Gun-control!

Why not also limit the effects of the symptoms at the same time.

To use a bad analogy, there's no cure for the common cold. There are ways to treat the symptoms and make the experience less horrible, whilst they continue to look for a cure. The same can be applied here. Whilst they work on a way of 'curing' mentally unstable people (and by this I mean preventing them from doing this kind of stuff), they make the symptoms of their effects on society less horrible.

 

Tricky mentioned this earlier in page 1 about mental health being the issue and that many people who do these shootings aren't mentally ill they are just angry, scared, and pissed off and don't thinking straight at the time but overall they are still sane people. It is hard to tell if the person was mentally ill or not when they did it because so many of them kill themselves after the mass murder. Unless we can get a clear picture of how many of them were done by crazy people no clear consensus can be made here.

In many of the cases here like the V tech case clear signs were shown that the killer was seeking help and no one paid attention to it at all until it was too late. That wasn't the only case of this either. Look at my post to earlier and you will explain where it starts at home before they go to school on a daily basis. People in this country choose to ignore the real issues on purpose or don't know the signs of it before it happens the signs will differ based on the person making it even harder to spot. 1 sign like writing a note about a person's hatred of society might be okay for 1 person but it will be a big red flag for another person. This randomness and the general public's own laziness in general is the big reason why the real issue mental health is ignored and people think strong gun laws will patch it up when. It won't it will only make the situation worse when it is seen as the only solution to the problem.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
It is term with pretty well-defined content.

Read this years news from China. Latest attacker harmed 3 adults and 28 children; earlier this year, there was 8 death and 5 more seriously harmed earlier this year. And there was a lot more knife attacks in schools this year in China.
I know, 31 wounded or 8 death is not the some as 20+ death. But it is still pretty serious issue. And knife... everyone have knife at home. Not to mention that you can try buying weapon on black market. I do not know how hard it is USA, but I can imagine it will not be that much different from rest of the "western" world. What means it is damn easy.


Anyway, now about my personal opinion. Let me share with you my personal experience from my only visit to USA, where I was for E3 2006. Specifically 2 events I saw there:
1st one was on the 1st day of E3, before the gate-opening. There was several thousands people waiting for it, all in one huge line. Everyone was in the line, and the rest of the square (or whatever it is in front of the complex) was empty. When we (ie me and my colleague) arrived, it was about 45 minutes before the actual start of the event and it was obvious we will need to wait at least another 30 minutes in the line after it to get inside. I was still tired after the trip from EU to US, so I left the line and went to sit down on one of the benches located at the end of the square.
Now please mind that what happen next may seem natural for you, but for me it is COMPLETELY insane and unimaginable. In least that 20 secs, there was a cop in front of me, accompanied by 2 mans in bullet-proof vests, helmets and with assault riffles (yeah) aiming on me. I was politely asked to immediately leave the bench and go back to the line under the threat of being arrested. Mind there was no sign nor rule nor warning nor anything saying I am expected to stand in stupid line for nearly 1 and half hours and I really do not see any point in threatening journalist (because the 1st day was journalists-only) who was already controlled for weapons or bombs (you was forced to pass the control before even be allowed to the square) with weapons just because he is sitting on the bench.

2nd event happen about 2 days later in station of the tube. I can not remember where I was traveling - maybe it was to the train which took me to Plagues place..? I really can not remember. I remember that the station was empty when I came in, expect one policeman. Few minutes later, crowd of like 10-15 young blacks (? is this correct to say?) in colored suits and with golden chains came in with loud music entree. The policeman upon sight of them took out the weapon out of his sheath and hold it in hand next to his body.
Now I really do not know who this people was or why he did it. But this is not the point.

The point is that from what I saw or hear about US, it is NORMAL such things happen. You have weapons and you are not scared to use them. In my country, if you have weapon and if you use it is self-defense, you do not even need to kill the attacker and you still end in front of court where the judge will decide if your actions where adequate or not. And the judges are VERY hard in this cases. I doubt you can imagine how hard. Just for one example - there was case where about 8 younglings attacked random guy on street, hitting him hard with fists and kicking him wildly. He took knife to his defense and stab some of them, killing one in process. He was later found guilty for unreasonable defense, because he had black belt in karate or takewondo or something like that... 1 v 8.
Now you can probably imagine how such laws will influence one's view about when and how he can use weapons. But in US, you seems to be used to the fact people have weapons and can use them.

I may be wrong, but this seems to be the root of all problems for me. In US, you are not scared to use weapons. In most other countries, people are - more or less, but are.

 

Unicorn: police pointing assault rifles at citizens isn't a regular occurrence. Our police are armed with militarized gear and very aggressive in situations where they might think a riot might break out. They routinely brutalize people for minor offenses, overuse pepper spray and tasers, kick the shit out of people who they judge to be "resisting arrest", randomly search them, profile and randomly search people in the communities of racial minorities etc. In short the system is set up so the police have to be authoritarian bastards (they are anyway). That said, it's disconcerting to hear that they had assault rifles at E3.

The thing with mass shootings is that the media myopically distills every little detail out of the discussion so we end up with a conduit for the usual partisan ax grinding. The issue isn't an easy one to address in a comprehensive way because it goes beyond the mental health system and the 2nd amendment. Since the media curates 99.9% of the public discourse in this country, we aren't even given the opportunity to come up with the wrong solutions to the myriad underlying problems - we're actually told to focus on something tangential to the real problem!

Should the government allow (yes, allow!) you to have an AR15 that looks and operates in a way similar to military assault weapons? Probably not. Is taking BillyJoeBob's AR15 away going to take away the seething, psychotic rage spree killers harbor toward society? Like unicorn points out - it's doubtful. It might mitigate the harm done, and I'd add the caveat that that is if we can actually keep these types of weapons out of people's hands with such an entrenched gun culture and a literal war over the drugs we consume in the US in northern Mexico.

I've gotta ask this too: are people actually serious about letting psychiatrists make determinations on who harbors this sort of rage or is it simply the first thing that comes to mind? The FBI has tried to profile spree killers in the past and failed. The psychiatry field isn't yet an empirically bulletproof, quantitative medicine. That's not a knock against the work they do, but simply a way of being realistic about what it has to offer society in this situation. If we were to rely on them to, uh, basically shoulder the responsibility for this problem, we'd end up introducing some very serious liability issues for psychiatric care, on top of putting a diagnostic burden on psychiatrists that literally cannot meet as they are not psychics and people are quite capable of hiding their intentions. There are no jedi mind tricks that will tease them out. It's also an economic thing - due to the various cost/insurance/structural issues that severely limit the time they can spend with any patient, let alone someone who they suspect as potentially violent. My take on it is we'd rather have a system in place we can blame for dropping the ball when another shooting occurs.

All these calls for a quick fix and a quick scapegoat -- of course -- are preferable to the public rather than seriously examining the experiences that shape the mentality/motives/biography of the shooters, the relevant social contexts (and economic - a lot of the original workplace and USPS shooting rampages were a direct result of mass layoffs, job insecurity, coercive management styles and the steep decline in organized labor). It sure feels good to speak about these issues in terms of moral platitudes, repeating the 2nd amendment to ourselves like a simplistic mantra or making dangerously uninformed demands on a field of medicine the public knows little about to begin with, but if we allow ourselves to lapse into this kind of thinking we aren't really looking for a solution at all, just something to yell about.

The kneejerk reasoning behind the mental health aspect of the discussion is problematic to say the least: the vast majority of mentally ill people aren't going to grab a gun and fire at people randomly. In fact, the statistics about the mentally ill and crime show it's likelier that they will be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator. (Of course - men disproportionately choose to end their lives with firearms as well!) These spree killings aren't spurred on by some random, violent delusions of schizophrenics. They aren't necessarily clinical psychopaths without a capacity for empathy either. No pathology is a simple fit, just as there is no criminal profile - because each case is different. The common theme is that they are done out of a very twisted concept of vengeance and rage borne out of the shooter's feelings of powerlessness and failure, on top of the obvious mental health issues that come with those feelings. And again, plenty of people fail, plenty of people feel extremely angry, insecure, powerless, etc. and don't go out and shoot people. In other words, we have no objective way to measure the likelihood someone will snap!

So exploring the easy answers leaves us with some not so easy things to consider. There isn't a way to sum the issue up in a few pithy soundbites -- it's a highly nuanced issue and one more politically charged than "take all the guns away" or "smoke out the crazies".

 

Well, in fact, in MANY western-wrold countries it works like this. And it seems to be working.

Well, 1st thing is - this is not up to psychiatrists. The people who are working with this people, at least in my country, are psychologists specialized on work with people with mental disorders. And it is just one part of their pretty important work.
To tell the true, I highly doubt you do not have such people in US. They are very integral and important part of work with people suffering from mental problems; as they basically are psychologists who are there to help mentally ill people.
Anyway, how things usually work here around in cases of overagresivity and similar (mental) problems: (it is somehow simplified, hope noone have problem with it)
If you are suspected to have any problems like this, you have free consultation with such psychologist. It may be also ordered by judge as part of investigation of some problems you where involved in; or you may ask for it. Also your doctor may ask for it, but this needs your agreement.
If this psychologist find anything suspected, he informs you and proper authorities. Then you, in cooperation with them, will undergo some more consultations. If you will be find to have problems, their seriousness will be considered.
If it will be small, you may have normal life without much limitations; you will just not be allowed to own guns nor use them and few more things like this. Nothing what will significantly affect your life.You will also visit your psychologist once per year or two.
If it will be medicore, you will be asked to periodically (usually something between once per 1 month up to 3) visit your psychologist for consultation, eventually take some medicine. Still, no impact on your life except above mentioned. And your agree with the procedure may be replaced by judges order in cases your case is considered to be dangerous for general public.
In case of serious issues, you will lost your sui juris (I think this is similar in US?). Depending on your situation, you will get legal custodian, who will be either some from your family, or some authority. Depending on who your custodian is and what he will agree with, you may end in institute for dangerous, mentally ill people. Only other ways how to end there is after committing a crime instead of going to prison; or from your own free will. But generally, people with serious aggressiveness issues needs to be under constant supervision.

I had a friend from FG community with medicore condition. When playing, he was swearing like there is no tomorrow, smashing his pad etc, but that was all. Normal guy overall. I will not learn it if he will not be in need of legal help after sending father of his GF flying for like 4 meters (I should add the fact he literally throw him through doors was not the core of his problem, but result of other legal problem he had). According to this guy, the "control" was not disabling him at all; he was even admitting it allowed him to lead normal life without fear when and how he will lost control and injure someone.

And I think this is really working and helping people. The system which semi-automatically take care about them. And who actually cares about THEM, not about their state.

Yes, this may be serious problem in US. But I really think it is shame you have system like you have...

You are mixing terms here. Being mentally ill really do not make you potential mass killer. Problems with self-control, problems with non-controlled aggressiveness etc can. And this problems are mental problems - sometimes very serious ones - but does not necessary mean you are mentally ill.

Are you really considering complete change of US system how you take care about people with mental problems to be "easy answer"?

 

Unicorn, in the US it's very rare for the people in power to successfully follow through on the reforms proposed to any sort of publicly funded institution. In the past 30 years, we're more likely to de-fund them, leaving institutions ruined and ineffective. Our supposedly controversial healthcare reform law was basically a new regulation on the health insurance market (and a subsidy for it) rather than a real public health system. It had to be that way for specific ideological reasons, and the policies actually started out as a right-wing law the Republicans proposed in 1993.

You might be coming at it from a perspective where public officials are quite a bit more accountable to the public in the EU. If someone in the legislature was to propose a reform to make it work more like the Czech Republic it would be dismissed as too costly some kind of government over-reach or whatever. That's the problem: no one would consider it seriously. People want something now so they can forget the problem even exists.

For example, media pundits aren't proposing a comprehensive reform to the mental health system to help young men with anger problems or help hem feel more included in society or whatever. Courts can certainly mandate treatment for anger problems, but that's up to the judge, but that isn't the same thing. Most of the current media discourse revolves around ensuring anyone with a history of mental illness cannot buy guns - so it shows up on a background check during the waiting period after buying one. Some states have laws in place for this already, some don't. I'm not sure about Connecticut, but the shooter stole his mother's guns anyway, so even if he were on a registry, it wouldn't have prevented this particular shooting. It's definitely a good idea in theory since politically "take all the guns away" won't happen and carried out adequately it could probably prevent violence. It still carries with it the presumption that a particular kind of violent criminal are always mentally ill, which is basically an idea people got from TV. There's also a privacy issue involved, where data on someone's health problems can show up on a background check that gets used in other contexts like one employers run on potential employees. It might occur to you to say how obvious these potential abuses are and write the law taking them into account, but in the US it doesn't work like that all the time.

The question that no one focuses on is the broader sociological aspects of "What makes these shooters prone to commit their crimes?"

 

Thx for explanation. I am still learning about how much different things are in US.

As I already stated, I think the reason why this happen in US and not in other states is that in US, people are not scared to use weapons. I think in compare to most other states, you are basically considering weapons as solution of situation citizens of like France or UK or so will never even think about them. This overall mental state make people overall prone to using guns in self-defense and under certain circumstances (external or internal) even to other things.

In China, I believe the problem is completely opposite in fact: people are scared to do like anything (generally speaking), so when they decide to break the rules, it does not make THAT much difference if it is just small offense or violent attack.

 

Thing is, this is a symptom of a bigger problem- our culture. Groups like the NRA feed our culture.

I think the emphasis should be on breaking the NRA, more than gun control itself. The more we can hurt and break our reactive institutions (though they will radicalize while we do this), the more successful we can be at changing ourselves.

This is going to be a long, generational campaign- but I think we're winning it- slowly. We just gotta be patient and persistent, two traits you don't normally associate with Americans.

 

That stance makes sense if we're just talking about guns here. But if someone wants to be violent they do do it without a gun. Knives, bombs, home made chemical weapons. I don't think it's a simple as USA folks don't have stigma associated with using weapons to protect yourself.

 

From my perspective, it being unthinkable to use a gun to murder people at work or school is still the norm. The shock is one of the few things about the shootings that isn't really manufactured in the media. People are genuinely afraid. If anything, people are becoming even more afraid about it as it has become routine. Where I live local county police came out floating the idea of having armed guards in schools! An absolutely terrible idea, but that's the type of thinking that feeds this gun craze.

There's also been a huge, unprecedented drop in violent crime in the US in the past few decades, but the public actually think it's going up - so you start to see how TV news reports pretty much shapes people's entire perception of the issue of crime.

And still, re the NRA thing: It would not surprise me if there were spree shooters that weren't even gun owners until they began planning to do something violent. The NRA and gun culture is an obstacle to more effective gun control laws, sure. But gun control legislation has only became more unpopular during the Bush era and after. Anecdotally, in the past year or so, two gun stores opened up on the main shopping thoroughfare in the suburb I live in. I was genuinely surprised when I saw these stores, because when I was growing up you'd have to go out to a rural hick area to really see a strip mall with a gun store.

Don't get me wrong: having fewer guns around would definitely mitigate the violence in spree killings. It definitely won't to address the conditions that lead people to harbor all this rage. Bullying (especially bullying homosexuals and the disabled -- remember, the shooter in Conneticuit had Asperger's, which basically ensures he was bullied and socially ostracized), a highly competitive and employer-centric hiring culture, constant layoffs, a stagnant economy and stagnant earnings for anyone who isn't a millionaire and so on. If people aren't stressed from their job(s), they're stressed because they can't get one. On top of all this people regularly go bankrupt from health problems, they're saddled with outrageous debts the second they graduate from college, and lost their homes due to the fraudulent mortgage industry (which has been declared above the law, effectively -- see the latest ruling with HSBC).

Think about it like this: you literally can't make rent in most populous states being paid minimum wage, and the growth sectors in the US are predominantly in fields that pay low wages. So it's this utterly toxic social climate where most people's day to day life has the chance the rug could be pulled out from under your finances at any moment. And remember- these shootings began in workplaces and spread to schools. It's clear what's trickling down here is stress, it's a society where you're constantly threatened by poverty or with the prospect of poverty, a very rigid set of expectations for "success" that revolve solely around material gain, etc. So there's this litany of things that shape everyone's day to day life that I think the political leadership in this country has no interest in addressing comprehensively. The public is even worse off in terms of (wanting to) understand it. Even still, it's important to talk about and think critically.

Anyway, enjoy a video:

 

All the factors mentioned help to break down the family structure that is needed to help keep young killers that may not want to kill people knowingly stable from getting the help they need when they need it the most. The society is in fact helping to some degree to make people as violent as they are because they can't live the lives they want to live. I see this everyday and it saddens me. That isn't really much of an excuse in every instance, my folks were like that and I turned out okay and I don't want to kill someone as frustrated as I am at how bad our society is.

That is only part of the problem people aren't always doing what they can to adapt to their environment because they often feel overwhelmed. They then leave the door wide open for themselves or their loved ones to do things they might want to do or regret later. The people that snap aren't crazy nut cases in many instances they are people that want a stable life and just can't get it. My folks were the working poor and still are but they still emphasize the importance of being a good person that avoids doing the bad things and make sure their actions do all the talking as I talk to them about their tough lives. This doesn't always guarantee bad things I am a good example of that and many others are too but in many cases the effort isn't being made at all to show the strength other people need to see and because of that it will push people to make bad choices at very unfortunate times. People that have no mental defenses from their own aggressive tendencies go crazy at this point and normal people with self control will snap at random times and there is no way to know when it will happen either regardless of how good the psychiatrist is you are talking to about it. They can't help because not even you know when it will happen.

This is a very tough subject but something has to be done at its bases with the society that and the people that encourage it to continue with every passing generation. One could argue it is already too late for the people now and hope that our kids in the next generation know better but how is that going to happen if we don't give them the support they need now when they are infants and so on before they become serial murderers and rapists etc.

It is a very sad time for us in these modern days

 

The biggest issue is we don't know what these young killers were thinking when they did it because they kill themselves. Clearly they're doing this to commit suicide and want to take as many others with them as possible. It's the modern day person jumping off a bridge or off a building except they're killing others instead of just themselves. That's why I see this as a mental health issue. People who are having difficulties adjusting to the changing social climinate in USA. I think the measure of how healthy a society is, can be judged based on the prevelance of the mental illness in that society. It's like those folks who are more susceptible to mental illnesses serve like a canary did in coal mines. The canary used to die first if there was a gas leak because they were more sensitive to the change in air composition. We have social disfunction canaries too, they just look different.

We got a lot of scared young people growing up in a world that is telling them there is no future for them.

 

From a less politically-correct standpoint, I feel like these people with 'issues' need to shut up and deal with it.​

​

I mean, really, life is easier now than it's ever been. You don't have to worry about if you're gonna eat today, if you'll have a roof, if you're gonna be raided and your family pillaged and raped. People from past centuries spent their entire waking night just farming or working to maintain enough to support their existence - there wasn't all this automated crap and iphones and fast food and entertainment and yadda yadda.​

​

The 'problems' that people have today are nothing compared to what people used to have to handle. Not getting the right games system from your parents, or not being allowed to stay up past curfew... it's not even in the same league as having to wake before dawn, work your ass off 'till after dark, then hope and pray you're not victim to disease and illness, or that the local band of bullying thugs come to steal your livelihood, kill your father and rape your mother. Hyperbole? Yeah, but the point is that problems today don't compare to problems of the past.​

​

It's a short-sighted point-of-view and doesn't help just to wave them off with a dismissive 'get over it', but that's my initial reaction when people start whining about depression or whatever.​

 

​

"Walk it off"? The whole reason these things occur is actually the absence of the individual in question's ability to "shut up and deal with it". Interestingly enough, this spree killing phenomenon also takes place in other cultures. And other parts of history.​

​

​

​

Life in the US is easier in the sense you're referring to, but it is not without mental problems, tragic accidents, terrible working conditions, crime, racial strife, boredom, addiction, loneliness or abject poverty. It's funny that you mention the bolded part, since it is still a real concern for millions of people in the US. And sure, while cheap food is everywhere, the cheapest, most readily available food is also so unhealthy it will quite literally take years off your life expectancy.​

​

If we're going to make comparisons to the past we also need to take into consideration that we're talking about a much more complex world - one so complex people tend to become prone to feelings of helplessness and anomie, compounded by the fact that most meaningful choices in many people's lives are "who to work for" and "what to buy". I'm not knocking our ability to provide these choices (or the amount of them - i mean, we're posting on a site mostly about an interesting video game - but still a product), but they are a sort of consolation prize taken into a bigger picture of things.​

​

I agree with you, but we're talking about something that has already happened - clearly a product of problems now.​

​

You reminded me of this: Lanza was definitely a comfortable suburban kid. His family was wealthy, even if his parents were divorced (?). The shooting took place in a very well to do neighborhood with a median income of $120,000/year. His mom was also a "prepper", as in someone who stocks up on food and weaponry expecting societal collapse. It's safe to say she had a few screws loose.​

​

So we do have to take it into account that income-wise it in no way representative of average Americans' affluence. But this also adds its own pressure: the people who live there came out on top of the economic hierarchy -- the rat race, so the expectations for success are much higher, and on average, wealthy people are more prone to cruelty and selfishness. Lanza also had a condition that made socializing extremely difficult, compounded by the fact that he was around very successful people who apparently also have different *ahem* issues with empathy. So there's a good chance his parents considered him a failure and a disappointment, and if not them, he'd have definitely gotten it from his peers and his community. It's definitely speculation on my part, but it's something to think about.

It is a frustrating, ultimately depressing state of affairs. It's a lot easier to just say "fuck it" and vent about people blowing their supposedly first world problems out of proportion. Especially when said people violently lash out against the defenseless. Anger is perfectly justified. Still, I think responding to these attacks with spite toward the shooters won't really add to our ability to prevent them in the future.

 

Physically easier? Mentally? Definitelly not.
200 years ago all you needed to be respected citizen was ability to count up to 10 and know few basic facts about bible - and your job, no matter if it was farming or whatever. And "knowing your" job was pretty simple too, as it was the some for your entire life.

Now? You need to study for 9 years (at least in my country, I do not think it is less then 8 in US?) crap that have nothing to do with your job or life just to have "general knowledge" needed to survive in modern world. No joke, read some researtch regarding this topic.
You need to know how to use computer and you need to partiely re-learn it every few years just because you are using Windows which just released new version.
You need to know how to use mobile phone and you need to partially re-learn it every year or two just because your old mobile died. Or every 6 month if you wish to keep with modern treands. And you need to completely re-learn it every like 4 or 5 years due to new technologies.
You probably need to know how to drive car and all the related rules which ae matter of change as well. You need to know how to use public transportation (airplanes including). No matter what you are doing, you need to dapt to new technologies every few years. You need to understand at lest bacis aspects of economy, politic... Etc etc etc.

There are multiple serious studies about the price we are paying for those easy lifes we have, Because it is not comming for free.

Sorry, but this is insulting at least, The problems of "how I will take care about my family" most grownups have are the some for last 10 000 years. Only difference may be fact modern society keeps telling you how important this is much more that before, what directly relate to less simple "random" factors like thugs. Economical crisis etc is not considered much, if at all.
And 2nd thing...
You may argue current problems are nothing to past problems. You may also argue that problems of 3-years old baby are nothing in compare with grownups problems, But you know what? That kid will disagree. His problems matters to him, but your are laughable. Why? Because only one thing is rekevant to how big your problems are: how much it matters to you.

And life itself now matters much more that 200 years ago. Not to mention 2 000... again, there are multipe studies about this topic.

 

Yeah, I get the whole 'my problems matter to me' thing. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, anything in my own life that I perceive as a problem isn't really that big of a deal, but it still pisses me off and seems like a big massive thing at the time.

My point (and again, I'll agree it's a weak one, and not helpful) is just that, if I can deal with my problems, and Joe next door can deal with his, and the one-legged homeless army veteran down the street can deal with theirs all without doing this stuff, why can't these 'shooters' do the same? I understand one person's capability to, well, cope with things, isn't the same as another's - it's just annoying that they feel like they can do shit like this when we all have problems and deal with them in a more reasonable way.

I don't want that to be taken as 'my solution is to tell everyone to shut up and get over it', because that would never work - it's just an emotional reaction to these people, whose actions seem to suggest that they believe their problems and issues are so much more important than anyone else's that they need to kill a load of people (which then adds all the problems of stress and grief onto all the families and friends of the victims etc, which I can say with some certainty is going to be a harder issue to handle than whatever it is the shooter is complaining about).

 

Not everyone's the same. Some folks are better at dealing with things like this than others.

I mean, yeah 90% of America could get through boot camp, but what about the 10% who can't?

You have to deal with the rare cases, because they can do a lot of damage. It's cheaper to handle things before bad things happen, than afterwards.

 

The question is - you can deal with your current problems, but how will you deal with tem if they become twice as big? For times? Ten times? Where is your limit? And what will you do if the limit will be broken?
Because this is where the shooters are separated from "other" people.

 

That's what I mean. There are already people with problems that are twice, four, and ten times as big as those people who shoot up places, and they're dealing with their problems without resorting to stuff. That's why it annoys me - people with far worse things to deal with are handling problems with far better methods. Again, this 'observation' and emotional reaction isn't something I'm claiming is useful; I fully understand that, although people 'should' deal with things better, the fact is that they don't and that something needs to be done to prevent them turning into shooters.

 

The limit a person can take depends on the person even with no conditioning from our parents 1 person will take more stress before they snap. At birth some babies are easier to make cry than others eventhough they made no contact with anyone once they were born. A person naturally has their threshold but how they handle it determines how mentally strong a person is. Some people will resort to violence while other will just break down unable to do anything and freeze up like the scared person you see in the movies that can't kill their enemy regardless of how angry they are at them because they would rather freeze up in stressful moments immediately instead of fighting their way out of it on reaction. They can be pushed to do violent things eventually but they can't handle it easily and will very likely faint or break down from the shock. Other people thrive in this moment and have no trouble committing murders with little or no regret. Those that have little or no defense from their violent tendencies will fall prey to their negative emotions right away acting like psycho path on reaction but normal people can act like this too but there will always be some level of control there and that control and conscious thought could make them more dangerous than the mindless people that act impulsively.

In short there is no way to know how a person will react in the worst case scenario until it happens. For all we know even though I might say I am okay now, I might be just be as bad as the psychos with no protection from their violent tendencies once my limit is broken. I can't say for sure that I will be able to put the gun down then but it will be harder for me to get to that point so much harder that I might not ever see that moment come very often. Just because you have control now don't mean you will have that same level of control in the worst case scenario just because you have a higher tolerence for it. To think something stupid like that will be foolish. That is why a person needs to be pushed to their limit to know just what kind of person they really are deep down.