IMHO, rather simplistic observation. Actually, one does not replace the other; both have some degree of responsibility, along with mental health, profit motivations, and politics.
He was prescribed this stuff: http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-lanza-taking-antipsychotic-fanapt-2012-12
I was flipping through the channels and came across a reporting by HLN news on video games being a factor in this unfortunate incident. Though the news network has stated that their goal is to merely provide information to uninformed parents on the rating system of video games, I get the impression that their underlying intention was to stir up video games as a possible cause for the incident. They were interviewing a gamer who motioned for a gamer "cease fire", in which all gamers drop their controls as a makeshift "moment of silence" type of thing. However the questions they asked him attempted to uncover a possibility that video games are the cause for the incident. Now, though gun control is an important topic, I believe video games are another as well. It seems like many individuals (non-gamers), who are uninformed on the topic of video games, are quick to blame video games as the cause for any violent act performed by killers. This is alarming because, though video games do carry violent content, the wrongful blaming of video games for all violent acts can lead to the wrongful path to get to the root of the problem. What I mean is this, we're so quick to blame things, and jump to conclusions and generalizations. In this topic, we've been arguing that the availability of guns may or may not play a factor in this incident. How are we sure that it is in fact the availability of firearms was indeed the root cause of Adam Lanza's actions? How are we sure he might not have been able to acquire firearms through the blackmarket? We've also discussed parenting as a possible issue. However, our only source of information on Adam Lanza's parents are through news outlets. How are we sure that the Lanzas were indeed terrible parents? If they were such terrible parents, why did Ryan Lanza turn out as a normal human being, and Adam didn't? The drugs prescribed to Adam may have indeed play a role, however those are listed as "possible side effects". We're not sure if the drugs are indeed the cause of his actions. Possible effects does not imply actual cause. Like Ralph said, this situation is much more complex than a simple one possible cause. Remember, correlation does not imply causality. It seems that people are too quick to identify a social problem, and applying it as the cause of this incident. And simply because gun control and video games are controversial topics that may or may not be a problem in society, one should not be as quick to blame them as primary cause for the shooting. It could be any reasons not stated above, for all we know. This ultimately leads back to why media is so dangerous. Yes, the purpose of being for media is good in the sense that it provides us witch information. And as discussed in previous posts, having information is better than having no information. But there comes a point where the sensationalism in which media is trying to convey to viewers skews the information in such a way that it instils biased notions into the minds of viewers. Media is then no longer an information provider, it becomes a soap opera. It caters the information to what viewers want to see, which is sensationalism. Now this is something that's uncontrollable, however, we as viewers should learn to distinguish correct information from bad ones. edit: So apparently, media is throwing around the idea of arming teachers. As a Canadian, forgive me for asking: What the fuck? edit 2: What I mean [video=youtube;PezlFNTGWv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4[/video]
One simply has to read Bradley's (Flags of Our Fathers) Imperial Cruise to get a sense of what media can do and the degree of dangerousness that it can render in the world (Hint: one can say that it ultimately elected a racist president who set in motion the events needed for WW2 in the Pacific). But knowing your audience and giving them what they want is essential for staying in business. One example is, while a prostitute can hire out to talk philosophy, we know her bread is butter is between the sheets; it's simply what she does best. News media, like any other business is no different. Rush Limbaugh in this sense, is a genius in that he is the epitome of the information panderer who knows how to give his audience exactly what they want; he collects millions in sponsorship fees while he happily muck rakes to his satisfied throngs. Even journalism's much vaunted Pulitzer too, is named after a founder of sensationalist press (we forget that he was a US Congressman, also). But to hold the view that news dissemination (like video games), is at the root or causation for this shooting, is a stretch by any imagination. What the Freeman Hoax posits essentially is "News Makes Celebrity, Shooter wants Celebrity, Hence He Needs To Do Something To Get On The News" to explain the impetus for the shooting, right? Well, in this same vein, he (the shooter) could have just as easily chosen to discover the cure for cancer. Hence, it is a position that I find hard to wrap my arms around. The shooter could have chosen to do a myriad of other things; he didn't, he chose to pick up a gun, which in and of itself, speaks tremendously as to his state of mind. Why people will "choose" to remember his name and forget his victims isn't because of news media, it's the nature of the fear basis within infamy. People remember such names not because he's beloved for doing something good, but because he's feared for doing something evil. Man's brain seemed to be survival hardwire for recalling bad things much more than good things. Of course, there are "anti-heroes" (per your video second edit) who use examples of extreme violence as examples to achieve their sense of glorification. But without guns access to guns, their's promises to be a frustrated dream. As for video games; they do affect gamers, but not in the sense that some wish to make from them. IMHO, the idea of one shot, one kill, ie. efficiency of the head shot, is directly related to video games. The video generation has been attributed to be the cause of shooter deviation from historic center mass wounds to more fatal head wounds. Most video gamers have a greater degree of coordination and can accomplish repetitive motion tasks more rapidly, while maintaining a greater sense of situational awareness, over a non gamer. Jack Thompson, the anti-video game activist said it best when he coined the phrase "murder simulators" in his describing what First Person Shooters actually are; I agree with him on that point. Like using a flight simulator to better one's flying skills using a shooting program improves one's shooting skills, from target selection to hand eye coordination. However, I disagree that video games was the cause of crazed killers. While years of playing Call Of Duty likely honed his combat skills, why he actually picked up a gun and shot real people (his mother and a school's kids) is a whole other issue. Else, every single one of us would be picking up guns and marching down to our local elementary school. In the report by HLN, one has to remember that every news organ is looking for an "angle" to make their story rise above the din. Next, I'm sure we're going to hear about how he was abused as a child, or how he was bullied, or how he (as is now being reported) was influenced or controlled by pharmaceuticals. Having said all that, in answering your question of "...How are we sure that it is in fact the availability of firearms was indeed the root cause of Adam Lanza's actions? How are we sure he might not have been able to acquire firearms through the black market?" The availability of firearms was definitely NOT the root cause of Lanza's actions. If that were the case, we would have a thousand shootings every day, given the known availability of firearms in the US. The easy access and availability was what facilitated his actions, it is not the cause. As for black market guns? Let us not kid ourselves. Most people make is seem so easy (like going to the grocery store, or ordering on line), to "simply" get a black market weapon. It's not simple at all; you have to know some pretty shady people, and have the right amount of money; then you have to buy your own bullets. Adam Lanza, for all intents and purposes, came from a cloistered world in the nice part of town. If his mother didn't have a gun in the closet IMHO, he likely never would have been able to ever set his hands on one. As for arming teachers? That sounds like just the type of solution that the NRA wants. Then we'll hear of another shooting by the child of a teacher who left her "service" weapon in the closet only to have it stolen by her angry son who went on a rampage. Sound familiar? The problem here is having so many guns so easily available. There are angry people the world over; but only in the US can that angry person reach into a closet and find a loaded gun. That's why we have so many shootings, why is it so hard to see that?
It was a perfect storm of many different factors. To address the video game issue: Lots of kids can play incredibly violent video game, but are in real life completely harmless. When you get someone who is mentally ill and unable to differentiate between reality and fantasy or understand the real life gravity, consequences, or horror of killing people, then having them frequently playing incredibly violent video games, taking drugs that make them more prone to violence, and being within easy access to firearms is probably not the smartest idea...
i love how ppl usually blame video games for violence rather than other mediums such as television and movies. But then i guess the interactivity does factor in a bit.
Commentary questioning that premise: [video=youtube;37XEyIhAFTo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37XEyIhAFTo[/video] And what one viewer said: I tend to agree, LOL...
Its so stupid how media tries to blame this on a simple video game...I think i saw the news and the game they said Lanza was playing is SC2, it just doesnt make sense. Now he turned into a marine and saw all those kids as zerlings so he killed them all? that's rubbish
I would lol if he was playing protoss or zerg. Maybe he wanted to be a zergling or a zealot lol. Though I share your views on diminishing the number of firearms that are readily available as they currently are in the States, I must state that there is no correlation between the number of firearms and the number of armed homicides. And I'm not making this up. Many institutions have already made studies into whether or not there is a correlation between gun control and violent crimes, and they have all concluded that there is no correlation. I'm not saying that guns shouldn't be controlled, or even banned (as that's what I support), I am merely stating that there is no correlation between the two. Here are some analysis: http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-6.pdf There are plenty of other equivalent conclusions online. I must admit though, I was surprised to see that gun control doesn't influence crime rate at all. However, that still doesn't influence my stance that guns should be banned. Gun control may not influence crime, but as a Canadian, where firearms are virtually non-existent compared to America, I just don't feel comfortable sitting on a bus with someone with a concealed carry, licensed or not.
I disagree with the argument that there is no correlation between the number of firearms and the number of armed homicides; a simple look at the number of gun related deaths in the US versus the rest of the world would anecdotally bear that out. We have the most guns and we have the most gun deaths. One doesn't need to be an actuary to see the proportional relationship. Besides, in the US, we never really had any gun control. What meager attempts made have historically been crippled by NRA political action. Real gun control (ie. like that in Japan or China) has never existed in the US, so for all intents and purposes, there has been zero research. Hence it would be more correct to say: there has been no proper research in whether gun control has any correlation to violent crime rates, as a true state of complete control of firearms has never been achieved in history of the Unites States. True gun control, IMHO, would be to completely cease the selling of guns and ammunition; with subsequent confiscation of all personal firearms and ammunition stockpiles. Only then can we appreciate what gun control can do vis a vis its effect on violent crime. Oh, and BTW, just an FYI, but the American Civil Rights Union and the Cato Institute are both politically right leaning organizations. The ACRU would likely have a partisan interest, in that its mission listed in Wiki includes I would think that quoting from the ACRU would be almost the equivalent of quoting from the NRA. Interestingly, in the one link of yours that wasn't openly affiliated with right leaning principles, there was this passage: I take this to mean, the more guns you have around, the more dead people you will have.
You know what, perhaps your argument has merit in that retrospect. Though I'd like to state for the record that I am not arguing against gun control nor for. I'm just trying to comprehend the validity and fact confirmation of some of the arguments that have been demonstrated by posters in this thread. You may be right in stating that the number of guns is proportional to the number of crimes, however by some devil's luck, it could be merely an unrelated coincidence (I'm not saying it is, but it could be a possibility. I'm playing the devil's advocate here lol). Until we ascertain for sure via some analysis that this hypothesis is true, I am hesitant to say with full absoluteness that it is the case (as much as my personal opinions may agree with it). It may be by coincidence that the links I've posted could be associated with the NRA, and thus are biased, but a simple google search would show that there are countless other sources that came to the same conclusion, and are unaffiliated with the NRA. In the end, what I'm saying is, as a Canadian, I would agree (or want to agree) that gun control may diminish crimes, but until this point, there isn't any cited evidence (in this thread), that points to the possibility that gun control would fully eliminate armed crimes. Even in Canada where gun control is in full effect, armed crimes occur with similar rates as the UK statistics that Aoes pointed out. In the past year alone we've had some highly publicized shootings in Toronto and Montreal. Furthermore, to relate it back to the incident, we don't know for certain that the lack of gun control was the primary contributor to Adam Lanza's rampage. So I ask this, you and I may both agree that gun control would be a beneficial thing to implement in a society, however is this the correct root of the problem of Lanza's rampage? Have we truly identified the root problem of similar shootings? Or are we merely correlating an existing problem to the incident?
Granted, nearly all observations about guns and their relationship to violence is really anecdotal, as there is really no strict control validation in which zero guns existed (in the US or elsewhere); we can only make a variety of assumptions. But even assumptions can be based scientifically and be statistically rational. One example is, in the absence of oxygen, would there be oxygen toxicity? It wouldn't matter if someone was getting 21, 24, 35, 50, 80, or 100% oxygen concentrations; it would not matter what their respiratory rate or lung volume, nor time of exposure. If no oxygen existed, then oxygen toxicity cannot exist (of course, if there is no oxygen your patient dies; that's another story, but they won't have gone from oxygen toxicity, LOL...). Likewise, if we were to establish full and complete gun control, then gun violence theoretically cannot exist. In that regard, one of the biggest gun control countries in the world is the People's Republic of China. Citizens cannot own guns and it's not out of fears for public safety, but out of concern for political stability. Historically the Chinese are pretty accustomed to weapons control as previous dynasties practiced this (even with swords, pikes, and shields), again simply for prevention of armed overthrow. But, despite that, was such historic prohibitions absolute in its effectiveness? Of course not. There were, and has, and will continue to be, those who have secret caches of arms; be they criminal gangs, insurrectionists, weapons profiteers, et cetera. However, their impact and level of gun related violence on society in general is almost zero. As for Adam Lanza; if gun control was absolute and his mother could not have legally bought a weapon; would he still be a mentally diseased, frustrated and angry young man? Of course he would. Now, can he simply reach into the closet and succumb to his emotional pathology? Well, yes, but he'll only find a bat, or golf club, a belt, flower pot, shoes, or a myriad of other low lethality items, and NOT a semi-automatic rifle that can kill so many before police and other citizens have time to react. That is how gun control would have stopped this by taking away his, and anyone else's easy access to mass lethality; it's really moot what their problem was, that they won't be able to kill so many so quickly is what really matters. Would they be able to get something on the "black market?" Absolutely. But I'm willing to take my chances with that. Will only criminals have guns? Yes, but I'm willing to take my chances with that too. Again, one only has to look back at the majority of these mass shootings to realize that nearly every single weapon used gained it's original entry into society by legal purchase. Yes, absolutely. But the biggest and most critical factor, in all of these mass shooting cases; that all required easy access to firearms. IMHO, if we had factored that one item out, then likely none of these shooting would have ever occurred.
^ it's a simple idea and i really do believe Americans find it hard to believe... You have a gun vs you don't have a gun... are you going to kill? Guns are made to kill, its as simple as that and now you give easy access to someone who's mentally unstable and you get the obvious.. why is this so hard to comprehend?
Perhaps, or perhaps not. From the same logic, one could make the argument that if the mother didn't give birth to Adam, he would not have killed these people. Please don't misunderstand, I'm for the idea that there isn't a need for firearms or concealed carry. However, the possibility you outlined is merely one of the indefinite ways the situation could have turned out, if gun control were to have been put into effect. Though I must ask: have we forgotten the recent incident that occurred in China? For a country that has the most efficient gun control systems in the world, kids were still managed to be stabbed. Despite the lower fatality count, the fact that a child was stabbed is as bad as death by firearm. This purely shows that gun isn't the issue here. It is an issue, yes, but not the one we should be looking at in terms of Lanza's crime. He could have easily just came in with an axe, a sword, a crossbow or whatever to commit his crime. Though I fully understand and agree with Ang's point about the pointlessness of firearms, I ask whether our discussion about a utopia where guns doesn't exist in society (due to ban/control) is really the correct question we should be discussing. If not guns, then something else. And with this said, I would agree with Aoes' previous statement that it is not the guns that's the root of the problem. It's humanity, society and the system; particularly America's. Controlling the tools is analogous to Tylenol curing symptoms. It's fine if we want to control or ban firearms. But we're still not addressing the root of the problem.
Don't get me wrong, Dan; I'm not disagreeing with you that there are other factors involved; that gun control isn't the only recourse. However, given that total gun control, ie zero tolerance for guns, would be the most effective (you cannot have gun violence if no guns existed) then movement towards that goal seems pretty logical to me. Do we have need for mental health assistance, anger management, emotional understanding? Of course. But until that happens, we need to stop the killing and what will do that the quickest is to get the guns out of people's hands. Your point of China's stabbing is exactly what I'm talking about; while anger mismanagement will still inevitably exist, I'm sure the parents of those stabbed kids are thankful that there is a gun ban in China; their kids are still alive. Thus, I totally disagree with your statement: Like, huh? So if those kids in China, who were stabbed but survived, instead were shot and killed; it couldn't be any worse? Geez, Dan; in a statement like that, where's the humanity? The two outcomes are on such different levels that to equate one to the other is, in my mind at least, unfathomable. Further, your comment about using an awe, sword, crossbow really illustrates a lack of appreciation for the lethality of firearms; one can literally take a life from a half mile away, and can do it at a rate of 800 rounds per min. I wonder if those kids in China who were scattering when Knife-Man came into the room, how many more he could have gotten had he an AR15 like Lanza's. The adults who finally tackled him wouldn't have been able to get close to him; he would have killed them from a distance. Heck, even the responding cops (with their cheap pistols) wouldn't have been able to touch him. If you honestly believe that a knife, ax, or crossbow is the equivalent of an assault rifle, then excuse me; but there's no point in having a discussion if that's going to be your understanding of reality. Same as a knife? Yeah, right. [video=youtube;CbyEeaDAFhM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbyEeaDAFhM[/video] Having said that, I agree that we should look at all other issues. But we need to stop the killing immediately and the quickest path to that is to stop selling of guns (simply because of their extraordinary degree of lethality). Then we can sit for the next several centuries and deal with fixing the ills of humanity, one of which seems to be the penchant to openly profit from the suffering of others.
I honestly fail to understand why you're speaking so condescendingly to me. I had nothing but the utmost respect for your posts on this forum, and to a certain extent, I still do. I take great offence in your statement "Geez, Dan; where's your humanity?". I'm insulted by anyone who questions my humanity, something I strive to make sure I never lose. You obviously are able to measure the weight of whether a crime is more severe than another by the number of lives taken. To me, the fact that a child of under 5 had to experience the pain of being fatally stabbed is unfathomable. Take another example, what if the child was raped? You obviously have a child, and I don't, and I may be wrong on this, but if I do have a child, and God forbid should any of these crimes happen to my child, I will treat them with the same weight: the maximum weight. If my child was raped, or stabbed, the level of emotions I would feel would be as much as if the unmentionable happened. And that's how I feel about this situation. I feel anger that innocent lives were taken. And I feel the same anger that children were stabbed. Any pain directed towards innocent children carries the maximum weight. I am appalled that my "humanity" was even in question. Furthermore, further insulting me by stating my "lack of appreciation for lethality of firearms" just adds salt to the wound. I practice martial arts, and I understand first hand the lethality of weapons. A firearm is a tool. A bladed weapon is a tool. Different tools are used for different scenarios. You're comparing a damn M60 machine gun to a god damned butter knife. First off, if the police where there, I don't believe the situation would have escalated as it did. And I'm sure the police have more than simple "cheap pistols". If SWAT teams had only "cheap pistols", what in the living HELL is America doing? Moreover, say an individual was proficient with the bow. He could be as effective as an incompetent individual with a pistol. I'm saying there's a possibility. Obviously, criminals aren't going to resort to an axe, or arrow weapon, but my point is, these weapons have the same lethality as any weapon. They. Fucking. Kill. If guns are banned, they'll resort to these weapons, and continue their spree. Your statement of "we need to stop the killing immediately" is still not addressed. However, right now I feel so incredibly insulted that I honestly don't want to pursue this discussion any further. I was actually looking forward to hear your thoughts and others, in order to see what the best middle ground solution might be, but fuck it. Have a good December 21st.
My apologies Dan, I never meant to directly insult or offend you, and frankly after I wrote what I did, I amended a good portion of it because it did sound (as you stated) a bit strident and condescending. I too have the utmost respect for you and your point of view and I genuinely appreciate the back and forth discussions. Sometimes, in my haste to get my point across, my choice of words may not be the most polite, and for that I humbly apologize. As for comparing an M60 to a butter knife? No. The weapon in the video is of the same caliber .223 weapon that Lanza used. His was not full auto, but semi-auto, which against a defenseless school, would be a moot point. One of the things wrong about comparing hand to hand weapons with standoff weapons is that standoff weapons don't require one to be distracted by having to defend himself. As for the cheap pistols comment, it was directed at the knife situation in the PRC, where the GongAn (Public Security) typically uses small sidearms. They rarely have to go up against anything heavier (In fact, there's a series of pics on the net of police trying repeatedly to kill a boar with their sidearms, but that's another story). Rapid fire long weapons has tremendous tactical advantage when compared to close quarter weapons in that they can defeat flight by victims. While someone armed with a knife or ax is dangerous, they can only hurt someone if they can reach them. A rifle completely removes that from the survival equation. Hence, the degree of lethality is greater IMHO. Also having a slow loading standoff weapon like a crossbow isn't as advantageous. Can they kill? Of course, seasoned hunters use bows to kill bears; I get that. But reloading each shot is slow. To the average enraged killer; would any of those weapons really have allowed them the same rapid lethality and overwhelming tactical advantage? IMHO, No. If Lanza had walked into the school with a knife, ax, or bow, he would have hurt people, but not to the degree that he did, is all I'm saying about guns vs knives. You're right in that it doesn't completely solve the killing issue, but it would move tremendously towards thwarting the bulk of it, which is what I'd meant to say. As for my unintended insults, again, I'm genuinely sorry that you were personally offended by my poorly worded commentary on humanity and I sincerely apologize. What I meant to say simply was that regardless of whatever transpired, any parent would rather have their child alive than dead. Peace.
3 words to summarize this : our society's fault! We get into a very complex society and things happen. It could happen in your house, school, workplace, your gym.. etc.
