the Car issue. Really our MINDS give us the ability to be really deadly. It all depends upon how much thought we put into it and what our goals are.
Fortunately I would think a lot of these mass shootings were not going for maximum damage. It seems more like an afterthought... otherwise I would have expected something much worse.
Yes plus I think since the people were not thinking rationally so it could have been a lot worse.
In thinking SERIOUSLY about these things all I have to do is think WHAT WOULD I DO, if I wanted mass casualties. My knowledge is limited, but with what little I do know what these things show is not that scary... I mean the only cases in recent history that are more frightening than what I could come up with are the Oklahoma City Bombing.... because, I have never looked into bombs, and 9-11. Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc could have been WAY worse if mass casualties were the goal.
That's the scary thing it doesn't take much effort to do a lot of damage so we should be grateful that these kind of people are not thinking rationally.