(December 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Shooting sprees are for uncreative people. If you really want to fuck a shitload of people up: poison, explosives, and a dagger. Getting a horrid illness and spreading it as much as possible is even better

Not a psychopath, just an angry attention whore with access to a decent weapon.

---

(December 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm)Brian37 Wrote: So? Once again "we have other problems too" fuck you. Yea, so? Who the fuck said we shouldn't address that too? This is just another fucking distraction to excuse doing nothing.

It's culturally ingrained, it's an enjoyable thing to do, and it's already quite regulated as far as drugs go: we're doing plenty about alcohol.

The rest is on the user.

---

(December 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm)A Theist Wrote: if this is all about saving lives then why isn't the left jumping on their political soapboxes to regulate the selling and purchasing of alcohol like they harp about more gun control legislation?

It's not about saving lives. It's about image Don't kid yourself thinking that all deaths are seen in the same light.

Alcohol usually uses the word 'manslaughter' and is associated with 'accident'. Mass butchery uses the word 'murder' and is associated with 'intended'

"and it's already quite regulated as far as drugs go: we're doing plenty about alcohol."...not true...alcohol kills more people per year than all the drugs and gun violence combined...we're not doing anywhere near enough about it...the death rate linked to alcohol proves that...

Quote:"Alcohol related injuries and deaths in the United States is a major problem that has seen little improvement over the last decade.
In fact, alcohol related car accidents kill more people between the ages of 17 and 34 than any other cause. Alcohol is also closely associated with homicides, suicides, workplace injuries, domestic violence, assault, and complications and death resulting from alcohol related disease like cirrhosis of the liver. Understanding the potentially injurious or fatal risks that people take when they drink is essential to creating an educated public that is more cognizant of the need for self-control over alcohol."

"Alcohol usually uses the word 'manslaughter' and is associated with 'accident'."...not when alcohol is directly linked to a willful act of murder...those who 'accidentally' killed others while under the influence of alcohol were aware of the potential consequences before they decided to get drunk...I don't hold them guiltless....

http://recoveryfirst.org/alcohol-related...e-us.html/

Quote:"and it's already quite regulated as far as drugs go: we're doing plenty about alcohol."...not true...alcohol kills more people per year than all the drugs and gun violence combined...we're not doing anywhere near enough about it...the death rate linked to alcohol proves that...

Consider: it is also *used more frequently* than all drugs and domestic guns combined. Increase the usage of the rest, and you'll likely see similar results

Quote:"Alcohol usually uses the word 'manslaughter' and is associated with 'accident'."...not when alcohol is directly linked to a willful act of murder...those who 'accidentally' killed others while under the influence of alcohol were aware of the potential consequences before they decided to get drunk...I don't hold them guiltless....

It being accidental has absolutely nothing to do with whether one be innocent or guilty of the act. Yes, you can accidentally kill someone. Yes, you're probably guilty of that. No, people are not going to be quite as pissed off with you, and the sentencing is usually considerably more lenient.

Actually, I think very few people are realistically aware of what might happen when they get drunk. This is because the difference between your drunken self and you current *inhibited and in control* being is so drastically different. I'd suggest that in some cases it might even be unpredictable. Note: this does not mean they are somehow not responsible for their actions while drunk... but very few people assume they have a chance of killing someone while they are intoxicated. People are simply not as scared of what they might do as you appear to be

(December 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm)Shell B Wrote: He didn't attempt to do shit. He was trying to intimidate his mother.

With a knife. Which is assault.

Go ask any cop or lawyer what pulling a knife on someone would get said person arrested for.

But whatever, I was just trying to be helpful.

(December 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: With a knife. Which is assault.

Go ask any cop or lawyer what pulling a knife on someone would get said person arrested for.

Often nothing, since once the knife's in an angry person's hand it is typically settled personally, with no police interference. Such things are usually resolved prior to their showing up even when they are called

(December 20, 2012 at 6:22 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

Quote:"and it's already quite regulated as far as drugs go: we're doing plenty about alcohol."...not true...alcohol kills more people per year than all the drugs and gun violence combined...we're not doing anywhere near enough about it...the death rate linked to alcohol proves that...

Consider: it is also *used more frequently* than all drugs and domestic guns combined. Increase the usage of the rest, and you'll likely see similar results

Quote:"Alcohol usually uses the word 'manslaughter' and is associated with 'accident'."...not when alcohol is directly linked to a willful act of murder...those who 'accidentally' killed others while under the influence of alcohol were aware of the potential consequences before they decided to get drunk...I don't hold them guiltless....

It being accidental has absolutely nothing to do with whether one be innocent or guilty of the act. Yes, you can accidentally kill someone. Yes, you're probably guilty of that. No, people are not going to be quite as pissed off with you, and the sentencing is usually considerably more lenient.

Actually, I think very few people are realistically aware of what might happen when they get drunk. This is because the difference between your drunken self and you current *inhibited and in control* being is so drastically different. I'd suggest that in some cases it might even be unpredictable. Note: this does not mean they are somehow not responsible for their actions while drunk... but very few people assume they have a chance of killing someone while they are intoxicated. People are simply not as scared of what they might do as you appear to be

"Consider: it is also *used more frequently* than all drugs and domestic guns combined. Increase the usage of the rest, and you'll likely see similar results'"....because it's far less regulated than guns and drugs are...Increase the regulation on the selling, purchasing, and usage of alcohol and watch the death rate decrease...

" Note: this does not mean they are somehow not responsible for their actions while drunk... but very few people assume they have a chance of killing someone while they are intoxicated."...correct...they bear the responsibility for their actions...whether or not they intended to kill someone, they were still aware of the potential consequences before they decided to get drunk...they're not absolved of guilt in anyway...

(December 20, 2012 at 7:14 pm)A Theist Wrote: ...correct...they bear the responsibility for their actions...whether or not they intended to kill someone, they were still aware of the potential consequences before they decided to get drunk...they're not absolved of guilt in anyway...

EXACTLY!

PS - Got your private message about J Ros. Thanks.

(December 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: what do you people think of this?

Makes perfect sense to me.

(December 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: But whatever, I was just trying to be helpful.

Relax. I'm not arguing with you.

(December 20, 2012 at 5:50 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(December 19, 2012 at 11:43 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I didn't equate everyone with mental issues into the same camp.

You didn't, but the person writing the article did. Making a massive assumption about her kid because he says that he'll kill or hurt her, despite the fact that most of these killers don't display any warning signs like that, and aren't generally known to be mentally ill.

Quote:Nor did I have trouble understanding that not every mass murder spree is the result of psychosis. She wrote it to say that there are people with violent tendencies who need help and aren't getting it.

Right, and if she actually said that and left it at that, it would be fine. She went further, insinuating that her own son was a person likely to commit such an atrocity. Either she is an idiot who doesn't know the facts and is spreading malicious untruths about mentally disabled people, or she used the title to try and gain attention, and is not profiteering off of her son's mental illness. Either way, she's a despicable human being.

Quote:Isn't a call to have more help and understanding about these things addressing this issue?

There is a difference between calling for more help and understanding, and calling for more help and understanding whilst spreading misinformation about mental illness, all at the expense of your own son. You can have all the good intentions in the world, but if you screw up the delivery of the message, you are just an ass.

---

(December 19, 2012 at 4:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Um...


This kid is a ticking bomb, Tibs. He's 13. What will he be like when he's 18 or 20?

You know how many times Adam Lanza pulled a gun or a knife on his mother? Or Dylan Klebold? Probably none at all before they committed their atrocities. The big difference in this case is that the kid is being seen by doctors; they know about his condition, and eventually they will find out what it is and be able to prescribe him medicine to help.

Sorry Min, but pulling a knife on someone and threatening to kill them and/or themselves does not a mass murderer make. Unless you have any evidence to show a correlation between this type of behaviour and the people who commit school shootings, your comment about being a ticking time bomb is simply baseless.

Quote:There is probably a natural human tendency for a parent to try to shrug off the behavior of an abusive child but the author of this piece is not one of them. She is confronting the reality of her own kid and that takes some guts.

It's great that she's getting him help...that was never the issue. The issue was that she isn't confronting the reality of her own kid; she's making one up for him, whether it is a delusional thinking on her own part, or (more likely) an attempt to get views for her blog. It doesn't take guts to sell your kid out like that...it takes a lack of a heart.

What are the odds that we'll remember this conversation when this little fucker kills himself or someone else?

Damn slim.

Quote: I would love to see one quote, but no one ever has one.

So you expect to see a quote from James Madison saying " if machine guns are ever invented we don't think civilians should walk down the street with them?"

I'm so sorry, Shel. I think you are giving the FF a little too much credit.

Nah. I want to see a quote from one of them that says something along the lines of "Barring more powerful weapons." There is nothing of the sort. You're an intelligent guy, Min. You know that you cannot infer what their opinion will be from nothing. They made no comments of the sort on the topic. Yes, their only point of reference was muzzled loaded weapons, but they did not come out and say that more dangerous weapons did not count. Now, let's remember that they also had cannons. People back then in the militia had fucking cannons. Therefore, they are also referring to cannons. They are referring to all of the weapons used by the militia at the time. I'm pretty sure they could get jiggy with a machine gun if they're cool with cannons. Now, that is not to say that I think people should just have weapons like that. I'm saying that people should stop using words dead guys did not say to support their actions/beliefs.