Connecticut shooting, gun control laws?

[BarDulL]

My only qualm with armed guards is that, well, I wouldn't want kids being exposed to that kind of stuff early on in their life spans. Hopefully the weapons are concealed if possible. Aside from that, government spending to put armed guards at each school would cost a lot of money...so many districts and schools, I wonder if the government can afford it considering the deficit it's in already...ideally though armed guards would be nice to have otherwise.

 

[Luco]

I find it annoying that they want to criticize video games and movies and the like and blame them for this when studies and statistics show an opposing trend.

Couldn't see the video, wonder whether they used their own statistics? (And am I going to trust that?)

 

[Teran]

Also at the same time constantly blaming stuff on the parents isn't legit either.

This is especially so in an era when every traditional form of discipline has been classified as abuse or bordering on it.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I hate the ****ing "why can't I slap my kids they won't learn crap unless I physically hurt them" bullcrap. There are better ways to punish your kids that don't make them fearful of you.

 

[Delta-cod]

Well, that method of discipline had good results for a pretty long time.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

But child abuse is the source of all things wrong in this world.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it's not the only solution and I don't think it's the right one.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I hate the ****ing "why can't I slap my kids they won't learn crap unless I physically hurt them" bullcrap. There are better ways to punish your kids that don't make them fearful of you.

Not only that, but corporal punishment completely breaks down as a form of discipline once you can no longer physically dominate your children. I think that fear is a necessary part of instilling discipline, but if that fear (and by extension the discipline) is predicated on physical intimidation, once that intimidation is gone, you have no basis for your authority.

I grew up in a home where physical forms of discipline were used liberally, and my brother put it like this: once he reached a certain age, the cost/beneft analysis of doing something wrong irrevocably swung in his favor. At that point, receiving a beating was no longer a deterent.

Discipline has to be based on more than just the ability to strike your children, because that time passes, and then you have nothing.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I think that fear is important, but it should be fear of being punished rather than fear of the person administrating it. That way you're not coming home every day to a person you're afraid of. And even then, it shouldn't just be that, because then they'll learn "don't get caught" instead of "don't do that"

 

[Jam Stunna]

Everyone learns "Don't get caught" eventually, around the time they stop accepting their parent's words as absolute and legitimately ask why certain things are wrong beyond the "Because I say so" line of reasoning.

I also think that fear must be tied to me as a person, not so that my son fears me but so that he fears being scolded by me specifically. I notice that my son responds differently to what I say to him than he does to others. I don't have to yell to achieve the desired disciplinary effect because it's me that's saying it. He's not afraid of me, but he is afraid of being disciplined by me, and I think that's necessarily tied to my person.

 

[Yodery]

Just saying, but if anybody here really thinks banning guns is the answer...

criminals don't pay attention to the law

 

[Jam Stunna]

Banning guns isn't the answer, but making them extremely difficult to get is.

There's so much data that proves definitively that restricting access to guns lowers the amount of gun-related crime. Fareed Zakaria has a pretty good column that lists some of the data:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...7_1_gun-violence-gun-ownership-tough-gun-laws

Obviously criminals don't follow the law, but if the guns aren't out there for them to get their hands on, then they'll have to break the law some other way.

 

[GwJ]

Does that 6/7 illegal gun consider that a certain fraction of those guns were obtained from people who did own the legally? For example, the Connecticut shooter got his gun from his mother (if I'm wrong, correct me. However, this has surely happened before so the exact example isn't important).

 

[Teran]

I hate the ****ing "why can't I slap my kids they won't learn crap unless I physically hurt them" bullcrap. There are better ways to punish your kids that don't make them fearful of you.

I was referring to more ways of discipline than simply striking them.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I was referring to more ways of discipline than simply striking them.

Such as...?

 

[Teran]

Depriving them of certain creature comforts or luxuries as a result of their transgressions.

Giving them a very firm and direct talking to (with possible raised voice) that could cause them to get rather upset.

Note that I used "borderline" as well, implying the fact that some things are seen as cruel and unacceptable practices in child discipline. No really, causing a child significant distress is generally seen as cruel now. You can't even use any sort of pejorative language when it is entirely appropriate, say. There's a pervasive culture of telling children "if you think an adult is abusing you, call social services immediately and we will stop this from happening".

Basically the moment you threaten a child with any sort of discipline, you are being cruel for no buckling to their bull****, so they will just drop the line "I will call social services". Basically there's this cultural idea now that the child is always right and devoid of accountability or responsibility, or the ability to think up any sort of thing that would be seen as scheming, so children use this to their advantage.

Basically children are given this false ideal of empowerment through basically stripping the adults of more and more authority yet tacking on more and more accountability.

Basically the point is children are not innocent and stupid and should not be treated accordingly.

Punishment is not always necessary if you can get the idea of negative consequence in someone's head, but if it doesn't register, then creating the negative consequence through punitive action creates a negative association. Basic learning mechanism.

So beat your kids with tire irons everyone, added points if you use a fire poker instead.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Ah, I see. You're not saying people should hit their kids, you're just overreacting to people not yelling at their kid to shut up whenever they annoy you. Got it.

 

[Teran]

Well I dunno man there was a time when kids weren't mass murderers so obviously there are a bunch of things totally going awry.

 

[BarDulL]

When I have kids, I will make sure that they understand why what they're doing is wrong instead of trying to condition them to believe in an idea that they don't really understand in the first place. If they repeat a mistake then I'll have to consider punishment as an option, but I don't feel that conditioning one's children via punishment to act in a certain way is necessarily healthy for their mental development.

Eh, I'm not even sure how I'd approach my child. Guess I'll just be spontaneous about it when it finally happens. Kinda.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Well I dunno man there was a time when kids weren't mass murderers so obviously there are a bunch of things totally going awry.

Because no kid ever did anything like this back in the day and now every kid is doing it. To solve this problem, all you need to do is yell at parents to hit their kids and scream at them whenever they do something wrong. Genius.

 

[Teran]

Because no kid ever did anything like this back in the day and now every kid is doing it. To solve this problem, all you need to do is yell at parents to hit their kids and scream at them whenever they do something wrong. Genius.

Not quite as much it would seem.

You are so full of it that it is beyond comprehension, just pulling random sarcastic quips with completely misconstrued interpretations. That or conveniently constructed ones that are entirely false so you can attack something.

Edit: @ Bardull they'll understand that through good education (education not necessarily meaning academia, something that escapes most people).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Kids' psychological understanding of morality is reward and punishment. "This is bad because I get punished/ridiculed for it." "This is good because I get praised/rewarded for it or not get punished/ridiculed for it." As a result it is largely fear based. The concept of right and wrong is handed to them by an authority, and I think psychologists say children view themselves as extensions of their parents. Unfortunately, punishment is the way that they typically learn at that age. Perhaps though a parent can make use of this intense empathetic bond and use it not necessarily as ways to condition your child through punishing but understanding consequences from actions that affect themselves and their parents, which is similar in theory.

As for thinking criminals don't follow the laws (Yodery), I'd like you to ponder on something. People's tendencies to be dishonest or partake in an illegal activity is when they can rationalize it, and this requires specific circumstances. By making it harder to get a hold of a gun in the first place, that in and of itself acts as a deterrent by shredding dozens of circumstances for would-be criminals.

 

[Biz_R_0]

You are so full of it that it is beyond comprehension, just pulling random sarcastic quips with completely misconstrued interpretations. That or conveniently constructed ones that are entirely false so you can attack something.

Nope, every "sarcastic quip" was in reply to you and what you were saying. None of it was random or made up, you have implied all of those things. The part about the no kids ever doing it but now they all are was in response to your post saying that back in the day kids weren't mass murderers (which was implying that it didn't happen back then but it happens frequently now). The part about the solution being hitting and screaming at your kids was in reply to how you think kids aren't being disciplined harshly enough, and this is really the only possible thing I think you could've meant by that because I don't see kids doing whatever they want and not getting punished wherever I go.

And right now, I could say that you're doing the exact same thing except with direct insults in place of sarcasm. Your entire post is just accusations with no reasoning. "You're just throwing out random insults or you're lying so that you have a point! I know this because [citation needed]."

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well I dunno man there was a time when kids weren't mass murderers so obviously there are a bunch of things totally going awry.

I disagree here. It's not that there were no mass murderers before, it's that the site of mass murder has changed. Instead of taking place in the jungles of Vietnam or in concentration camps, now the massacres are happening closer to home.

There have always been terrible people, but now the proliferation of military-grade weapons (especially in America) means that military-grade massacres can happen anywhere, not just on battlefields.

 

[Luco]

I wouldn't call it 'fear-based'. Using the word fear seems like an over-exaggeration. There's a difference between general fear and just not wanting your mum to yell at you when she gets home because of something you did.

Even if kids don't learn something is wrong because it's wrong and start off with 'something's wrong because this person said so', they DO learn morality as they grow. I would have known my foundations for morality at like four or five; such as not stealing or harming people.

Fear is never something I want in a relationship. I just don't feel like 'fear' is the appropriate word to use there.

Anywho...

 

[Pink Reaper]

There's also the fact that before mass murder weapons were readily available(Read: Guns) it was much harder to murder large numbers of people at once. Even just going back a bit more than a century when guns werent automatic it wasnt something that could just be done.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I wouldn't call it 'fear-based'. Using the word fear seems like an over-exaggeration. There's a difference between general fear and just not wanting your mum to yell at you when she gets home because of something you did.

That's called being fearful of a consequence, I don't see your issue other than you wanting to not have a negative connotation attached to this psychological stage.

I use it even with that connotation because I find that pejorative nuance appropriate. You're right, it isn't appropriate with relationships, that is why I recommended trying to make a different use of the stage's implications i.e. trust, awareness of emotional reactions/interpretations, etc. with the parent(s) and extend that to understanding to others.

 

[Luco]

It's appropriate but still a negative exaggeration. Yes it's being fearful of a consequence but from my experience, 'fear' is a much deeper and darker form of 'scared' or 'afraid'. I know it's not necessarily that, that's just my experience coming in to this conversation, you know what I mean?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Then the only thing exaggerated is your interpretation of it. Although, honestly, it doesn't seem that way at all to me. I see proof of it being "general fear" (as I interpret that) everyday with my two little sisters. Without the parents around they always hold our parents' judgment against each other to prevent them from doing something. They also get really upset (very quickly as well) when, after something is done by one, the other claims to have the intention to bring this to the authority figure's judgment.

This is furthered when the parents are actually around. When these promises follow through, or when a guardian catches one having done something considered wrong, they are very quick to lie about it, in fact it is their first reaction. They aren't malicious, evil children, but their natural instinct is to hide in order to avoid punishment. I've even seen just yesterday a case of one using misdirection to try and avoid punishment, attempting to hide their own "wrong" by bringing light to a completely off-topic "wrong" done by the other sister. They do not have ill will towards each other any other time and get along and love each other, but the taboos that are created by punishments being associated with things does indeed create a state of fear that bends them. They aren't constantly being afraid, if for whatever reason that is your concept of "general fear", which I feel no one has, for people only experience fear when their mind is associated with some sort of possibility, it exists only relative to some circumstance.

That fact is also why this stage of morality shouldn't be used in such a way because, as mentioned in my previous post, people when given the right circumstances, will justify their actions. This holds true when people feel that they can do something without retaliation or without being judged. If someone thinks that way, when put in a situation where they are in the dark, where judgment can't pierce them, temptation will grab a hold of them much more than someone who has a more empathetic understanding of morality. Not that we should act as if some sort of authoritative figure it always watching us, even alone in the darkness, but rather an understanding of consequences separate of the concept of judgment entirely.

 

[Luco]

Okay, that's fair. How about the times when a child deliberately tells the truth or plans to tell the truth, based on their ethics, knowing that they'll still get punished for it? I used to do that myself...

 

[Yodery]

Post edited for inappropriate content.

 

[Tavitoes]

Yes. It's a terrible thing. Turns out that when they searched the murderer's basement, they found a bunch of shooting games like COD.

 

[Yodery]

Yes. It's a terrible thing. Turns out that when they searched the murderer's basement, they found a bunch of shooting games like COD.

I take it you're a Christian?

 

[Tavitoes]

I take it you're a Christian?

Nope. Jewish.

 

[Jon Farron]

Who DOESN'T have shooting games SOMEWHERE in their house?

I don't like much of them myself, but my Dad plays them. Trust me, he's not a psycho killer, lmao.

Video games are not the issue, and guns are not the issue. People are.


Also I heard on the news the guy was a Satanist (not sure if it's true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised), so that probably has a lot to do with it.

 

[Tavitoes]

Who DOESN'T have shooting games SOMEWHERE in their house?

I don't like much of them myself, but my Dad plays them. Trust me, he's not a psycho killer, lmao.

Lol, completely true. Actually, according to Internet psychologists, violent games will actually make you a less violent person. Evidently not with this guy, but that's what they say.

 

[Luco]

Lol, completely true. Actually, according to Internet psychologists, violent games will actually make you a less violent person. Evidently not with this guy, but that's what they say.

Yea I read that as well. ^_^

Another interesting thing, playing violent video games apparently makes you more tolerant to pain. It has something to do with adrenaline and all that.

 

[Tavitoes]

Weird. VIDEO GAMES ARE TAKING OVER!

 

[Yodery]

Also I heard on the news the guy was a Satanist (not sure if it's true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised), so that probably has a lot to do with it.

lol, tbh i bet you heard that off some conservative Republican god and jesus bomb abortion clinics news channel.

 

[Jon Farron]

I heard it on NBC during my lunch break at work O.o

You know, you're really becoming obnoxious.