If you Want to Stop Mass Killing , First Stop the Killer .

1. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

   For years I have listed to the two ideologies discuss the issue of crime , violence , firearms , firearm crimes and lately mass killings . I always come to this ending ,  In my career  I have been trained in managing people , I have managed people as employees and managed  my own company .  This debate of crime and punishment , is as old as the ideologies themselves.   I offer all of you- of both ideologies- this  ;   In any training program for any human possibility there is but one set of rules for the  solving of anything  especially any problem with the involvement  of human nature .
   
   Break the problem down into it's smallest elements . For instance ;
   
   Mass Killings , what initial elements are there ?
   
   a-The Act itself -  can't possibly stop the act itself
   b-The Weapon  -  many and multiple choices ?
   c-The Reason  -   multiple , varied and unknowable
   d-The man       -  The one and only controlling  variable  in the instances of possible prevention of mass killings , So why in the hell does a large part of the mostly liberal popular opinion believe that , A,B or C is controllable and preventable ?  Whenever this is pointed out , mostly those of  the left scream in unison ," Ban the Gun "?
   
   Explain why you think that A,B, or C is the answer?

   replyreport
2. 74

   Nouveau Skepticposted 9 months ago

   A B C and D are all the answer because they are all equally difficult and partially effective.
   
   Can you explain why you think finding the killer, before they kill, is the easiest of the 4?

   replyreport
   1. 97

      wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Not Horseback, but I'll take a shot at it:
      1)  Given a murderer in range of the victim, and no indication of what is about to happen, the act cannot be stopped.  One might say "But we stop (limit) terrorism and that's stopping the act", and we would be correct.  But we do it by finding and stopping the person before the act is in a position to occur.
      2) Should be self evident; there are far, far too many possibilities for murder weapons to limit possession of them all.  That knives, shotguns, pistols, bludgeons (baseball bat, hammer, etc.) and even fists are each used to end more lives than the dreaded "assault weapon" makes this obvious.  We cannot rid the world of weapons and killers will kill whether they have access to their favorite weapon or not.
      3)  The reasons for killing are as numerous as killings.  We cannot possibly eliminate reasons...unless and until we have already found the killer before (s)he acts and worked through his/her reasoning.
      4) That leaves finding the killers before they kill.  Or, perhaps, identifying what it is in our society that promotes and causes these people to kill and then changing society and ourselves so that it no longer exists.  The bottom line is that only finding killers before they kill is the only option that is effective at all.  That it is perhaps the most difficult, and certainly the most obnoxious (admitting we, the people, have a problem within ourselves) doesn't change that it is the only one that might work.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Because the entire systematic breakdown of our judicial system is the problem and not an inanimate object or theoretical  idea or ideals .  The act , the weapon or the reason is the most endlessly differing and impossible entity to control . Our system of laws is based on the man , his acts and resulting crimes . Almost every single mass shooting  is preventable if we corral the lawless , understand the mentally impaired or connect the dots between  pre-recorded crimes and charges of violence .
      
      The legal system has been  almost universally at fault in "missing " these mass killers.   Immigration ,  military discharges , past criminal records , mental health records will untangle the mess , not another law.

      replyreport
3. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 months ago

   Restrict gun use, but not alcohol, THC and pharmaceutical use?
   ?

   replyreport
4. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 months ago

   Cancer occurs when the control centers of individual cells loose their minds and go haywire. We NEED guns to protect ourselves when individual members of the population start loosing (control of) their minds and go haywire.

   replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

   When parents start limiting  the mind altering legal or illegal drugs they pump into their heads or their kids heads ,  when grown adults stop altering their own minds with drugs and alcohol , the mass killings will change dramatically .
   
   WE exist in an altered reality today .

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      +1!

      replyreport
   2. 83

      Aime Fposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      What statistics do you have to back this up or is it purely conjecture?
      
      It’s also important to note that most parents don’t “pump their kids full” of anything unless it’s seen as a necessary treatment for another issue. Taking away medication from the general population would likely cause way more problems than it would solve.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

         You refuse , like all of the anti gun crowd does , to acknowledge  that the human element is the greater cause and effect  of mass killings yet  almost every killing is loaded down like a melon  truck with past criminal records ,  past military records , past mental health problems  and  other issues , like illegal immigration  AND that  same human element is responsible for the  systematic bungling of our entire legal system . No one in these debates on the left admits systematic problems .
         
         Yet we are all supposed to view the leftist ideology as the more intelligent and enlightened ?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Aime Fposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Hmm, I said nothing specifically about guns and included all of the other factors you deemed meaningless as a whole. I don’t really want to have the gun conversation again, truly if you had just made the thread about guns vs whatever else I wouldn’t have replied. The one and only thing I’ll say about guns specifically: wanting stricter gun control doesn’t mean I think the root of the problem is the guns themselves.
            
            So what’s your plan to stop killers from killing before they kill? Stop medicating the people who have mental illness because you’ve decided that correlation equals causation? Throw every person who commits a crime in prison for good because they’re more likely to commit future crimes? Good look with that.
            
            But since we’re throwing out silly and unrealistic solutions... you know what would be the most simple way to cut down on 90% of killings? Have an all-female population. Being male is of course the most overwhelmingly common factor when it comes to murder.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

               I can see there's not an iota of  solution in that response ,  You obviously have no answer to why gun restrictions don't work and your frustration is showing . Let me just say  I understand.
               
               As to the last para. Hey , I thought that the young and enlightened weren't supposed to be as sexist as that ?

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  Aime Fposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  YOU are the one who offered a “solution” that actually has no way of being put into motion. I keep asking you HOW you plan on stopping someone before they kill another person and you offer me nothing other than listing off some consistent factors. Please tell me how you plan to control those factors other than the ridiculous “solutions” I inferred from that. Again, I DO NOT want to get into another conversation about guns specifically, I’ve had the conversation 100000 times before. I responded because you listed a number of things that people try to control in order to reduce mass killings, all of which I feel are relevant since we cannot logically just stop someone from deciding to kill someone straight up. If you want to talk about mental health, medications, environmental influences, etc. I am happy to discuss. If you just want to keep coming back to guns then I’m bored and I’m sorry that I misunderstood the direction of this thread.
                  
                  Stating a statistical fact is not being sexist. I felt it was pretty obvious I was being facetious with my all-female population remark but if it wasn’t clear to you then I’ll spell it out: I do not think all men should be phased out. It’s just as ridiculous as saying that any other one single factor contributes to what makes someone want to kill other people. It’s not that simple.

                  replyreport
6. 83

   Aime Fposted 9 months ago

   Well that’s great in theory, but unless you have a tangible idea as to how we stop a killer before they kill someone then it’s nothing more than a nice thought that will save zero lives in reality. That’s why we look to A, B, C as ways of potentially lessening the damage that will inevitably be caused by our lack of ability to know who is going to kill someone before they do it.

   replyreport
   1. 97

      wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      "Potentially".  A great word, but when massive evidence points to the opposite it doesn't mean much.  And when the cost of that forlorn "potentially" is to subvert our constitution, to remove freedoms from our people, it in fact becomes quite negative.  Going even further, when it takes the place of actually looking for something that does have potential, well, it just isn't smart at all.

      replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

   A,B,C are pretty heavily regulated correct ?   
   A- the Acts of mass killings   , all acts of harm to another person , multiple people , domestic violence , school violence law. criminal law , The potential criminal ACT  of mass killing is heavily regulated by law no ?
   
   B-The potential weapons , military equipment , guns , knives , automobiles , trucking , airlines , chemicals , explosives ,  transportation laws ,biological weapons  .........any physical weapon is regulated , some of them heavily regulated .What potential weapon of death isn't regulated?
   
   C-The reasons for mass killings , terror,  politics , military subversion's,  religions , race relations ,  civil disobedience's ,mental illness'............regulated by law ?
   
   D-The man - human nature - Not one method of prevention , the most unpredictable and unmanageable element of mass killings , yet  the most dangerous element of all .
   
   A,B,and C have been regulated to the saturation point of each and all each ,  all the way to the point of complete redundancy .
   
   But what is done about the man and his mental condition  ? Comprehensive Mental health care ?  Nope!    Any plans of discovery of pre-disposition to extreme violence in children ? Nope .  Are we truly addressing PTSD in ex-soldiers or In  cases of domestic violence ?    Are we questioning religious affiliated tendencies to violence ? Hardly  ?  Yet ,how many times has someone said , "I knew he was capable of violence -   after the fact "?
   
   Anyone turning in their children , neighbors ,  fathers , students ,

   replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

   60,000 people killed in America last year from Opioid abuse ?  I just read that number and thought , bingo  !   This is one reason  liberals are all over the gun control issue ..............., because they are dodging and deflecting real issues of thier cultural  mess, sloppy  health care system ,  pharm-addictions    ,  your illicit or presription drug addictions .......And the incredible amounts of associated crimes, one of them being mass killings having to do with the altered state of the mind ?
   
   Better get things in proper perspective  ?

   replyreport