Quote:

Ames takes a systematic look at the scores of rage killings in our public schools and workplaces that have taken place over the past 25 years. He claims that instead of being the work of psychopaths, they were carried out by ordinary people who had suffered repeated humiliation, bullying and inhumane conditions that find their origins in the "Reagan Revolution." Looking through a carefully researched historical lens, Ames recasts these rage killings as, essentially, failed slave rebellions.

---

Quote:

We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.

---

Annapurna1 said:

Quote:

Ames takes a systematic look at the scores of rage killings in our public schools and workplaces that have taken place over the past 25 years. He claims that instead of being the work of psychopaths, they were carried out by ordinary people who had suffered repeated humiliation, bullying and inhumane conditions that find their origins in the "Reagan Revolution." Looking through a carefully researched historical lens, Ames recasts these rage killings as, essentially, failed slave rebellions.

---

---

Arp said:

You can threaten the symptom or treat the disease

---

Seuss said:

I think it has less to do with Ronald Reagan and more to do with a society that for some insane reason brainwashes their children into believing that they are special little angles and that life owes them whatever they want.  Unfortunately, when the children leave the "perfect world nest" and have to deal with real life where they aren't special little angles that life owes whatever their desires dictate, they get upset, and in extreme cases, they lash out.

---

Exactly. The parents never bring the child to interaction with the real world, and they become secluded. Then you force them into a public, formal institution like school and they aren't going to be able to deal with the interactions they are faced with.

Result: exactly. These parents need to engage their child in a lot of interactive activity with the real world when they are very young, and to be capable of supporting them as they become older and become more involved with the real world.

The cause of this tragedy can be summed up in two words: Bad Parenting.

Ngalyod said:

What the fuck IS wrong with your country? Seriously.

---

lonestar2004 said:

Politics BABY.

How To Defend Yourself From Violent Attack:

LIBERAL WAY-

1) Cower in fear, while begging for your life.
2) Notify next-of-kin.

CONSERVATIVE WAY:

BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!
(reload)
BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!

---

Arp said:

You can threaten the symptom or treat the disease

---

mattzdope said:

Fear/cowardice on the part of those who were there in that building.

---

FrenchSocialist said:

mattzdope said:

Fear/cowardice on the part of those who were there in that building.

---

If you are unarmed and you run after a guy with a gun, you are just asking to get shot.

---

mattzdope said:

Surely a group of 10 unarmed men (likely half that number) could have easily charged and overpowered one man with 2 handguns.

---

mattzdope said:

A lot of people are of the stance that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" which is good.

---

Unless you get shot, then it's bad.

kotik said:

Annapurna1 said:

Quote:

Ames takes a systematic look at the scores of rage killings in our public schools and workplaces that have taken place over the past 25 years. He claims that instead of being the work of psychopaths, they were carried out by ordinary people who had suffered repeated humiliation, bullying and inhumane conditions that find their origins in the "Reagan Revolution." Looking through a carefully researched historical lens, Ames recasts these rage killings as, essentially, failed slave rebellions.

---

---

ah, but an important factor was left out - antidepressants

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=18410

pretty shocking list, linking many school shootings to prescription drugs. Although I doubt the pharmaceutical companies would let this leak into the mainstream, much like you never hear of how microbiologists are always dying in strange ways.

---

FrenchSocialist said:

The only reasonable solution to this kind of problem is to outlaw guns. I'm sure people could still use knives, but I don't think that anyone could kill 30 people with a knife at a college campus.

---

and because drugs are outlawed nobody is in possession of or uses any

elbisivni said:

FrenchSocialist said:

The only reasonable solution to this kind of problem is to outlaw guns. I'm sure people could still use knives, but I don't think that anyone could kill 30 people with a knife at a college campus.

---

and because drugs are outlawed nobody has or does any

---

Quote:

The only reasonable solution to this kind of problem is to outlaw guns.

---

Quote:

I'm sure people could still use knives, but I don't think that anyone could kill 30 people with a knife at a college campus.

---

Seuss said:

I think it has less to do with Ronald Reagan and more to do with a society that for some insane reason brainwashes their children into believing that they are special little angles and that life owes them whatever they want.  Unfortunately, when the children leave the "perfect world nest" and have to deal with real life where they aren't special little angles that life owes whatever their desires dictate, they get upset, and in extreme cases, they lash out.

---

Quote:

Heck... just give the guy a joint... nothing like a little cannabis to take motivation right out of mass murder.

---

agreed  ...

FrenchSocialist said:

The only reasonable solution to this kind of problem is to outlaw guns. I'm sure people could still use knives, but I don't think that anyone could kill 30 people with a knife at a college campus.

---

mattzdope said:

A lot of people are of the stance that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" which is good.

---

America is the only nation in the developed world that thinks like this. People kill people with guns. You're not going to get a strangler massacaring 30 people in one go.

If you had tougher gun laws, you'd have less situations like this. Give me an example of any massacre where "right to arms" has helped those being attacked (the most common pro-gun argument - the ability to protect yourself from "evil people"). Students and children don't go around with guns, but maybe some people think they should? How many children and people are going to be shot dead before your nation changes the laws?

(edit) also, people who say that banning guns is pointless as criminals will always be able to get them: making something readily available is simply encouraging the problem. Reduce the availability, reduce the number in circulation, reduce the number of shootings. Fairly self-explanitory to most people non-USA (and Im sure to a lot of Americans too). Also, isnt it morally repulsive that your country legally provides these murderers with their weapons? Your government allowed this man to purchase and use a firearm to do this deed. I say the blood's partly on the hands of the pro-gun lobbyists. if everyone was anti-gun, noone could be said to have encouraged use of guns.

mattzdope said:

"guns don't kill people, people kill people"

---

Ravus said:

Do you read the entire links you post? The last lines of that article say:

"The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was established by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights."

Not to mention the entire article lacks in scientific verity. It is possible that antidepressants can increase the risk of violence and suicide in susceptible individuals, but it's also likely that individuals prone to violence and suicide would be prescribed these drugs in the first place, so until you can separate correlation from causation it's meaningless.

---

Quote:

The shooter was “wearing a vest covered in clips was just unloading on their door, going from classroom to classroom … They said it never seemed like it was going to stop and there was just blood all over,” Harrison said.

---

Quote:

. The step that some governments take (like in Europe) is to take away guns due to horrific gun violence such as this. The only thing this accomplishes is for those with a criminial mentality to rule over the rest of the population. After all of the stories I have read about Muslim youths pushing people around on buses and flicking knifes and people dying when they stand up to them (after all, the police certainly aren't around to protect anyone), I could not tolerate an America that put its citizens in that kind of harm. Fuck that!

---

Seuss said:

> The only reasonable solution to this kind of problem is to outlaw guns.

Yes, that way only criminals have guns.  Since we cannot get rid of guns... it will not happen, even if they are illegal... the only reasonable solution is to arm everybody...

> People kill people with guns.

... and with knives, and with bats, and with cars, and with glass bottles, and with about anything that can be used as a weapon.  A gun makes an effective weapon, but that doesn't mean that people must have a gun in order to kill.

The statement "Guns don't kill, people kill" is accurate.  I don't know of a single case where a person was killed, or even shot, by a gun that was not being  held by a person or by a machine controlled by a person.  Guns are inanimate objects that do not have a mind of their own.  The user of the gun is responsible, not the gun itself.

> also, people who say that banning guns is pointless as criminals will always be able to get them

Because it is a true statement.  With something like 200 million legal guns in the US (plus however many million illegal guns), you are not going get rid of them any more than you are going to stop people from smoking cannabis.  The guns will always be available to those that want them.  We have seen the effects of prohibition of drugs on society... the prohibition of guns would create the same kind of black market problems.

> Also, isnt it morally repulsive that your country legally provides these murderers with their weapons?

The US isn't socialist... it is the governments job to protect the people's rights... not to babysit them or take away all the toys with sharp edges.  The country did not provide "these murderers" with their weapons.  The government does not provide guns to US citizens... though now if I think about it, if they had, then this probably wouldn't have happened... but, getting back on point... The fault lies with the person that pulled the trigger... he made the choice to kill... if it wasn't a gun, it would have been a knife, a car, a bomb, poison, or something else.

> if you had tougher gun laws, you'd have less situations like this.

The problem isn't needing tougher laws, for the most part, but rather the problem is the lack of enforcement on the current laws.  Cops are too busy busting drug users to worry about little things like violent crime.  (I don't blame the cops; it is the politicians that created the mess.)

> Give me an example of any massacre where "right to arms" has helped those being attacked (the most common pro-gun argument

Fallacious question... if the "right to arms" worked, then there would be no massacre... However, I have not heard of a single massacre where one of the victims was armed.

> Shouldn't it be: people with guns kill people?

Nope, better is: People kill; guns make effective weapons.

---

You sound like a politician! Selective quoting of my arguments! Thats not debate!

America has an out of control gun culture. If you made ownership of guns illegal, and people returned their guns (like we did in the UK with knives during the knife amnesty) you'd reduce gun culture.

Will you not admit that these spates of shootings are entirely down to you gun culture? You dont see them in the UK. If you want to stop children and innocents getting shot, you have to take steps, you cant keep blabbing on about how "guns dont shoot themselves", and how you need to protect your own ass. Would you not sacrifice your right to own a gun if it would save other people's lives? Trouble with the US that it is, more than any other country, egocentric, not sociocentric. People put themselves first, not the greater good, moreso than anywhere else in the world.

elbisivni said:

so why the media bias? I read that whole article and didn't really see any sufficient reasoning, unless I managed to gloss over it.

---

Arp said:

magical country of milk and honey, where you need to arm yourself in order to feel safe? kinda contradictory

---

mr_kite said:

America is the only nation in the developed world that thinks like this. People kill people with guns. You're not going to get a strangler massacaring 30 people in one go.

---

You're also not going to be able to take down a deer with a knife.

Quote:

If you had tougher gun laws, you'd have less situations like this. Give me an example of any massacre where "right to arms" has helped those being attacked (the most common pro-gun argument - the ability to protect yourself from "evil people").

---

There are countless stories, feel free to use Google... "Tougher" gun laws are not necessary, and its revealing that you would use such a term. More regulation might be in order, but to deny individuals the right to bear arms in America is not right.

Maybe the rest of the world does not understand this because the rest of the world is so used to monarchies and being slaves to others.

Quote:

How many children and people are going to be shot dead before your nation changes the laws?

---

Quote:

(edit) also, people who say that banning guns is pointless as criminals will always be able to get them: making something readily available is simply encouraging the problem.

---

Guns are not "readily available". Perhaps we could take more steps in regulation to more effectively screen it out, but what you fail to understand is that you cannot obstruct the right of the American people to own guns. I mean, you have fucking nuts that will hiijack an airplane and kill people with it - are we going to take away airplanes now?

Quote:

Reduce the availability, reduce the number in circulation, reduce the number of shootings.

---

Quote:

Also, isnt it morally repulsive that your country legally provides these murderers with their weapons? Your government allowed this man to purchase and use a firearm to do this deed.

---

No, it isn't. His actions were his own. In America, we don't appreciate it when our rights as Americans are taken away because of the actions of a few. England is used to having a monarchy that controls their lives and makes their decisions for them - well, guess what, America said fuck that.

Quote:

I say the blood's partly on the hands of the pro-gun lobbyists. if everyone was anti-gun, noone could be said to have encouraged use of guns.

---

Yeah, now if we can only get everyone to be anti-drug as well, then there would be no usage of drugs!

I say the blood is in the hands of the individual who committed the act. The act was unfortunate, but its reality. Maybe some people just have a difficult time dealing with reality and feel the need to look for ways to control other people's lives.

I read an article about world opinion regarding the incident and how we need more gun control. Oh what, is the rest of the world going to spank us? Take away our toys? You've been bad, America, bad!

Our rights are our own - a lot of people do not understand what it means to live in a land of freedom.

lonestar2004 said:

Arp said:

You can threaten the symptom or treat the disease

---

wearing a vest covered in clips..... If he just had some counseling and Prozac this may never have happened....

---

FrenchSocialist said:

The only reasonable solution to this kind of problem is to outlaw guns. I'm sure people could still use knives, but I don't think that anyone could kill 30 people with a knife at a college campus.

---

Quote:

Sounds like a Dem...

---

Quote:

I cannot at all fault any specific individual but the fact that no individuals stepped up, out of a pool of hundreds, is disheartening and a symptom of the liberal mindset.

---