12
   

Do these people bear any responsibility for the recent mass killing in the USA?

 
 
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 10:52 am
http://static.awkwardfamilyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/2012/08/310621_10150394063263565_225455148_n/2576930876.jpg

Discuss.

How many degrees of separation are there between these folks and the mass murderers?

Joe(I don't mind people owning guns, I just wish they would stop killing us with them.)Nation

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 12 • Views: 3,676 • Replies: 55

 
aidan
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 11:12 am
Simple answer - it depends on what they use them for.
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 11:35 am
@aidan,
So, their limit of responsibility stops with their own use, and their support of what some might characterize as an overabundance of weapons in our society counts for nothing?

I don't know. I'm asking.

Joe( Neutral )Nation
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 11:41 am
I'm someone who doesn't credit the reality of the physical object (a gun) with the decisions that users of those objects (guns) make about what to do with them.

Do those people who sit on the porch choose to use them for target practice or hunting? If so, I can only hold them responsible for target practice or hunting.

And no - I don't believe that people who own guns to hunt bear any responsibility for the recent mass killings in the USA.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  4  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 11:42 am
@Joe Nation,
The only person responsible is the person who pulled the trigger.

But if I had to cast aspersions on the next most relevant group involved in leading the shooter down the path to slaughter I would focus first on the Skinhead/Nazi/AryanNation/Hate-monger types before I would worry about the "gun rights families". I suspect that the vast majority of these types of gun-toting families have never killed nor incited killing.
Joe Nation
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:03 pm
@rosborne979,
I am trying to see how many degrees of separation there are between the psycho with the gun and the regular guy/gal who thinks everybody ought to have the right to be the psycho with the gun.

So, far we've got <psycho>>>>Skinhead/Nazi/AryanNation/Hate-mongers>>>

then who?

Joe(nobody?)Nation
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:11 pm
@Joe Nation,
I think there's a definite difference between believing in the right to bear arms and believing that 'everybody ought to have the right to BE the psycho with the gun'.

Who have you heard say that anyone has the right to use a gun to kill people-
(which is what a 'psycho' with a gun) would implicitely do?

I don't believe that I can say that you, as in Joe Nation, can't own a gun if you want to, but I definitely believe I have the right to say that I don't believe 'psychos' ought to be able to carry guns.

I DO believe there should be more stringent gun laws, but even here in England where there ARE stringent gun laws, people can own shotguns and hunt.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:32 pm
If a family goes to church on Sunday (of a standard Christian faith), I would feel better that they only have guns to protect themselves from the lawless in society.

Considering many people live in homes that are not within screaming distance of neighbors (to call the police), I can empathize with people wanting to protect themselves in a country where some people seem to mature into less than Eagle scout citizens, so to speak. The whole country cannot be Manhattan.

Having had to qualify as a marksman in the military, I just think that guns are for war, and I avoid people that think that killing Bambi for sport is ethical. But, just like California is supposed to have a "car culture," I understand that there is a "gun culture" in this country also. Even though I live in a metropolis, I still understand that for many people in this country, driving one's truck, with one's dog and gun nearby, is an identity that can make a person feel quite content. [Foofie exclaims, "Hee-haw"]

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:38 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
So, their limit of responsibility stops with their own use,
Yes. I believe that is very clear.



Joe Nation wrote:
and their support of what some might characterize
as an overabundance of weapons in our society counts for nothing?
Yes; that is an ACCURATE count.




Joe Nation wrote:
I don't know. I'm asking.

Joe( Neutral )Nation
Failing to be well and properly armed in self defense
is like failing to use your seatbelt while driving:
u will probably get away with it most of the time, but it is an imprudent practice.





David
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  4  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:40 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:

I am trying to see how many degrees of separation there are between the psycho with the gun and the regular guy/gal who thinks everybody ought to have the right to be the psycho with the gun.

Joe(nobody?)Nation


Stopped beating your wife yet, Joe?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:44 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
I am trying to see how many degrees of separation there are between the psycho with the gun
and the regular guy/gal who thinks everybody ought to have the right to be the psycho with the gun.

Joe(nobody?)Nation
U raise an interesting question.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:47 pm
@Joe Nation,
I don't think (as odd as these people are) you have to worry so much about the people that proudly display their guns - I'd worry more about those that secretly stock pile them.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:48 pm
@Joe Nation,
I don't think there is a direct connection between the two, other than as much as one human being is only a few degrees separated from any other.

I don't believe there is a direct connection between the generalized group of "people who like to own guns" and the generalized group of "mass/serial killers". I think the brains of these types of killers are simply focused on something far different than owning guns.

Guns are an easy way to kill once someone decides to kill, but I think they would find a way to kill no matter what. Timothy McVeigh blew up a building with fertilizer. Jack the Ripper used a knife. Some guy in Tokyo used Sarin Gas. Terrorists seized planes with box-cutters and used them to blow up buildings. The opportunities for mayhem once someone is motivated are endless.

Any potential benefit from restricting public access to guns could easily be outweighed by allowing only determined killers to get them (which they almost certainly would). But regardless of which side of that hair got split, I don't think it would make any appreciable change in the number of psychopathic time bomb people that are out there waiting to go off.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:51 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
http://static.awkwardfamilyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/2012/08/310621_10150394063263565_225455148_n/2576930876.jpg

Discuss.
THAT is a beautiful, alluring, magnificent picture, Joe.
That is AMERICA to me.

It 'd be better if thay had more revolvers, tho.
I only see 2 revolvers; the girl with the shotguns has one on her right hip.

We shud put that picture on the AMERICAN FLAG!
It speaks of AMERICANISM, personal freedom, Individualism, hedonism & Liberty.





David
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I'd watch out for granny there - with that look I doubt she would need a gun to depend herself.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:58 pm
@Linkat,
I noticed that.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 01:03 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
I'd watch out for granny there - with that look
I doubt she would need a gun to depend herself.
Maybe, but she takes no chances. She's holding a rifle in her left hand!





David
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 02:04 pm
@roger,
Ha - did you see I wrote depend rather than defend definately freudian.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 08:30 pm
The question I'm asking here, as some of you have alluded, is, even though there isn't a direct connection between the happy bunch of gun owners pictured above and the guy who thought he was the JOKER, there is, I think, an indirect connection for which they must accept some of the responsibility.

For generations, Americans ignored drunk driving as something that happened, no big deal, a tragedy to be sure, if the drunk drove head-on into the vacationing family of five but nothing connected to the vast numbers of people who 1) drove cars and behaved responsibly and 2) really hoped that the drunk drivers would never affect their freedom to drive (after drinking or otherwise) .

It wasn't until a national campaign against drunk driving was begun in the 1970's that this society began to say "Yes, I see. If I know my friend is drunk, it's my responsibility to take his keys away and get him (and the rest of society) home safe.

Where does the responsibility for the Aurora Movie Theater shootings begin?
This is a man who, six weeks before the shootings, was adjudged by a psychiatrist to be in a semi-psychotic state. Are you telling me that no one else in the gun owning community had any inkling of his unbalance? No one to say "Hey, before he hurts himself or others, something must be done."

I would argue that the current crop of gun owners are cowards about coming forward, personally or legally, to confront those who should not have guns in their possession.
Adian: I've known many people who would argue that ANY person should be allowed to have weapons, even automatic weapons, unless and UNTIL they use them against another human being. That always seems to me to be a bit too late, we should ask former Member of Congress Giffords. That is the condition of the gun culture of the USA: we must hold onto our guns and if some bad things happen, so what, we have still managed to hold onto our guns.
That's essentially the position of the NRA: unless someone acts illegally with a weapon in hand, that person has the right to own and hold that weapon.

so, to continue our search: we got the killer>>>connected to the white supremacist group>>>>Who's NEXT? >>>who else knew that this bunch of wackos had major fire power and intended, or said they intended, to use it against their enemies? And who knew those people knew?

Follow through the folds of the gun community of America, and, sooner or later, you will end up on the front porch of those people who love their guns more than they love the rest of all of you.

Joe(they have no inclination to self-police)Nation


wmwcjr
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 09:06 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
Where does the responsibility for the Aurora Movie Theater shootings begin?
This is a man who, six weeks before the shootings, was adjudged by a psychiatrist to be in a semi-psychotic state. Are you telling me that no one else in the gun owning community had any inkling of his unbalance? No one to say "Hey, before he hurts himself or others, something must be done."


Perhaps no one in the gun-owning community knew about his mental problem, especially if he was a loner (as many of these killers seem to be) and kept to himself. Just my 2 Cents worth.

By the way, I am not, and have never been, a Commu -- er, gun owner.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Do these people bear any responsibility for the recent mass killing in the USA?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 07:14:26