Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53133133]Pay attention, jesus christ, dude. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] Let me break it down for you: People keep saying Mental Health because many of these mass shooters are clearly unhinged and there can be steps taken in regards to bettering how the country treats those issues and how its seen socially so as to combat that, which would have the benefit of also helping everyone else with those problems.[/QUOTE] I’m telling you from a Mental Health professionals standpoint, this is NOT the only answer. There’s a tendency to scapegoat Mental Health and then literally ignore any other proposal that could help remedy the problem (such as increased gun control legislation.) You see this a lot of with the Republicans lately. This is a multi faceted issue that can’t be placed squarely on “Mental Health’s” shoulders.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133141]I’m telling you from a Mental Health professionals standpoint, this is NOT the only answer. There’s a tendency to scapegoat Mental Health and then literally ignore any other proposal that could help remedy the problem (such as increased gun control legislation.) You see this a lot of with the Republicans lately. This is a multi faceted issue that can’t be placed squarely on “Mental Health’s” shoulders.[/QUOTE] Thats brought up every fucking time theres a shooting and it goes nowhere every time.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53133140]You are really not one to complain about your point being misrepresented. These kids are snapping because obvious trouble signs are being ignored. Eventually they reach a breaking point. Maybe without guns they'd grab a knife or a 2x4 or jump in front of a train or something but none of those things are really ideal solutions. You know what would be an ideal solution? A teacher noticing and knowing how to talk to him about his feelings. Or his fucking parents talking to him. Or his fellow students not picking on him because they understand the potential consequences of abusing someone over and over. Or any other outcome that doesn't involve a child snapping and ruining his own life forever and many more? But no - it's the gun's fault, right? Because nearly 100% of mentally ill people don't commit crimes. Your ability to reach watertight conclusions out of a smorgasbord of completely irrelevant data is astounding.[/QUOTE] You’re misrepresenting me again. Sorry I’m not as much of a fanatic about your toys (I’m a gun owner too lol) but I never said the “guns made him do it” but I’ve stated repeatedly that it is a multi pronged issue that will not just be solved by “Mental Health” or less guns.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133147]Sorry I’m not as much of a fanatic about your toys[/QUOTE] Stop this shit.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53133148]Stop this shit.[/QUOTE] It's OK, he's a professional.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133132]Way to misrepresent my point. My point was that if were pointing the finger at “Mental Health” when a vast majority of people don’t commit mass shootings, then mental health can’t be the main contributor to this issue.[/QUOTE] The vast majority of individuals with [I]diagnosed[/I] mental health issues do not commit mass shootings. To say that the vast majority of mass shooters are therefore not in need of mental health treatment is absolutely dishonest. Would you care to deny that there is a [I]massive[/I] stigma in this country against seeking help? That it's often painted as "weak," or that you're automatically "crazy" if you want help? I'm not entirely caught up on the past six or so pages, but I think we established that the presence of guns doesn't cause crime on its own. We've also established that you think tightening gun control laws will solve this problem. But I have to ask, what do you think of the fact that countries like our favorite example of Switzerland have an undeniably vastly superior mental health system to the US? Do you genuinely believe there's [I]no[/I] relationship between a person's mental health and their desire and willingness to go out and murder a bunch of people they don't know? And furthermore, that strengthening our mental health system here and destigmatizing seeking help in the first place would have no effect?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53133149]It's OK, he's a professional.[/QUOTE] I know a lot more about it then what you glean from Wikipedia bud. I digress. Mental Health isn’t the root cause or the sole cause or the sole solution. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threadshitting" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133147]You’re misrepresenting me again. Sorry I’m not as much of a fanatic about your toys (I’m a gun owner too lol) but I never said the “guns made him do it” but I’ve stated repeatedly that it is a multi pronged issue that will not just be solved by “Mental Health” or less guns.[/QUOTE] your whole argument thus far has been "its not just that but im not gonna tell you what else it is trust me im a ~professional~"

Hey question, are those little bits of snide condescension actually necessary?

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;53133157]The vast majority of individuals with [I]diagnosed[/I] mental health issues do not commit mass shootings. To say that the vast majority of mass shooters are therefore not in need of mental health treatment is absolutely dishonest. Would you care to deny that there is a [I]massive[/I] stigma in this country against seeking help? That it's often painted as "weak," or that you're automatically "crazy" if you want help? I'm not entirely caught up on the past six or so pages, but I think we established that the presence of guns doesn't cause crime on its own. We've also established that you think tightening gun control laws will solve this problem. But I have to ask, what do you think of the fact that countries like our favorite example of Switzerland have an undeniably vastly superior mental health system to the US? Do you genuinely believe there's [I]no[/I] relationship between a person's mental health and their desire and willingness to go out and murder a bunch of people they don't know? And furthermore, that strengthening our mental health system here and destigmatizing seeking help in the first place would have no effect?[/QUOTE] Not going to get into it with you but everything I’m saying is being misrepresented to make me easier to attack. I’m not saying don’t increase mental health support or don’t treat mental illness, but don’t point your finger at mental health and ignore every other issue that could possibly contribute to the prevalence of mass shootings in America.

The problem is that youre butting heads over it being one or the other when it's been established that it's an inherently complex issue. The way I see it is that our mental health culture and poor accommodations and infrastructure for dealing with it are absolutely not conducive to avoiding these sorts of things. There is obviously a lot more nuance that needs to be considered when getting deeper into this topic, as "mental illness" is as generic as they come when it comes to descriptors and all it really says about their personal condition is that it was "bad", however, I do think this issue exists on a base level that applies to all mental illness in a generic sense so it's not entirely unwarranted to point to it as a starting point. I do also think, however, that the access to firearms for someone with the intent and plans to kill necessitates that the incident will be inherently more lethal if they follow through, simply because a gun is a more efficient vector for grievous bodily harm than a knife or any other alternative. [I]This does not mean that the presence of guns alone is necessarily more lethal, but that it facilitates lethal situations to a more efficient degree.[/I] This means that countries like Switzerland can get away with high percentages of gun ownership, but I think that it's unrealistic to apply those same standards to the US where the culture and situation are entirely different. It seems to logically follow, though, that if guns were to magically disappear tomorrow, lethality rates in violent crime would fall. I'm open to evidence that suggests otherwise.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133161]Not going to get into it with you but everything I’m saying is being misrepresented to make me easier to attack. I’m not saying don’t increase mental health support or don’t treat mental illness, but don’t point your finger at mental health and ignore every other issue that could possibly contribute to the prevalence of mass shootings in America.[/QUOTE] Nobodies pointing the finger at mental health and ignoring every other issue, they're just pointing that in a number of cases its a heavy contributing factor and is worth focusing on. Everyone for the last page has been saying this, [I]repeatedly[/I].

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133161]Not going to get into it with you but everything I’m saying is being misrepresented to make me easier to attack. I’m not saying don’t increase mental health support or don’t treat mental illness, but don’t point your finger at mental health and ignore every other issue that could possibly contribute to the prevalence of mass shootings in America.[/QUOTE] If your argument was any more of a strawman at this point it'd come to life and start questing for a brain.

Access to guns only becomes a problem after the person has decided to start planning a mass shooting. It's a problem, sure. But it's a symptom of the problem. If we stopped people from wanting to attack, access to guns wouldn't matter. Same with gang violence. If we provided for poverty, people would be less inclined to join gangs, and thus less inclined to shoot other gangs. Restricting access to guns doesn't begin to question [I]why[/I] people do these things to begin with. I'm not a super hardcore 2nd amendment type either. Go ahead, restrict/ban guns! It's just not gonna do shit to stop the actual reason why these things happen.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133127]I joined late but have debated with Grenadic before about guns so I assumed.[/QUOTE] lmao if you didnt even read his shit why are you even replying to him you're so thoughtful that surely nobody else could have addressed anything you could have thought up what he's saying is just so low-value that an omniscient being like you won't deign to read it

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133161]Not going to get into it with you but everything I’m saying is being misrepresented to make me easier to attack. I’m not saying don’t increase mental health support or don’t treat mental illness, but don’t point your finger at mental health and ignore every other issue that could possibly contribute to the prevalence of mass shootings in America.[/QUOTE] Oh my god. Then what caused this tragedy? There are always going to be outcasts in any form of society, no matter what. Apparently this kid was a creepy little fuck and nobody wanted anything to do with him, and I wouldn’t either. According to his peers he gave out a very bad vibe and sent out a lot of red flags. I can literally remember dozens of people I have met throughout my life that were like that. But you don’t see all of these people getting a gun, [B]or jumping into a truck, or making a homemade bomb or some other shit[/B] and murdering as many people as they can. If you did there would be some form of tragedy every 30 seconds. What usually sets school shooters apart from their peers? Oh, wait, they literally all had mental health issues. Jesus fucking Christ.

[QUOTE=italics560;53133178]Oh my god. Then what caused this tragedy? There are always going to be outcasts in any form of society, no matter what. Apparently this kid was a creepy little fuck and nobody wanted anything to do with him, and I wouldn’t either. According to his peers he gave out a very bad vibe and sent out a lot of red flags. I can literally remember dozens of people I have met throughout my life that were like that. But you don’t see all of these people getting a gun, [B]or jumping into a truck, or making a homemade bomb or some other shit[/B] and murdering as many people as they can. If you did there would be some form of tragedy every 30 seconds. What usually sets school shooters apart from their peers? Oh, wait, they literally all had mental health issues. Jesus fucking Christ.[/QUOTE] Don’t know why you’re flipping your lid when the post you literally quoted wasnt saying to not support increased mental health care.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53133163]The problem is that youre butting heads over it being one or the other when it's been established that it's an inherently complex issue. The way I see it is that our mental health culture and poor accommodations and infrastructure for dealing with it are absolutely not conducive to avoiding these sorts of things. There is obviously a lot more nuance that needs to be considered when getting deeper into this topic, as "mental illness" is as generic as they come when it comes to descriptors and all it really says about their personal condition is that it was "bad", however, I do think this issue exists on a base level that applies to all mental illness in a generic sense so it's not entirely unwarranted to point to it as a starting point. I do also think, however, that the access to firearms for someone with the intent and plans to kill necessitates that the incident will be inherently more lethal if they follow through, simply because a gun is a more efficient vector for grievous bodily harm than a knife or any other alternative. [I]This does not mean that the presence of guns alone is necessarily more lethal, but that it facilitates lethal situations to a more efficient degree.[/I] This means that countries like Switzerland can get away with high percentages of gun ownership, but I think that it's unrealistic to apply those same standards to the US where the culture and situation are entirely different. It seems to logically follow, though, that if guns were to magically disappear tomorrow, lethality rates in violent crime would fall. I'm open to evidence that suggests otherwise.[/QUOTE] This is a well-articulated post. America's crime problem is unique, and our saturation of guns gives the crime problem easy access to do its bidding. So logically we got two choices. Minimize the criminal intent, or restrict the crime-multiplier, or a bit of both. If we truly want to end this stuff and get on the same level as other western countries its gonna be a lot of work on the first thing. Crime in America sucks. We gotta make it unsuck. We don't have a magical button to poof guns away so trying to restrict them is gonna be an uphill battle, and the 2nd ammendment people get upset when you try to do that too, and all it does is start a political shitstorm and nothing gets done and more kids die in schools. I just think most of our effort should be put into stopping the root causes of these things. Stopping crime, helping people who feel lost, these will reduce gun crimes, [I]and[/I] gun suicides, while not pissing off the people who think having to do a background check is an assault on their civil liberties.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133185]Don’t know why you’re flipping your lid when the post you literally quoted wasnt saying to not support increased mental health care.[/QUOTE] What exactly is it you're trying to say.

At the end of the day, no matter what we say or what we do, the people in power will never do anything about it. As shitty as it is they just don't care. They've made it clear that money will ALWAYS come before the nation's children. That's how it is, and that's how it will always be. People will tweet hearts and prayers, stop caring, forget, and then the cycle will continue. See you fuckers next week. God Bless America.

[QUOTE=OvB;53133186]This is a well-articulated post. America's crime problem is unique, and our saturation of guns gives the crime problem easy access to do its bidding. So logically we got two choices. Minimize the criminal intent, or restrict the crime-multiplier, or a bit of both. If we truly want to end this stuff and get on the same level as other western countries its gonna be a lot of work on the first thing. Crime in America sucks. We gotta make it unsuck. We don't have a magical button to poof guns away so trying to restrict them is gonna be an uphill battle, and the 2nd ammendment people get upset when you try to do that too, and all it does is start a political shitstorm and nothing gets done and more kids die in schools. I just think most of our effort should be put into stopping the root causes of these things. Stopping crime, helping people who feel lost, these will reduce gun crimes, [I]and[/I] gun suicides, while not pissing off the people who think having to do a background check is an assault on their civil liberties.[/QUOTE] That is indeed the dilemma. I think we can go deeper though and get at an even bigger dilemma at hand, though. If getting rid of all guns in the US, as well as the second amendment, would result in less deaths, would you do it?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53133202]That is indeed the dilemma. I think we can go deeper though and get at an even bigger dilemma at hand, though. If getting rid of all guns in the US, as well as the second amendment, would result in less deaths, would you do it?[/QUOTE] I don't think that's a fair or realistically helpful question because it's out of the realm of possibility, and if I say no, I sound like a terrible person. I own guns. I like guns. I don't think we [I]need[/I] to erase them to stop people from dying by guns. I think getting the annual death-by-gun rate in the US down to maybe a few thousand is a lot more realistic than getting it down to zero. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] I think if we ended the big mass shootings and school shootings, that it would be a huge step in the right direction. Stopping a wife from shooting her husband when she finds him cheating, or a dude shooting the guy who just rear ended him is a completely different category. If we can get it down to just stupid shit like that I'll consider that a huge victory. Let's stop kids and random masses from getting gunned down, then we can chip away at gangs, and then muggings/robbery, then crimes of passions, etc, etc. I don't think it's particularly helpful or constructive to ask well what if we just disappeared all guns? America's problem is deep and its not gonna come to a deadstop.

[QUOTE=OvB;53133225]I don't think that's a fair or realistically helpful question because it's out of the realm of possibility, and if I say no, I sound like a terrible person. I own guns. I like guns. I don't think we [I]need[/I] to erase them to stop people from dying by guns. I think getting the annual death-by-gun rate in the US down to maybe a few thousand is a lot more realistic than getting it down to zero. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] I think if we ended the big mass shootings and school shootings, that it would be a huge step in the right direction. Stopping a wife from shooting her husband when she finds him cheating, or a dude shooting the guy who just rear ended him is a completely different category. If we can get it down to just stupid shit like that I'll consider that a huge victory. Let's stop kids and random masses from getting gunned down, then we can chip away at gangs, and then muggings/robbery, then crimes of passions, etc, etc. I don't think it's particularly helpful or constructive to ask well what if we just disappeared all guns? America's problem is deep and its not gonna come to a deadstop.[/QUOTE] I think the idea I was trying to get at is that [I]serious[/I] 2nd amendment restrictions, while limiting our general freedom and inhibiting well-to-do hobbyists, would likely reduce our lethal firearm death rate. It's more of an ethical dilemma than anything else. Is hypothetically (or realistically) protecting the life of just one person worth giving up everyone's freedom to partake in things like collecting? How much is one life worth? I'm not trying to guilt trip you or make you seem like a horrible person. This is a pretty deep philosophical and ethical question that has troubled the minds of our societies best thinkers for decades, if not centuries. Putting a "price" on freedom is something we always have to grapple with living in a free society.

Literally the only place in the world with a mass shooting epidemic, over a hundred countries in the world where schools don't get shot up and apparently there's nothing the greatest nation on earth can do about it :terrists: [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitpost" - OvB))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53133234]I think the idea I was trying to get at is that [I]serious[/I] 2nd amendment restrictions, while limiting our general freedom and inhibiting well-to-do hobbyists, would likely reduce our lethal firearm death rate. It's more of an ethical dilemma than anything else. Is hypothetically (or realistically) protecting the life of just one person worth giving up everyone's freedom to partake in things like collecting? How much is one life worth? I'm not trying to guilt trip you or make you seem like a horrible person. This is a pretty deep philosophical and ethical question that has troubled the minds of our societies best thinkers for decades, if not centuries. Putting a "price" on freedom is something we always have to grapple with living in a free society.[/QUOTE] I feel like in a society that allows minimally restricted access to most things, wrongful death from those things should be expected, whether its guns, cigarettes, cars, whatever. If we are to allow people to smoke, we should expect people to die from second hand smoke, if we are to allow people to drive, we should expect innocent people to die from accidents(which raises the question on whether driving should be banned once autonomous cars come to be?) (not to equate guns to cars or cigarettes). That's why I stated that I think being able to end mass casualty events would be a big victory. If we allow access to guns then death by gun is inevitable but that doesn't mean we cant minimize it to small situations. I think the real question you're trying to get at with your previous post is "Should guns be considered a freedom?" That's the question at the root of all this and the one that spurs many disagreement. That question I think is answered by the general public and the answer will be at least a passive "yes" until officials are elected that make it otherwise. I'm all for restrictions that don't punish law biding people and aren't feel-good restrictions like bans on guns that have grips or something like that. I don't think it would be a huge deal to make it a bit harder to get guns as long as they were still available. I would be happy if the gun law in this country operated with common sense.

[QUOTE=OvB;53133283]I feel like in a society that allows minimally restricted access to most things, wrongful death from those things should be expected, whether its guns, cigarettes, cars, whatever. If we are to allow people to smoke, we should expect people to die from second hand smoke, if we are to allow people to drive, we should expect innocent people to die from accidents(which raises the question on whether driving should be banned once autonomous cars come to be?) (not to equate guns to cars or cigarettes). That's why I stated that I think being able to end mass casualty events would be a big victory. If we allow access to guns then death by gun is inevitable but that doesn't mean we cant minimize it to small situations. I think the real question you're trying to get at with your previous post is "Should guns be considered a freedom?" That's the question at the root of all this and the one that spurs many disagreement. That question I think is answered by the general public and the answer will be at least a passive "yes" until officials are elected that make it otherwise.[/QUOTE] I appreciate your perspective. I agree that at the root of all of this are really tough to answer questions about the nature of freedoms, and that's why this issue is so tough to solve. Politicians aren't really in the business of philosophy.

[QUOTE=Piciul;53133247]Literally the only place in the world with a mass shooting epidemic, over a hundred countries in the world where schools don't get shot up and apparently there's nothing the greatest nation on earth can do about it :terrists: [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitpost" - OvB))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Literally no one says that there's nothing that can be done. I have no clue why this strawman is always used and that Onion article is always sniped.

[url]https://twitter.com/KHOUSportsMatt/status/963972590258806785[/url] what the hell is with this student?

Honestly they need to change how horrible the school environment is and have parents talk with their kids more if they want to fix this issue. People can argue that this is a gun issue or mental health issue all they want, but the numbers don't add up to the increased frequency of school shootings in the last 20 years. The fact is that the only thing that has changed in the last 20 years is how horrible the schools have become and that now both parents are usually in the work force. When you are depressed and have to deal with school that feels more like a prison. You have no friends and and hate everyone you have to deal with in school.You get bullied to a point where you feel like ending your life. You are at that age where your hormones are all over the place and have no one to talk to because your parents are both at work all the time. You want to end your life and everyone elses around you and you don't care how horrible it will be for your parents because you never spend time with them. Thats why you get school shootings.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;53133323]Literally no one says that there's nothing that can be done. I have no clue why this strawman is always used and that Onion article is always sniped.[/QUOTE] They seem to always conflate "this issue is far more complicated and nuanced than just 'to gun or not to gun, that is the question' and given how thats so highly contentious it might be better to focus on the root causes of why people do these things" as "Guess we cant do shit lmao"