School Shooting in Connecticut

Off Topic
481

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Being that the subconscious mind can neither differentiate fantasy from reality nor right from wrong nor can it make utilitarian judgements, I’d say that to suggest otherwise would be nothing short of willful ignorance. [/quote]

I don’t understand. The “subconscious” doesn’t work the way I think you’re talking about.[/quote]

It’s really simple: your mind is a sponge, it will soak up whatever you expose it to[/quote]

No, your brain is quite far from being that simple.[/quote]

At the base, it is. Tell yourself you are a loser and see how far you get in life. Tell your kid he’s a loser and watch his potential shrivel up and wither. Now tell yourself you are a winner. Now visualize it. Now visualize it with emotion and watch what happens. These are all proven, common sense facts of psychology. This is common knowledge among successful people. There are hundreds of studies that back it up. In fact, I’ll bet you actually use it yourself. Do you believe in the mind-body connection in weight training? It’s the very same principle.

If you don’t turn into a mass murderer from playing extremely violent video games, you probably have a very strong base that shores you up mentally. Unfortunately, there are many who do not. I’m not saying video games CAUSE anyone to become a mass murderer, but in certain people’s cases, they almost certainly do not help.

482

You’ve me saved some time with that post Cortes, thanks.

Though I was on the fence about responding to him, this is the second time in this thread alone he has outright dismissed my post without thinking about it first and digesting what was written.

483

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If you don’t turn into a mass murderer from playing extremely violent video games, you probably have a very strong base that shores you up mentally. Unfortunately, there are many who do not. I’m not saying video games CAUSE anyone to become a mass murderer, but in certain people’s cases, they almost certainly do not help. [/quote]

Okay I am understanding you better now. I don’t think it takes any kind of mental shoring base to not lose your mind though. I think you just have to not be insane in the first place. I mean, how much GTA would you have to play before you killed someone? What about anyone else who has posted here? Do you know anyone who you think could be driven to murder in such a way? I do believe that there are external factors responsible for someone becoming this terrible in addition to or even exclusive of any genetic factors. But they are FAR more potent than video games.

You’re exactly right, a kid whose dad mercilessly beats him probably isn’t being helped by playing Counter Strike. But even if he didn’t play it, he wouldn’t be any less fucked up. I mean you hit the nail on the head already talking about the focus needing to be on providing a strong, connected, and supportive familial environment rather than spinning wheels trying to restrict things like games.

484

[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’ve me saved some time with that post Cortes, thanks.

Though I was on the fence about responding to him, this is the second time in this thread alone he has outright dismissed my post without thinking about it first and digesting what was written.[/quote]

Poppycock! I only responded to you once, and i don’t care how good of a mind reader you are, I did in fact think quite a bit about your analogy. Your brain isn’t really designed to absorb though. In fact it is remarkable how much visual stimulus your brain completely ignores! Your brain is designed first to filter and second to analyze.

BTW I thought your last post was spot on. I don’t see the need to bring an uncorrelated variable like video games into your equation. You already pointed out the root of the issue IMO.

485

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Being that the subconscious mind can neither differentiate fantasy from reality nor right from wrong nor can it make utilitarian judgements, I’d say that to suggest otherwise would be nothing short of willful ignorance. [/quote]

I don’t understand. The “subconscious” doesn’t work the way I think you’re talking about.[/quote]

It’s really simple: your mind is a sponge, it will soak up whatever you expose it to[/quote]

No, your brain is quite far from being that simple.[/quote]

Yes, in a sense, it is.

What do you dream about?

Have you ever dreamt about people and places that you’ve seen on tv or overheard people talking about? I know I have.

Your eyes and ears pick up things on a continuous basis and you don’t even realize it.

486

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
What specific legislative measures would have prevented this tragedy from occuring?

[/quote]

Armed teachers.

Here are my observations:

  1. This is a tradgedy, but keep it in perspective. Your kid is much more likely to die from a falling big screen TV than being shot. I don’t see the media demanding big screen TV control. Gee, I wonder why?

  2. The USA has a crazy loner problem, not a gun problem.

If someone wants to kill people, they will find a way. I can go make an amonium nitrate bomb today and blow up a school, if I was so inclined. So can you.

The root causes I see on this are the isolation of people due to a break down of the family unit AND, more importantly, since the Earl Warren Court, it’s basically impossible to lock up crazy people.

Yes, I know there is a sordid history in this country with sanitariums, but if done right, they are a great, safe, place. This is also the problem with homeless people, too, BTW.

  1. The attached picture is from Israel. It’s a school trip. The guys and lady with rifles are teachers.

You see, we have a much more common problem in Israel with sadly very sane people plotting to kill masses of Jewish children because their prophet told them we should be killed wherever we are found.

They use whatever is at hand — my wife was killed with a bomb; my daughters at about age 6 narrowly avoided being run over by a gentleman who just decided one day to drive along the sidewalk because it was filled with little Jewish girls. (He was gunned down by an off-duty IDF soldier with his sidearm.)

The world is a scary place. The USA has lived in a bubble for the better part of a century, but that bubble is popping. You need to get over the irrational fear of firearms because you are going to need them in the hands of sane, good, people.

[/quote]

Damn Good Post[/quote]

Agreed. I tried to say exactly this a few pages back in a long-winded post that nobody likely bothered to read. This is much better.

My only suggestion was the possibility that the firearms (rifles and shotguns) be secured out of sight but readily available at all times. A small group of trained teachers could carry discreetly at all times, but I would prefer not to see people with M-4’s and/or 870 Remingtons openly walking the halls of our schools if it’s avoidable.

Also, these teachers would need a mandated program to keep current on their skills and mindset. Just putting guns in their hands isn’t good enough. I believe Israel has universal, mandatory military service and a different basic mindset, so this kind of takes care of itself. We would need a program.

Jewbacca, I am so sorry for your loss and the ongoing troubles of your people. Thanks for bringing some real world experience to all this theoretical chatter.

487

[quote]debraD wrote:
. . . . without sending our worst off to wars periodically they are left to fester.

[/quote]

Wow, so that’s what you think of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines who volunteer to defend our country?

Stay classy.

This shooter, btw, would never have passed the initial psych test and would have been drummed out in about a week.

488

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Question: do you believe video games like this can have an effect on antisocial loaner types?

Yes or no ?

[/quote]

No more or less than The Catcher in the Rye causes people to shoot washed up rock stars.

There have been tons of guns in the USA since the beginning.

Mass shootings by loonies started in the 1970s when it became illegal to lock loonies up. I don’t think Atari Pong, Centipede, or Space Invaders caused the shootings.

We have a nut control problem.

489

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
. . . . without sending our worst off to wars periodically they are left to fester.

[/quote]

Wow, so that’s what you think of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines who volunteer to defend our country?

Stay classy.

This shooter, btw, would never have passed the initial psych test and would have been drummed out in about a week.

[/quote]

How would you feel about instituting a psych test for people who want to purchase a weapon AS WELL as their family? Sort of like NATO clearance: You can’t get it unless you and your family are cleared.

490

[quote]setto222 wrote:
How would you feel about instituting a psych test for people who want to purchase a weapon AS WELL as their family? Sort of like NATO clearance: You can’t get it unless you and your family are cleared. [/quote]

So you feel the need for an expensive pysch test to exercise a Constitutional right because .00001% of the gun owners are nuts? As has been aptly cited here, the LEAST likely person to have ever committed a crime in the USA is a legal gun owner.

Would you also apply this to free speech? Prove that the speaker is not nuts? Because words and ideas have killed far more people than loners with guns.

491

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:
How would you feel about instituting a psych test for people who want to purchase a weapon AS WELL as their family? Sort of like NATO clearance: You can’t get it unless you and your family are cleared. [/quote]

So you feel the need for an expensive pysch test to exercise a Constitutional right because .00001% of the gun owners are nuts? As has been aptly cited here, the LEAST likely person to have ever committed a crime in the USA is a legal gun owner.

Would you also apply this to free speech? Prove that the speaker is not nuts? Because words and ideas have killed far more people than loners with guns.[/quote]

Nope, I wouldn’t feel the need at all. Chances are the money alloted to those tests could probably be used to save more lives in the healthcare system than to prevent deaths in random shootings.

I was just wondering your take on the concept. What if the tests were easy and cheap, though not fool-proof? Though crimes are committed by legal gun owners, going through the legal paths to own a gun doesn’t necessarily make you a sane and well rounded/grounded person (at least in my opinion).

As far as the free speach comment, I don’t really know where to start with this. Words haven’t ever killed anybody (well…unless it involved giant speakers and very loud noises?) Interpretations and actions because of those words have killed people. This is a completely different argument and doesn’t really belong in this thread.

492

Wanna know what exposing myself to this site has done, especially PWI?

I’m way more argumentative. I on occasion will have to catch myself and remember I’m not arguing on T-Nation

493

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:
How would you feel about instituting a psych test for people who want to purchase a weapon AS WELL as their family? Sort of like NATO clearance: You can’t get it unless you and your family are cleared. [/quote]

So you feel the need for an expensive pysch test to exercise a Constitutional right because .00001% of the gun owners are nuts? As has been aptly cited here, the LEAST likely person to have ever committed a crime in the USA is a legal gun owner.

Would you also apply this to free speech? Prove that the speaker is not nuts? Because words and ideas have killed far more people than loners with guns.[/quote]

Nope, I wouldn’t feel the need at all. Chances are the money alloted to those tests could probably be used to save more lives in the healthcare system than to prevent deaths in random shootings.

I was just wondering your take on the concept. What if the tests were easy and cheap, though not fool-proof? Though crimes are committed by legal gun owners, going through the legal paths to own a gun doesn’t necessarily make you a sane and well rounded/grounded person (at least in my opinion).

As far as the free speach comment, I don’t really know where to start with this. Words haven’t ever killed anybody (well…unless it involved giant speakers and very loud noises?) Interpretations and actions because of those words have killed people. This is a completely different argument and doesn’t really belong in this thread. [/quote]

I’m sure those tests would become politicized in no time.

Do you feel that people should be responsible for their own lives. (yes)

Do you feel that providing government assistance can cause more of the problem it is attempting to solve. (yes)

Do you believe that power should be held by individuals rather than concentrated in the hands of the State? (yes)

State your race: (white)

Test Result: Failed. Clearly a homicidal racist redneck right wing nutjob unfit to be trusted to possess firearms.

Sorry. No thanks.

494

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Wanna know what exposing myself to this site has done, especially PWI?

I’m way more argumentative. I on occasion will have to catch myself and remember I’m not arguing on T-Nation[/quote]

Haha!

I’m probably about the same as I always was. I’m pretty much exactly the same in real life as I am on this site. And ALL of my friends are flaming far left liberals. I don’t know if I’m more patient with them, or them with me, but we love each other.

I think it’s mostly my charisma and boyish good looks, though.

495

[quote]setto222 wrote:
What if the tests were easy and cheap, though not fool-proof? [/quote]

What if unicorns ran free and shat magic jelly beans?

496

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
. . . . without sending our worst off to wars periodically they are left to fester.

[/quote]

Wow, so that’s what you think of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines who volunteer to defend our country?

Stay classy.

[/quote]

The finest Americans I’ve met have been US soldiers with whom I trained.

To denegrate them as “the worst” speaks volumes about the fundamental lack of character of the original poster.

I guess Professor X is garbage to DebraD, since he was a solider.

The US soldiers who save my family from death camps — mere refuse.

The boys who hit the beach on D-Day to liberate Europe — smelly rags.

Those who died making sure Osama Bin Laden couldn’t strike again — compost.

497

When she says “worst off” she means those with the lowest socio-economic status.

She is not saying anything in regards to the character of soldiers. At least that’s how it translates in Canadian english.

Put down your pitchforks people

498

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
. . . . without sending our worst off to wars periodically they are left to fester.

[/quote]

Wow, so that’s what you think of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines who volunteer to defend our country?

Stay classy.

[/quote]

The finest Americans I’ve met have been US soldiers with whom I trained.

To denegrate them as “the worst” speaks volumes about the fundamental lack of character of the original poster.

I guess Professor X is garbage to DebraD, since he was a solider.

The US soldiers who save my family from death camps — mere refuse.

The boys who hit the beach on D-Day to liberate Europe — smelly rags.

Those who died making sure Osama Bin Laden couldn’t strike again — compost.[/quote]

Yeah, she is right anyway.

That is the way the bottom of the barrel was disposed of throughout history.

499

[quote]therajraj wrote:
When she says “worst off” she means those with the lowest socio-economic status.

She is not saying anything in regards to the character of soldiers. At least that’s how it translates in Canadian english.

Put down your pitchforks people[/quote]

Exactly.

If many of you really know Deb by her post history, you’d know she wouldn’t have made disparaging remarks against our fine military.

Such is the problems of internet communication. Often a mere inflection in the voice gets a message across in context.

500

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:
How would you feel about instituting a psych test for people who want to purchase a weapon AS WELL as their family? Sort of like NATO clearance: You can’t get it unless you and your family are cleared. [/quote]

So you feel the need for an expensive pysch test to exercise a Constitutional right because .00001% of the gun owners are nuts? As has been aptly cited here, the LEAST likely person to have ever committed a crime in the USA is a legal gun owner.

Would you also apply this to free speech? Prove that the speaker is not nuts? Because words and ideas have killed far more people than loners with guns.[/quote]

Nope, I wouldn’t feel the need at all. Chances are the money alloted to those tests could probably be used to save more lives in the healthcare system than to prevent deaths in random shootings.

I was just wondering your take on the concept. What if the tests were easy and cheap, though not fool-proof? Though crimes are committed by legal gun owners, going through the legal paths to own a gun doesn’t necessarily make you a sane and well rounded/grounded person (at least in my opinion).

As far as the free speach comment, I don’t really know where to start with this. Words haven’t ever killed anybody (well…unless it involved giant speakers and very loud noises?) Interpretations and actions because of those words have killed people. This is a completely different argument and doesn’t really belong in this thread. [/quote]

I’m sure those tests would become politicized in no time.

Do you feel that people should be responsible for their own lives. (yes)

Do you feel that providing government assistance can cause more of the problem it is attempting to solve. (yes)

Do you believe that power should be held by individuals rather than concentrated in the hands of the State? (yes)

State your race: (white)

Test Result: Failed. Clearly a homicidal racist redneck right wing nutjob unfit to be trusted to possess firearms.

Sorry. No thanks.
[/quote]

Or what about a questionnaire which wasn’t made up on the fly and actually has some substance to it? I’m not trying to take your guns away from you Cortes.

@Jewbacca:
Is it really such a fantasy that such a psych test could be created? In your opinion, would it be a waste of funding if some RnD time were devoted to such a test/questionnaire?