|
|
Post by Kyukaku on Feb 15, 2008 20:27:06 GMT 1
With Virginia Tech, and now the recent shooting in my hometown at NIU, it seems shootings in American school are becoming more and more prominent. Talking to people from both back home where it happened and up here at school for me, I'm noticing less and less emotion for it. Yes, everyone is typically sad or sorrowful about it, but it really seems like its only on the surface, and not much distress on the inside. So here are a few things I want you to ponder: 1. Is America (or everyone) becomming more and more desensitized about violence? Particularly in schools? 2. Should gun laws be much more restricted? (it should be noted that the guns in NIU's shooting were legally purchased.) 3. Over and over we hear statements like "they were always so nice, so smart, so friendly. We never saw it coming." Are there really no indications, or are people so out of tune from one another in this day and age? Discuss, and if you have something related to bring up feel free. |
|
|
|
Post by alexio on Feb 15, 2008 20:31:02 GMT 1
1. Violence to many feels as the supreme way to do things.
2. Gun laws should have more restriction so the shootings will decrease.
3. you can never predict how a person turns out. thats for God to decide
|
|
|
|
Post by Shamino Warhen Ph.D on Feb 15, 2008 21:18:06 GMT 1
Allow Concealed Carry Weapon licenses for dorms, college campuses, parks, and federal buildings.
Fact of the matter is, you ban handguns from these places- a maniac who wants to shoot up the school, will. I'd much rather the first student he pulls a gun on, pulls out a weapon himself and caps the psycho before he caps others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leon Loire on Feb 15, 2008 23:01:27 GMT 1
While this may sound harsh Tyler, the three issues haven't been in much debate because, in all honesty, there's nothing much this current government can do to change it. Not only did both killers at both school shootings gain their weapons legally, but used pistols and a shotgun with the most recent shooter. Gun control would be an extremely difficult point to bring up without starting up the typical gun control argument that the NRA loves to kick down. Still, I'll cover your three questions.
1. Of course we're getting desensitized towards the violence at the schools; we've had psychologically troubled individuals attack four schools or more within the last decade, and then there was the mall shooting as well. In order for us to live our daily lives, it's only natural for us to suppress this sadness, or else it'll drive us insane. The reason we were all in tremendous mourning after Columbine and Virginia Tech was, like 9/11, the shootings were completely unexpected. Unfortunately, the Illinois shooting isn't receiving as much emotion because Virginia Tech is still in our minds, and that's just human nature at work.
2. While I'm big on gun control, I don't think there is anything else that can be done with these shootings, at least directly. If you want to stop mad men carrying legal weapons, you have to stop them before they reach their targets. Thus, if we could have better security at colleges, that would likely help prevent the murders.
3. And this likely could have been prevented if someone related to the murderer had reported his condition to the authorities or a psychologist. While we have no idea why he attacked the school precisely, it's likely just like the Virginia Tech shooter - a socially alienated individual who had lost normal rationality. But of course, no one found him, I think it's merely that his relatives were either too afraid to speak up, too much in denial to admit any noticeable signs, or simply did not know him well enough.
And there are definitely ways to know Alexio, so keep that in mind.
All in all, the unfortunate fact to me is that, in our current status, there is little that can be done. What we must do is try to find out why these shootings are increasing instead of attempting to build safety barriers. Why would someone feel a desire - in rational or irrational thought - to commit these acts? If you can uncover that and prevent it, then you solve the potential tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valencia Donahue on Feb 16, 2008 6:11:08 GMT 1
1. Is America (or everyone) becomming more and more desensitized about violence? Particularly in schools? Maybe so. It's the people who are the most desensitized that may be the biggest problems because they probably have no idea what the consequences of their actions will be. I'm not slamming the media or video games, but if I had to use an example, it's like someone shooting another person and that person "goes away". That's it. There's no one in the entire storyline who's going to lock up the character in question and have him mail a penny each and every day to remember the deed that was done. The "good" news? I prefer people moving on instead of letting the pain drive them mad. The last thing I want is a bunch of people seeking vengeance by taking it out on irrational things. Meanwhile, the schools I go to end up getting bomb threats, riots, sexual predators, and streakers. On better days, the town catches fire. As far as the main student population is concerned (according to my observation), if it breaks the monotony and even sends them home to boot, it's okay in their books. I wonder what'll happen if the US adopts the kinds of policies in Europe... Sex instead of violence, alcohol before cars... I think the issue lies in accessibility and use. I live out in the middle of nowhere in a "happy town", so I have no idea how easy it is to get a gun unless you go to a gun show. How easy IS it to get a gun anyways? Laws affect accessibility, but where are these people getting these guns!? As for use: "Guns don't kill people, People kill people." I wouldn't say that there are or aren't any indications, but I won't say that people are completely out of tune either. People are simply complicated. Some people are readable enough to possibly predict what's going to happen next (with taking action being the real deciding factor), while others simply slip under the radar. People who are considered punk rockers might get called aside for a drug test every few days and be clean at each one. Preppy, 4.0 GPA, future upstanding members of society might never ever be called aside for anything and could be drinking alcohol like a fish and contracting STD's when no one is looking. I'm currently watching a study called the "UP Series" in my Anthropology class about the saying "Give me a child at 7, and I will give you a man" where they follow a group of people at 7 year intervals since the age of 7 to see if their future can truly be determined by their youth. I finished watching the age 35 results (with news that they've already recorded the age 63 episode)... Some stuck to who they were and advanced, some did a complete 180 with a little influence to their initial identity. Overall, there doesn't seem to be any set answer to determine if people can ever be truly, easily judged. |
|
|
|
Post by Shamino Warhen Ph.D on Feb 16, 2008 7:21:21 GMT 1
It varies state to state. Some states won't let you get a gun from a Gunshow unless its in the state, or a state beside your home state. Generally you can buy a gun right there on the spot with identification. They do a minor background check for criminal record and you get it delivered the next day. Through gun shops, once again, varies state to state- many have you purchase a firearm, and you cannot purchase another one for another 30 days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilsin on Feb 16, 2008 7:25:03 GMT 1
1. As desensitized as hearing the same thing over and over as one person can be.
Is that a bad thing? Yes, but atleast it is better than the alternative of being sensitive.
2. Sure, you can start with gun control, but then people will do things with legally purchased swords and knives, then you can do blade controll, and people will do things with legally found sticks, then you can do stick control, then people will do things with their hands. Then you can cut off their hands and there's no more problems.
Really, you can do all the controls you want, but if someone really really wants to go out and kill someone, they are going to go out and kill someone.
3. Maybe, but on the same token you're trying to look for general warning signs in a mass of completely unique individuals.
In some cases, lets say BTK for example, There wasn't really any warning signs at all. The guy just went out, methodically killed people and aggravated the police about their inability to catch him.
In other cases, the guy is just going to grab afew guns, run around, shoot people then shoot himself.
No real connection between the two aside from the fact they killed people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shuya Katsumoto on Feb 16, 2008 14:02:14 GMT 1
Well, we don't really see situations like that over here in the Netherlands because it's simply not that easy to get a gun over here. We get to deal with more and more random stabbings resulting in the deaths of several students across the country, as well as a teacher, but we don't have mass shoot outs. I seriously think the fact that it's so easy to get a hold of a gun over there plays a big factor in all this.
About your first question, I don't know about America but I know that the youth over here is growing more and more agressive overal which had become a point of interest already for politicians and police. I haven't really noticed more care to schools however.
As for the ones who do it... I don't know... what I've noticed is that people keep more and more to themselves these days, esspecially at a young age. You may act all friendly and cheerful towards 'friends' but you hardly speak of how you really feel. I think that when that one thing happens that pushes them over the edge, they haven't even been able to deal with anything that happened before at all because they're struggling with it themselves.
That's just the situation as I experience it from over here though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auroth on Feb 17, 2008 5:56:21 GMT 1
I feel like the Generation that had Columbine is now moving onto college
>.>
1. Yes
2. No, at least in America. It is one of our Constitutional rights, and I believe we must keep it.
3. We're out of sync with people. The signs are there, but no one wants to interact with them because they're "Losers", "Outcasts", etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leon Loire on Feb 17, 2008 7:29:10 GMT 1
All right, I'd like to point out a few things for everyone to consider, in light of some of these responses.
Point one: Gun control's a relatively new concept in the United States, as I remember hearing nothing of gun control until the 1920s. Regardless, that doesn't mean violence became any more common in the modern day than it was in the past, it's merely that it's easier to accomplish with modern technology. Instead of hunting down people and lynching them in mass, we have gangsters rolling down their windows and gunning down their rivals with the Tommy Gun, or irrationals sniping down innocents to get revenge on their estranged wives. The point? Yes, you could make the argument that gun control will only bring another way for the violent to murder, but it's cutting the numbers better in comparison to no regulation at all.
Point two: Why does every treat the modern day as if it causes more social awkwardness and isolation than the past, and why would that cause someone to suddenly think "I need to kill a mass of people in order to make my own death more satisfying." In the modern day, we're able to chat with whomever we want either online, on the streets, or over the phone lines with no difficulty at all; in the past, you were lucky if you were friends with your neighbors that lived several miles down the dirt road, let alone knowing people in the nearest village. Social awkwardness is nothing new; in fact, it's much better, considering we now have tolerance of other races, creeds, sexual orientations, cultures and personalities. In the past, you were being exiled some way or another. Now, while some are still exiled from social awkwardness, you could at least know "get him some help" instead of "he deserves it; he's different."
I personally feel this pattern of mass murder is a new phenomenon that can't be blamed on some sort of failing from a negative change. I don't think it has to do with an increase in aggressiveness either, I simply think that it's entirely new, and should be analyzed in a manner that is different than how we traditionally treat tragedies. It's not always a failure of society if it had no idea what would happen or how to respond. And while there are clear ways we could have prevented this, I hardly call it a product of "society's degeneration."
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyukaku on Feb 17, 2008 23:49:58 GMT 1
Most of my opinions have been voiced by John and Sjoerdje, but there's a few other things.
It is our constitutional right to bear arms, as Auroth said. However, that was made centuries ago when having a gun meant no more than a musket. Our founding fathers had no idea the kind of weaponry we'd have. I don't think they had semi-auto shotguns and uzis when they wrote that one up. Say what you will Ein, but I'd rather be faced with stick or knife violence than a man who can simply point, pull, and kill/injure half a dozen in a single moment, and simply repeat.
So its more or less agreed upon that we have become more desensitized. Not surprising, given the things our generation has grown up with. Not just school shootings, but things like katrina and 9/11 as well. So now the issue to be debated further:
Is our desensitizing for the better, or for the worse?
|
|
Jack Lifeson
Newcomer
MISSING IN ACTION
Well, that's just uh, like, your opinion, man.
Posts: 21
|
Post by Jack Lifeson on Feb 19, 2008 5:19:00 GMT 1
technically its your right to bare arms in need of a militia and national emergency. Are you a member of a militia?
There were also many things in the constitution that had to be amended. There are many, many amendments to the constitution.
|
|
Dante Williams
Dreamer
MISSING IN ACTION
Self-Proclaimed Baby of Hircine
Posts: 401
|
Post by Dante Williams on Feb 19, 2008 6:25:56 GMT 1
technically its your right to bare arms in need of a militia and national emergency. Are you a member of a militia? There were also many things in the constitution that had to be amended. There are many, many amendments to the constitution. Yes, we learned this much already in 8th Grade History. *hides the fact that he's taking that very course* >.> |
|
|
|
Post by Valencia Donahue on Feb 19, 2008 6:49:16 GMT 1
Is our desensitizing for the better, or for the worse? I personally think we are getting a bit too desensitized towards the wrong things, to put it in the most general terms. I wouldn't mind if we weren't as affected by the violent images on TV and any other visual medium. It won't quite pack as much of a punch, but it'd be no different from knowing that some monster in a horror movie isn't real. Today, being desensitized towards these kinds of things is a positive sign. So long were the days where people were afraid of beaches because of a movie starring a mechanical shark. Just draw the line between reality and fiction. We should care a bit more (but not go overboard) whenever some tragedy or something like that happens. Nowadays, shootings, sexual assaults, and other such happenings are simply part of a statistic. The only real way to change that is to treat each tally in the grand total as an individual, like looking at each and every name on the Vietnam Wall... It's easier said than done though, 'cause not everyone cares about people outside of their own lives. The reality that comes with the above statement is that life goes on and we can't help what happens. It's good that we're not sending every prisoner to death row, but also bad that people aren't getting what they deserve and are prancing back into the desensitized world where they can keep maiming people. (I need sleep.) |
|
Jack Lifeson
Newcomer
MISSING IN ACTION
Well, that's just uh, like, your opinion, man.
Posts: 21
|
Post by Jack Lifeson on Feb 19, 2008 13:49:05 GMT 1
technically its your right to bare arms in need of a militia and national emergency. Are you a member of a militia? There were also many things in the constitution that had to be amended. There are many, many amendments to the constitution. Yes, we learned this much already in 8th Grade History. *hides the fact that he's taking that very course* >.> Then saying its your right to simply 'own' guns isn't technically true. And I wasn't talking to you, was I? 8th grade History? Maybe we need an age limit, how YOUNG you have to be to sign up, here. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Feb 19, 2008 16:33:37 GMT 1
On top of all this, I just checked my student e-mail account here at my University. I got an e-mail that was sent to every student, saying that someone had called in a bomb threat to the place. What a lovely little cherry on top of my day, eh?
1. I don't think its so much that we're becoming more desensitized toward violence, as it is that we're becoming more self-centered. A lot of people have that, "If its not affecting me, its not important" attitude.
2. We should NOT have stricter gun laws. Yes, I know the constitution has many amendments, but the right to bear arms should never be made hazy. That means, that good and honest people will have lesser chances of defending themselves, when a criminal comes along who already doesn't give a shit about the law. Basically... making gun laws stricter, will just leave many defenseless. More people should carry guns, then criminals and psychos will probably be more hesitant to pull their gun out, if they know a lot of people around them can also blow their brains out.
3. Well, there are indications, but we are definitely out of tune with each other. No doubt about that at all...
|
|
|
|
Post by akira on Feb 21, 2008 0:24:01 GMT 1
|
|
Dante Williams
Dreamer
MISSING IN ACTION
Self-Proclaimed Baby of Hircine
Posts: 401
|
Post by Dante Williams on Feb 21, 2008 0:31:06 GMT 1
Yes, we learned this much already in 8th Grade History. *hides the fact that he's taking that very course* >.> Then saying its your right to simply 'own' guns isn't technically true. And I wasn't talking to you, was I? 8th grade History? Maybe we need an age limit, how YOUNG you have to be to sign up, here. I hate to say it, but you were talking in general. Unless, of course, you just posted in this thread and hoped that no one would actually read your post or acknowledge it. If not, excuse me, posting for others responses is one of the many reasons for a forum. Um, they do have an age limit, it's 13. |
|
|
|
Post by Valencia Donahue on Feb 21, 2008 1:09:43 GMT 1
Dante, some people don't think it's necessary to quote the post above theirs if their post is right beneath the person they're addressing. So chillax. Not everyone have the same posting styles as it may be what you're assuming.
As for Akira's link, it's pretty funny to see video games get generalized into a hellish source of violence when there're more casual games being advertised for the Wii nowadays. It must because of that one time where people thought Grand Theft Auto was the only game in existence.
(Gracias for the link. We're currently doing video games in my Teen Culture class, so having that link ought to be handy to some extent.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Leon Loire on Feb 21, 2008 2:54:07 GMT 1
Just ignore Thompson, the man's been advocating against violence for more than a decade now, and he hasn't gotten shit done - and for good reason.
Also keep in mind that the man's a fundamentalist, so his views of morality are rather skewed. And interestingly enough, the shooter at Illinois University was proven to be a user of anti-depressants, so it can be predicted rather easily where he lost his better judgment.
Also keep in mind that the Virginia Tech shooter didn't even play video games that much, but he was an AVID reader.
|
|
