• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

News Violence In America

Status
Not open for further replies.

VioletButterfly

MyPTSD Pro
Okay - yes, we have a lot of guns here that are readily availability; however, I don't have a problem with "Beau" or "Bob" going out onto their shooting range and shooting cans/ bottles for sport. My issue and I feel the real issue is the people who are vulnerable in our society who have access to these weapons who then take them act out with them on others in our society.

Who believes that this is really a mental health issue and not a gun control issue? Really? Yes, it's a combo but, truly it's a mental health issue. Really?

It's breaking my heart to see people of all ages - 1st grade thru elder years die because someone doesn't have access to MH care and/or whose friends don't disclose tweets/Facebook, verbal statements, etc.... It seems to behoove us all to step in/up and help.

Does anyone have any ideas how to do this? A game plan? The government sure doesn't seem to have a plan - they seem to just keep propounding gun control and that isn't working.

I'm ready to reach out to Oprah. Does anyone else listen when it comes it mindfulness, meditation, spirituality, balance, tec...... I don't want to go commercial on you, but really????? My head it out of the sand and beyond prayer on this issue. I watch what's going on in Africa and the Middle East. Horrific!!!

God puts people in our paths to help us to the next level. Really. What do you think?

Just interested in thoughts and feelings on this. I know this is loaded, but with an international audience, I thought I might get a good sense of how the world is viewing this away from CNN. Tks. VB
 
Thank you for moving this. I wasn't quite sure, beyond contacting CCN or MNSBC directly to place this. Although a lot of us struggle with violence and it's after-effects on a daily basis, I just thought I should bring it up. If inappropriate or triggering, please let me know and I won't post any other posts of this kind. It just hurts my heart and I feel we can best speak to it, whether responders, victims, or family. VB
 
It's not inappropriate, in my judgement - and if we were to try any avoid every potentially triggering topic we'd have nothing left to talk about.

What affects me a lot, lately, is how it's become almost common to hear of a mass shooting, and they are frequently at schools. What's the reason? Who knows.

But it's clearly (now) something that 'people do', and will continue to be copied by people looking to vent their anger, pain, psychosis.

I personally don't know how there can be any other kind of solution except for stronger gun control. And I don't get why so many Americans see that as a problem. Gun control doesn't mean you can't have your guns. But people get afraid, they get angry - so, our liberal freedoms remain intact. And another disturbed person shoots up a school.

It's so sad, and frustrating.
 
IMO The more we try to simplify/dumb down complex situations into simple solutions? The less anything gets done. Maybe a bit of reactive legislation over here, maybe a lot of hue & outcry & demonstrations over there, but... As long as we keep insisting on instant results with clear blame laid at someone's feet, in 10 words or less & now a word from our sponsors? Nothing of note or significance will ever actually take place.

We can't make it simple with fat = fast food! Or violence = ban guns! Or crap education = more tests!

We want easy answers. We are fixated on easy answers. Well, the solutions to complex problems often don't have easy answers. There simply aren't sexy "I started this program in the beginning of my term in office & now it's fixed 2 years later!" sound byte solutions to most problems.

Do those answers happen sometimes? Yep. (Hello, Australia!!! :tup:). Just often enough to give us hope simple solutions exist. But when we've already tried to enact simple solutions, and they don't work... Either because they don't address all the problems of a multifaceted issue, or -more commonly- because of huge resistance ... I just wish we'd learn, and move on. Okay. That clearly doesn't work. What else can we do? But we don't. We sit around having 6 months of talking heads shouting about how it "could" work (or not), and jack shit gets done.

The State of Vermont looked at its prison population, like many states have, but instead of trying to reduce crime by increasing the punishments (which has been proven not to work 1000x over, but "Tough on Crime!" Is a sexy solution)... They did a pretty revolutionary thing: the mandated that social workers visit every family, rich or poor, at least 3 times. At birth, at home shortly after birth, and several months later. WTF did they do this when trying to reduce prison populations & crime rates? Because the stats clearly showed that the majority of prisoners came from abusive & neglectful homes, & were living in poverty most of their lives. There were plenty of social services available. From food assistance to parenting classes to subsidized education & daycare. But, low and behold, exhausted new parents? First off barely go anywhere. Secondly, the stigma of asking for help (and the fear of losing your children), was found to keep most families from taking advantage of programs offered. What sending social workers to every family did was not only remove the 3 biggest hurdles to assistance (stigma, fear, & leaving the house with a new baby), but provided interventions on the spot. If a new family was struggling for money, or post pardon depression, or finding reliable childcare? Services came to them. Was this a sexy program? Nope. It took 15 years to show initial results (juvenile offenders), and 20 years for true results (adult offenders). What those results were? Astronomical drop in crime & prison populations. Greater than any other crime reduction policy in this nation before or since.

What Vermont did are in psych & sociology textbooks nationwide. What the did was to first ignore the sexy solution, second ignore the "shoulds" (well people "should" take advantage of blah blah blah) and look at what people actually did. And then they started from scratch. Want to reduce crime? Reduce the number of criminals. How? By helping them become productive members of society *before* they got arrested. Starting from the beginning. If most criminals are abused kids in poverty? How do we reduce the number of abused kids living in poverty?

Sadly, I believe the program has since been cut. (Hey, our crime rates are low! Why do we need this hugely expensive anti-crime program? Cut it!)
 
Hurrah for Vermont! (Unless they cut the program! :mad:)

I don't see it as a gun problem. I see it as a "people can't find better ways to deal with problems" problem. Or maybe it's a "people think they have the right to kill people for their own reasons" problem. If you want to do that, and you don't have a gun, you build a bomb. You know, like a "Boston Marathon Bomb"?

It's more complicated to deal with people than it is to deal with guns. It would be nice if the solution was just to take guns away from "these people". But, to do that, we'd have to identify "these people". If we could DO that, wouldn't it make more sense to just deal with THEM instead?

My T was saying, a few weeks ago, that, for the last year he found data, all the police in Norway, combined, fired their guns twice in the line of duty and no one got hurt. Why? I'm thinking it's NOT because no one in Norway has a gun, it's because there is a different attitude, a higher level of respect, for EVERYONE, and, as a result, less problems and different reactions. Yes, it's a smaller country and less diverse, but I think there's more to it than that. And I think maybe we should explore what's different and see if we can learn something. Switzerland is similar. As I understand it, everyone HAS to have a gun in their home, as a part of their homeland defense system. But there's very little gun violence.

I read, some time ago, that the drop in the crime rate to occurred in the last century correlated with legalizing abortion. As in 15-20 years after abortion became legal, there was a drop in the crime rate. I bring that up because I think it ties in to the Vermont deal that @FridayJones mentioned. I'm not saying "abortion" is the solution. I'm saying people growing up unwanted and raising themselves is part of the problem. And, in order for a mental health issue to get dealt with, in a kid, someone has to notice that it's there and not blow it off or sweep it under the rug. I don't know how we do that, beyond have a system to pay better attention and intervene somehow.
 
From reading posts in the forum, I know that I am one of many, who has experienced my life being threatened, while someone held a gun pointed at me.

The violence of guns, 'rings home' m, directly. So yes, this week's gun violence in Roseburg, Oregon, emotionally affected me, and it was far enough away, (as is my much processed, trauma experience), that it caused me to pause, but did not re-traumatize me.

Growing up in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, hunting was a valued sport, and a valued means to 'bring home the meat', when in days past, it would save money, and the spoils of hunting could would be used as gifts.

I can understand the need to bear arms, when negotiaions have failed, or, like when the mad man in Roseburg, puts innocent lives at stake.

AND, as the concept was raised above, gun control is complex, in respect to the 'good' uses of guns. After Roseburg's classroom massacre, I would ask for further gun control 'problem solving-suggestions', from myself and others, be voiced to our government representatives. There is a bit of hope from Australia's gun control.

Personally, I think the NRA's agenda is antiquated, based in history, not the present. It helps people feel safer', feel more 'manly' when indeed, even those ego needs are not being met.

i want more complex gun control. Especially since people trained to use guns, can use it as a means as problem solving psychological frustration, as was the case in Roseburg, and in my childhood.
 
I've spoken to others about this since posting. I've also watched how quickly it slipped out of the headlines and it was back to politics again. Who the heck cares about Hillary or Trump!?! Can't wait for this election to be over with. Back on topic, though, a lot of talk has centered around how disconnected we are due to technology. It's rare that I have a true phone conversation with someone. We all seem to live through tablets, laptops, and phones. So, maybe this get's figured into the equation along with mental health and stiffer gun control. I had a thought, as I believe the most recent shooter had guns from family members - what if law enforcement could hold the buyer of the gun liable for the crime as well as the shooter? It might bring about a little more responsibility when buying guns for others. Heck, it's too complex for me. Isn't this why we have think tanks around the world? Folks from different fields to look at this issue from all angles and with a long view instead of the quick fix that Friday discussed above. I agree that a drive through McDonald's approach isn't the solution. Maybe we need to take a page from the movements of the 1960-70's. They weren't flash in the pan movements, but prolonged efforts that brought about results and change. Just a few thoughts. VB
 
what if law enforcement could hold the buyer of the gun liable for the crime as well as the shooter?

And what would this solve?

I can't know when I'm picking someone else's meds they won't overdose on them, to use an analogy.

It's not possible to know what exactly goes through someone's mind & what behavior they'll decide on from there.

When you have a country where guns are cheaper than health insurance* and health insurance doesn't guarantee access to health care, it really isn't that surprising some people don't exactly have the nerves for it.

(Not speaking of mental health being the primary problem. Speaking of health itself & issues with support aren't in a separate land from everything else going on in a place.)

(* - please correct me if I'm wrong.)
 
I don't think the price of the guns is the issue here. I think it's the ease of access which is where stricter laws for background checks might help on this level.

I don't know what to say about the gun responsibility issue. It was a thought I had. Just thinking if folks were made to pay the price for their decisions, they might think twice before leaving their guns unsecured or buying their 15 yr old a rifle. I think it's part of the larger conversation. VB
 
There was a place where instances of people going on as big a killing spree as they could achieve, then suiciding rather than get captured...

Were sufficiently common, that there was a specific word for them:

"Amok"

The place was the Malay peninsula.

The tool used (the category "weapon" exists only as a concept in human heads) was usually a blade, such as a machete.

In Britain, pistols and rifles have been registered and required " good reason " to acquire since 1920. Shotguns since 1968. (Shotgun registration followed the shooting of two cops - with a pistol, supposedly controlled since 1922 - there's logic for you. Labour home secretary, Woy Jenkins was anxious to avoid debating reinstatement of the death penalty, which had only recently been repealed, and is even now supported by a large majority of Brits. I 'm not among those supporters).

centre fire semi auto and pump action rifles have been banned since 1988. Breech loading pistols (rimfire and centrefire) since 97. Instances of collective punishment of thousands of individuals who had never committed a violent offence ( if they had committed a violent offence, or even caused concern, they would have lost their registered guns within hours).

Innocent people with businesses, received no compensation. One whom I was acquainted with, took his own life as a result of the financial chaos, following the bankruptcy of his indoor pistol range, when legally held pistols were banned.

We still get mass public shootings

We still get gangs with AK s and SMGs. We still get inner city teens shooting each other with pistols.

There is then the open question of whether Britain is safer for us in the scum class (as opposed to safer for the ruling elites, surrounded by their tax funded, armed bodyguards), than the united state.

The figures are not comparable, the us has a " homicide rate" basically, if it looks like a homicide, that's what it gets recorded as for that year... Usually, even there there are fudges as police departments play politics to meet targets or seek additional funds.

Britain has "murder rates". These require a perp to be found, captured, sufficient evidence, a court conviction for murder, and that conviction to be upheld at appeal.

The " murder" doesn't make it into the stats until that process is complete, it then gets recorded for the year that the process is completed, if some bureaucrat remembers to book it down.

What proportion of homicides make it through that process, is anyone's guess.

My personal guess is that 10% is optimistic. But at 10%, Britain would have as high or higher homicide rate as the us.

Interestingly, canuckistan has a similar system of recording to the united state, and in each case, the figure for the Canadian provinces along the north side of the 49th are higher than for the states immediately over that line.

There is actually a (just barely) statistically significant correlation on a by nation basis, between gun ownership rates, and homicide. However it is not a robust correlation.

Remove only two data points, the united state, with reasonable size population, high gun ownership rates, and highish homicide rates, and the republic of Ireland, tiny population, low gun ownership, and low homicide

And the correlation becomes statistically indistinguishable from random chance. Fluke?

Maybe, maybe not, but hardly a convincing evidential basis for threatening hundreds of millions of people who have committed no crime, with violence, in order to get them to give up some of their property.

The gangs, the thugs etc, they won't give their guns up. And on the basis of black market manufactured machinepistols that have been captured in drugs busts in Holland in the past few years, the post prohibition guns will likely be a whole lot more frightening than the pre prohibition guns are.
 
Last edited:
This subject makes my head hurt.

Some gun control is certainly needed, but making it to the point in which its nearly impossible to purchase a firearm is not only insane but completely unconstitutional. Not to mention that to purchase a handgun you already undergo a federal background check. Look at Detroit, it's a great example. Insanely strict gun control, insanely high crime rate. Another great example, the entire state of Alaska, completely legal to carry a handgun concealed with no permit, crime rate? Next to no violent crimes. I wonder why?

I can also tell you that if I ever had the intention to harm someone, and I couldn't for whatever reason use a firearm, that certainly wouldn't stop me. Practically anything is a capable weapon, especially if your target is completely unarmed, or for all practical purposes, defenseless.

Don't be stupid. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a weapon, is a good guy with a weapon. So if you or anyone else believes that the best way to protect yourself from this crazy world we live in is to surrender your means of defense and hope for the best, the only thing I can tell you is good luck. Because I'll continue to remain armed and vigilant against any threat that may present itself to me or mine.
 
There was a piece from 2013, up on pew research's site about homicides in America, completed with a firearm.

Why exactly homicide using a firearm is worse than the other ways, I'm not sure. Homicide is unpleasant regardless of means used, and in the case of unjustified homicide, happens to be highly illegal, regardless of the means used.

Anyway, the rate is at a historical low, down 49% from the 1993 highpoint.

Public opinion, as is usually the case on matters where their are strong establishment vested interests at stake, is well and correctly informed. What else could they be, with hourly TV and radio news bulletins to edjumicate them? </bitter sarcasm>

With only 10% of the people questioned believing (correctly) that the rate had gone down over "recent years", and 12% believing (correctly) that it had come down compared to 20 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top