North Illinois University Shooting

[Sand]

No, Tale, it is not. Stopping those who are mentally ill or mentally distressed from going on a murder spree before they act is the goal. I would think that would be obvious even to you, but if you wish to go on such hyperbole then there is no need to discuss this issue with you any further.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Sand

[Tale]

Sounds nice as an empty statement. But the important question is "how?" Do you mandate medication (mind control)? Do you incarcerate for no crime other than being mentally ill (thought crime)?

 

This individual had access to medication. He just chose to stop taking it. So, it doesn't seem like much of a lack of proper healthcare in his case.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Tale

[Sand]

One step is to set up a registry of mentally ill individuals that legitimate gun shops and dealers would refer to. It should operate like the sex offender registry, but if a person have been cleared of mental illness by three practicing psychologist/psychoanalyst professions one can have his or her name taken off the list. This would give dealers in weaponry an added tool to make sure guns are not being sold to those who have been suffering from mental illness. That would be one step.

 

There is no 100% guarrantee that these people won't get guns. As I stated before if a person is determined enough to get a weapon that person will.

[Tale]

One step is to set up a registry of mentally ill individuals that legitimate gun shops and dealers would refer to. It should operate like the sex offender registry, but if a person have been cleared of mental illness by three practicing psychologist/psychoanalyst professions one can have his or her name taken off the list. This would give dealers in weaponry an added tool to make sure guns are not being sold to those who have been suffering from mental illness. That would be one step.

 

There is no 100% guarrantee that these people won't get guns. As I stated before if a person is determined enough to get a weapon that person will.

What kind of mental illness? Are we talking the schizophrenic, the depressed, the manic, ODD, ADHD, CD, ASBD, OCD, autistic, those with irrational fears? Postpartum depression, PTSD? Enuresis?

 

90% of the people who are critical of the government can fit or be shoehorned into quite a number of these categories. I can think of at least 4 I am able to fit you into. Criteria for a diagnosis of any particular mental illness is not meant to be used to exclude people in the fashion you think it is.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Tale

[Sand]

ADHD is not a mental illness, but a learning disability as with autism.

 

Schizophrenia, Mania, Manic Depression, Depression, and other mental illnesses that require longterm psychological care and medicinal treatments would be the types of mental illness that should be on the watch list.

 

If that does not appeal to you then what do you suggest, Tale, that does not infringe the Second Amendment rights of law abiding US citizens. There will be no perfect solution.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Sand

[Tale]

If that does not appeal to you then what do you suggest, Tale, that does not infringe the Second Amendment rights of law abiding US citizens.

Well, the thing is your suggestion explicitly infringes on second amendment rights of law abiding US citizens. You are talking about practically criminalizing the abnormal. Probably worse is that you're talking about publishing a list of the abnormal with wich to discriminate by. But, y'know, only a particular subset of the abnormal. That's okay.

 

There is no answer to be found in knee jerk single focus responses. This guy was depressed, lets limit the rights of all depressed people! This guy played video games, lets limit video games! This guy voted for the green party, lets outlaw non-republican or democratic voters!

 

Gorth pointed it out best. It's not just one thing. Many things contribute and it's improper to just pick and choose the aspects you think are okay to isolate. Violent media, healthcare, social problems, guns, and much else. Many of these are problems we already know about and work on. However, other people choose to play a blame / defensive-blame game that only serves to confuse the issues instead of look at them.

 

The two most important things I think should be done are better education systems in regards to making the public aware of topics of social problems, mental health, and violent media beyond the media arguments. And more responsive state and local governments that implement more trial measure laws with guaranteed expirations should they not show the desired effects.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Tale

[Sand]

Yeah, I guess you are right, Tale. Its just one of those hazards of living in the modern day United States.

[Meshugger]

Uh-hum.

 

Compare on how it is done today to get "the female attraction", the difference lies in sophistication, but it is still the same: Men do compete against each other for female attention.

 

People also still eat fruit and meat. This does not make you an american black bear. When you reduce anything enough, everything becomes the same.

 

Ok, let's go down on a level. How many barfights are started over a woman? 100 years ago this kind of matters, such as insulting someones significant other, were settled with duel (often to the death).

 

We are trying to get more civilized, but the basic instincts often cave in too often.

[Hell Kitty]

We are trying to get more civilized

 

We aren't trying, we simply are more civilized. Changes in society and culture and technology prove this. That's what civilization is. It doesn't stop us from being human, and that we can act selfishly, of stupidly or violently doesn't mean humanity as a whole isn't more civilized now than in the past.

 

but the basic instincts often cave in too often.

 

We don't "cave in" to our basic instincts. Choosing to eat when I'm hungry is not "caving in". Do I need to refuse to eat in order to be seen as civilized?

[Meshugger]

We are trying to get more civilized

 

We aren't trying, we simply are more civilized. Changes in society and culture and technology prove this. That's what civilization is. It doesn't stop us from being human, and that we can act selfishly, of stupidly or violently doesn't mean humanity as a whole isn't more civilized now than in the past.

 

but the basic instincts often cave in too often.

 

We don't "cave in" to our basic instincts. Choosing to eat when I'm hungry is not "caving in". Do I need to refuse to eat in order to be seen as civilized?

 

No, we are not. In order to improve oneself and society, and therefore civilization, there has to be a will to do it.

 

And don't compare eating to fighting for male dominance of a woman. One is for basic survival, the other is for breeding.

[Hell Kitty]

In order to improve oneself and society, and therefore civilization, there has to be a will to do it.

 

Next thing you'll be telling us is that the sky is blue.

 

And don't compare eating to fighting for male dominance of a woman. One is for basic survival, the other is for breeding.

 

This is all wrong. Both eating and breeding are necessary for survival (though the latter isn't necessary for the survival of the individual) and directly comparable because they are things we are willing to fight for.

 

You speak of our "basic instincts" as though they are some kind of urge we must find the will to suppress, which is nonsense. Food, shelter, sex - what drives and will always drive the human animal, what makes us human, and mankind will always be willing to fight for them if necessary. Where once we might have relied solely on violence by killing our neighbor, stealing his cave and his food, and taking his woman against her will, now we compete with our peers for a promotion so we can can buy the best clothes and cars and home, eat at the best restaurants and attract the best mate. We still fight, we will always fight, but thanks to the social, cultural, and technological advances of our civilization how we fight has changed. The laws and punishments that come with being a part of a civilized society mean that resorting to violence is no longer the winning formula it once might have been.

[Meshugger]

In order to improve oneself and society, and therefore civilization, there has to be a will to do it.

 

Next thing you'll be telling us is that the sky is blue.

 

And don't compare eating to fighting for male dominance of a woman. One is for basic survival, the other is for breeding.

 

This is all wrong. Both eating and breeding are necessary for survival (though the latter isn't necessary for the survival of the individual) and directly comparable because they are things we are willing to fight for.

 

You speak of our "basic instincts" as though they are some kind of urge we must find the will to suppress, which is nonsense. Food, shelter, sex - what drives and will always drive the human animal, what makes us human, and mankind will always be willing to fight for them if necessary. Where once we might have relied solely on violence by killing our neighbor, stealing his cave and his food, and taking his woman against her will, now we compete with our peers for a promotion so we can can buy the best clothes and cars and home, eat at the best restaurants and attract the best mate. We still fight, we will always fight, but thanks to the social, cultural, and technological advances of our civilization how we fight has changed. The laws and punishments that come with being a part of a civilized society mean that resorting to violence is no longer the winning formula it once might have been.

 

Not true at all. We are not god's little angles, far from it.

 

Man is the only animal capable of murder out of self-interest. No survival, not expanding ones territory or eliminate competition. Until then, we haven't evolved at all.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Meshugger

[Nick_i_am]

On a side-note, animals have been murdering each other for as long as they've existed. Just look at mating battles for example, deer might just clash antlers, but walruses are easily capable of killing a love rival. More so, our closest relative, chimps, have been recorded commiting murder in a social context, we're talking a mass lynching against a male who fell out with the packs leader.

This is even before we get onto things like the seemingly irrational behavior of cirtain sets of Orcas that catch seals then throw them into the air for hours, seemingly for fun.

Humans might be bad, but suggesting that we're the only ones who are just because we're the only ones who've invented atomics is a pile of crap.

 

On the other hand, pockets of humanity have been civilized as far back as 4000 years and further, depending on how you deffine civilized. Frankly, many of those were more civilized than many modern cultures. The arab lands were host to the worlds seat of culture back when england and america was still full of mudhuts filled with people who thought that bodypainting was the height of fashion.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Azarkon]

One could argue that self-interest, in the animal world, is expressed in terms of survival/eliminating competition/expanding one's territory. In that respect, all animals "murder" in their self-interests. Humans are simply cognizant of the fact, and being so, may hope to move beyond it.

 

As far as the suppression vs. redirection argument goes, I believe that both play a role in explaining why human civilization is capable of progress. As a species, we have some limited control over our basic instincts, that overtime becomes habitual (this explains why people who practice certain types of meditation could learn to control their metabolism, breathing rate, etc.). This process is subject to social forces, and thus it is possible for society to, starting from a young age, act as a suppressant for certain instincts (ie aggression, violence, lust) that might otherwise become dominant. Of course, there are limits to what we can control, so these instincts can never be fully suppressed. That's where redirection comes in - by setting up society such that there are other, better avenues for satisfying our urges, we become more capable of dealing with them without creating, or becoming, victims.

 

As someone rather familiar with computer science, I'm keen on thinking of human progress as an optimization problem. The constraints are the basic biological/social needs, desires, etc. The parameters are what we've got to work with (culture, technology, social structure), the evaluation mechanism is the degree of satisfaction, summed over all participants, and the algorithm is educated trial-and-error (possibly hill-climbing, but that's pushing it). Thus, social progress can be characterized as bettering the overall satisfaction of the human species, and that probably makes the most sense, as even though kings and lords might've had it better in ye olde days, we don't typically look back at those days and say that they were better for the majority of humanity. The hope, then, both in computer science and among progressives, is that this process results in better satisfaction over time. To do so, of course, requires that we learn from our past mistakes, because that's the only way we'll know whether where we're going is better.

[Nick_i_am]

Having said that, take a look at the Japanese. Very very low crime rate as the result of a highly orginised and motivated society that still places a lot of focus on both individual and family integrity. In Osaka (one of the largest Japanese cities) last year, incidents of car related theft (including smash and run for items in the car) was no where near triple digits, somewhere between 20 and 30 case.

 

And yet, on the flip side you're also looking at a highly repressed society whos populous has real problems expressing themselves at large. There's a reason why 80% of the worlds weird **** comes from Japan, and a reason why, when checking local Japanese news, almost all of the murders reported are 'fetish' killings (that is to say, killings with a perverse motivation rather than one of greed or passion ect).

 

A quick glance at their stats for education should be enough to make most first-world countaries blush, and yet their suicide rate also sets them apart, while when you compare to other countaries with very high quality education (like Finland for example) you find that while there's a problem, it's nothing on the scale found in Japan, for memory.

[Azarkon]

The particulars of each society are bound to be different. But that's part of the optimization process. If there wasn't any diversity, progress could be stalled if we were all stuck at the same point. This is part of the problem with Western societies today - we've reached, I think, what in function optimization people call a "local maxima." That is, we're at a spot where there's no seemingly easy way to improve the overall satisfaction, and as a result we stagnate. Thankfully, or regretfully, depending on your point of view, humans have an innate desire for change that might help us overcome this setback. But before that happens, we're bound for a rough ride as societies oscillate back and forth in search of a way forward.

[Nick_i_am]

Indeed, though the idea was that it's hard for a society to embrace a boon on the level of such a low crime rate without there also being a large sacrifice. Much of this could probably be helped by advances in technology, but those same advances are what keeps the population going up, leading to overcrowding and a reduction in said satisfaction, as well as an increase in 'wildcards'.

 

I think trying to give a formula to human behavior (even on the society level) may be possible when every factor is considered, but it still feels like trying to play a game of pool in a storm at sea.

[Azarkon]

I agree, but people far wiser than I have been at it for as long as civilization's existed It's the holy grail of the social sciences, after all.

 

But getting our heads out of the clouds for a moment, I think the relatinship between social repression and crime bears looking at. It's certainly a trade-off, as you say, and I do wonder how better technology - especially as a way of redirecting repressed desires - would affect the landscape. I think it's safe to say that the old hypothesis that games like Doom are a good outlet for violent instincts must be challenged, given that school shootings are becoming more common, not less. Still, what would today's youths be doing, if video games didn't exist? Would they be more violent, or less?

[Nick_i_am]

Yeah, there have been a spate of studies looking at the corrolation between violence and media and there havn't really been any conclusive results. Far more significant seems to be the societies own trend towards pro-social behavior where 'clan' based cultures such those that are traditional in Japanese and Hindu cultures produce 'lower levels' of violent behavior and higher cooperative tendancies than those in more individualistic based cultues, such as we get in modern western society.

 

In both the above 'clan' cultures the role of the family is very important in its members lives, acting as a hub and extended social support network to a far greater degree than the average 'westerner' would probably be used to. Anyone who's seen 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' has had a glance at how this form of family unit works, and on one hand this seems to, as stated above, produce lower levels of violent behavior due (possibly) to the focus on acting as part of an extended 'unit' from an early age, but on the other hand it also seems to stunt competitiveness and willingness to act independantly. Both of these are seen as positive traits by western societies which makes it somthing of a lose-lose situation for people living in these backgrounds but not living in a society of like-minded individuals.

[Walsingham]

I say this without casting aspersions on one or the other (something many of YOU should try) and making no claim as to which is wiser or more right. It just is.

One has a school shooting per week, one has not. Pardon me for claiming one is wiser and more right.

 

If it's not the easy availability of guns, then what is it? What is so fundamentally different about the American mindset that guns are a non-factor in the equation? So far in this thread you've all been pinning the blame on mentally disturbed people. Since you have many more shootings, something IS different, that much is clear. Logically (according to YOUR logic) since it's not the amount of guns that causes it, it must be the amount of mentally ill people. Are you saying Americans are more mentally ill than other people in the world? Is it your health care system that's failing? Are Americans just more perceptible to mental illnesses?

 

I'm not sure that was GD's argument. I think I was the one saying it was mentally ill people who go on homicidal rampages and kill scores of people they don't know.

 

As for the USA having more, I don't know the statistics. But I would expect that free mental healthcare is even worse than that in the UK. I'll levae it there before I start sounding like a filthy socialist.

[Meshugger]

On a side-note, animals have been murdering each other for as long as they've existed. Just look at mating battles for example, deer might just clash antlers, but walruses are easily capable of killing a love rival. More so, our closest relative, chimps, have been recorded commiting murder in a social context, we're talking a mass lynching against a male who fell out with the packs leader.

This is even before we get onto things like the seemingly irrational behavior of cirtain sets of Orcas that catch seals then throw them into the air for hours, seemingly for fun.

Humans might be bad, but suggesting that we're the only ones who are just because we're the only ones who've invented atomics is a pile of crap.

 

On the other hand, pockets of humanity have been civilized as far back as 4000 years and further, depending on how you deffine civilized. Frankly, many of those were more civilized than many modern cultures. The arab lands were host to the worlds seat of culture back when england and america was still full of mudhuts filled with people who thought that bodypainting was the height of fashion.

 

You didn't read my post properly. I never suggested that humans are the only ones capable of committing murder of any kind. Humans are even more vicious than animals, as in humans can kill without the need of expanding territory, greed or survival. We just do because we can without any previous external stimuli. And that is my point, as in we haven't truly evolved as a species until we stop killing one and another. Civilizations with human rights are only the first baby-step, and can be easily taken away by a huge disaster.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Meshugger

[Tale]

On a side-note, animals have been murdering each other for as long as they've existed. Just look at mating battles for example, deer might just clash antlers, but walruses are easily capable of killing a love rival. More so, our closest relative, chimps, have been recorded commiting murder in a social context, we're talking a mass lynching against a male who fell out with the packs leader.

This is even before we get onto things like the seemingly irrational behavior of cirtain sets of Orcas that catch seals then throw them into the air for hours, seemingly for fun.

Humans might be bad, but suggesting that we're the only ones who are just because we're the only ones who've invented atomics is a pile of crap.

 

On the other hand, pockets of humanity have been civilized as far back as 4000 years and further, depending on how you deffine civilized. Frankly, many of those were more civilized than many modern cultures. The arab lands were host to the worlds seat of culture back when england and america was still full of mudhuts filled with people who thought that bodypainting was the height of fashion.

 

You didn't read my post properly. I never suggested that humans are the only ones capable of committing murder of any kind. Humans are even more vicious than animals, as in humans can kill without the need of expanding territory, greed or survival. We just do because we can without any previous external stimuli. And that is my point, as in we haven't truly evolved as a species until we stop killing one and another. Civilizations with human rights are only the first baby-step, and can be easily taken away by a huge disaster.

To set the bar of social evolution at the stage where no killing occurs is absolutely ludicrous. And to say that "humans are more vicious than animals" when there are animals who eat their own young with a manner of regularity is just ignorant.

 

 

Established rights is not a "baby-step" over civilizations of the past or animals. Abolishment of slavery, establishment of democracies, abolishment of torture and maiming for petty crimes is not a "baby-step." These are BIG things. These have profound effects.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Tale

[Tigranes]

as in humans can kill without the need of expanding territory, greed or survival

 

Wait, so killing for territory or greed is actually less contemptible than other types of killing?

 

We just do because we can without any previous external stimuli.

 

I mean, this sentence would probably better fit a race of beings who just sit there with a sharp knife then randomly stick it into other people's groins as they go for a beer.

 

Just because some fundamental aspects of primitive (non-)civilisations are detectible in a distorted form now, does not mean that social evolution of the last few thousand years is negligible or trivial. At best, that amounts to saying, "but we're still humans!".

[Meshugger]

On a side-note, animals have been murdering each other for as long as they've existed. Just look at mating battles for example, deer might just clash antlers, but walruses are easily capable of killing a love rival. More so, our closest relative, chimps, have been recorded commiting murder in a social context, we're talking a mass lynching against a male who fell out with the packs leader.

This is even before we get onto things like the seemingly irrational behavior of cirtain sets of Orcas that catch seals then throw them into the air for hours, seemingly for fun.

Humans might be bad, but suggesting that we're the only ones who are just because we're the only ones who've invented atomics is a pile of crap.

 

On the other hand, pockets of humanity have been civilized as far back as 4000 years and further, depending on how you deffine civilized. Frankly, many of those were more civilized than many modern cultures. The arab lands were host to the worlds seat of culture back when england and america was still full of mudhuts filled with people who thought that bodypainting was the height of fashion.

 

You didn't read my post properly. I never suggested that humans are the only ones capable of committing murder of any kind. Humans are even more vicious than animals, as in humans can kill without the need of expanding territory, greed or survival. We just do because we can without any previous external stimuli. And that is my point, as in we haven't truly evolved as a species until we stop killing one and another. Civilizations with human rights are only the first baby-step, and can be easily taken away by a huge disaster.

To set the bar of social evolution at the stage where no killing occurs is absolutely ludicrous. And to say that "humans are more vicious than animals" when there are animals who eat their own young with a manner of regularity is just ignorant.

 

Absolutely not ludicrous. It is a goal tried several times before, and will be in the future. Remember what i said earlier about those people who tried to praise such things? But of of course, they got killed by us, humans.

[Meshugger]

as in humans can kill without the need of expanding territory, greed or survival

 

Wait, so killing for territory or greed is actually less contemptible than other types of killing?

 

Killing without reason is what humans are good at, and seperates us from animals in a very negative way.