Exactly. Its mental health deterioration combined with too easy access to guns.
Humans are naturally violent when they are unwell. Its why we are still a species.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
"I'm gonna roll this down like GTA!" 14 year old girl opens fire with AK-47 on police
- Thread starter ChibiMofo
- Start date
- Views 10,033
- Replies 121
- Likes 1
Humans are naturally violent when they are unwell. Its why we are still a species.
No it's not. Did you even read my comment?
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
I have no idea why you are putting blame on the home owner.
The problem is those two kids were uninvited.
Maybe the home owner does store guns away when they normally invite guests to prevent people and kids from using their guns.
Since this was a day where they didn't invite anyone over, they weren't expecting guests, so they didn't feel the need to store the guns away to provide a safe home environment. The home doesn't need to be safe for uninvited guests.
You don't know the situation, or how the owner handles things in their day to day life, you are drawing too many conclusions without further knowledge.
But it's irrelevant, when burglars use your stuff they stole in your home uninvited. You can't blame the owner for not preparing for an event they weren't expecting. And saying it's irrelevant is not side stepping or side tracking, because why would it be relevant in the first place? You don't know the owners history. The criminals are in the wrong period.
Last edited by SG854,
I think society has failed them. Addressing guns is not addressing the violence/apathy/mental health, only reinforcing the cycle of sociopathy taking root.
You are both actually right about different points. While the home owner is not responsible for the invading parties' rights they ARE responsible in general to safely store their guns, they even have 2 kids from what I remember. What I honestly don't know is whether they WERE reasonably safely stored and the 14 y/o just ended up forcing access to them anyway like she did the house.
If those 14 year old were raised right then they wouldn't use those guns to kill people or use them irresponsibly. Just like trusting a 14 year old with a knife. You would trust them to use knives responsibly and not run around the house with them.
People are not having faith in the intelligence of teen kids. They are smarter then you think. You can expect them to judge from right and wrong, good from bad. If you don't think they are old enough and smart enough to know this, then alot of teen on this website will feel offended.
That really should have been the end of the argument when it was addressed a few pages back. But somebody made a stupid comment about how homeowners are (and should be) responsible for dumb or criminally insane decisions people make on/with their property.
You are not wrong but the truth is about some young people is not related to intellect at all, there are plenty of teenagers way smarter than I am. Its more about the fact they have very little life experience. When they are in trauma they think life will always feel this way, like hell. As an adult you know tough spots not only don't last forever, they actually make you stronger. You're much less likely to "roll this down like GTA" in real life, because you know most things are not the end of the world as they can seem at the time, if you have nothing else relevant to compare it to. Any age if you think the world is ending you will go out swinging.
Lol oops, I'm super bad at reading first couple pages then jumping in
Last edited by Benja81,
You are wiser when you are older. But I played alot of m-rated games as a teen. All my friends did too. We all played GTA. And many kids secretly against their parents wishes watches and plays m rated stuff. Its natural for a teen to rebel. And yet we didn't go around killing people.You are not wrong but the truth is about some young people is not related to intellect at all, there are plenty of teenagers way smarter than I am. Its more about the fact they have very little life experience. When they are in trauma they think life will always feel this way, like hell. As an adult you know tough spots not only don't last forever, they actually make you stronger. You're much less likely to "roll this down like GTA" in real life, because you know most things are not the end of the world as they can seem at the time, if you have nothing else relevant to compare it to. Any age if you think the world is ending you will go out swinging.
Lol oops, I'm super bad at reading first 2 pages or so then jumping in
Busting into a home and shooting Cops isn't a natural occurance even in impressionable teens. This is much deeper then access to guns, violent video games and all that. The kids were in foster care I believe the article said. Looks like issues in how they were raised, environment, lack of access to stuff, and maybe family problems. Which can affect even into adulthood.
Last edited by SG854,
For sure, its about the trauma they went through, age factor making them exponentially more prone to lash out, and being able to access the guns at that time. The GTA reference is actually more of a cultural reference. Even though its in a video game, guess where the video game got it lol. America obviously has a violent culture, but fact is humans are violent in general. Probably even more so due to natural selection, but we have evolved to be able to turn it off during most situations, outside of the obvious bad apples and of course mental health issues. Which you could argue are very related too.
Maybe America is more violent then other countries.
Humans are violent but it's not something I see on a day to day basis. Or rarely. In my many days of going to work or going to the store, or just around places, I rarely see people just start physically attacking each other. It's so rare when it happens.
I can see if you come from a war driven country where you fight for your survival everyday then I can see the violent nature kicking in.
But this is not true for everyone or everplace.
Certainly seems that way, due to a variety of factors. All or most of which have likely been discussed in this thread already.
But its still a human condition, end of day. America is just a place where the people and factors intersect.
D
Deleted User
Guest
I'm getting the feeling I'm the only normie in this world ,and the rest of humanity has gone bonkers, what a sad world it has become
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2020
- Messages
- 2,645
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- (REDACTED)
- Website
- zoey-on-github.github.io
- XP
- 1,884
- Country
Florida man it's full of nutcases. i mean just look at them people on them swamp shows it pretty much says everything!
Which is where the core of the argument comes in.
Its a percentages thing.
Will you be able to prevent all of 'sociopathy taking root'? (No.)
What is the damage that can be caused by one person 'going awry'? (Depends.) (Depends even on factors like 'killing with a gun' might seem more 'clinical' (I push trigger, something falls over). Also depends on how many bullets per second fly out of a gun)
If you cant prevent incidence from happening, what would be a good way to mitigate (lower) the number of victims.
Notice, that this isnt just an objective argument, where you would go for victim numbers, but that also aspects like - the families of the deceased do better if they have the perception that most things possible have been done, to prevent such an incident.
(In that sense, I'm not at all sure, if 'giving everyone guns to stop 'em early' would help
).But the more straightforward argument to make is 'look at the numbers', if there are obvious groups to compare them to, like 'states in europe' - where victims of gun rampages are lower by a factor, so are gun related deaths.
At which point, some people tend to realize (sometimes even intuitively), that its not about actual numbers. Its about a generalized perception of what people are willing to look over as "being an incident" (not preventable). Because thats at the root of taking political action.
And if the entire thing is a rather rare occurence (compared to population size), you can make people simply not think about it. By telling them, there are more important things to do, than to protest.
So in some sense, the 'comparatively high death toll (factor higher than europe)' doesnt matter.
What matters at that stage is 'whats your idealized version/Image' of society. And idealized to a point, that people address conceptual goals, that might only help a minority (people at the receiving end of gun violence). Which is usually not how people function (whats in it for me, or my community).
And at that point (what do I get out of it), we also have to talk about stuff, like 'endorphin rushes' when I shoot, the feeling of power over others, when I carry, my mental image, that I'm sheriff of town, when I carry - because my life might be pretty desolate otherwise, tales, of actually having power, for 15 minutes - in a situation where it was appropriate, in someones life, where they might not experience anything like that ever --
and the link, of that to rampages in the first place ('I want them dead, all they ever did was hurting me.. - and they got somewhere in life...').
The result of all that contemplation - even (almost
) objectively comes down to 'reduce access to automatic weapons' to mitigate issue. If mitigation is your goal. (Kind of a morals question.)But. You are going against people that use guns as 'power prostheses' in their lives. You are going against 'absolutists' (morals), that can tell you 'if that person had a gun, they could have been alive' (probably not - but thats not the point, you cant counter this argument on an individual level, because in one case, or another they are right -- but as a society, you tend not to optimize for eventualities in rare cases, you want to do something that in the end doesnt end up at a 50:50 chance.
).And even from a 'subset of society' view, you are going against people, that were told in the military, to shoot the enemy - and who you are now telling, that part of the culture that allows them to deal with it (guns as tools very much a part of their self image), might have to be dismantled, and the 'importance' of gun culture reduced all together.
At which point manufacturers and the NRA interject, and add PR.
The entire 'but we have to keep them for our fight against the government' argument, if they do stuff, that isnt right. Pretty much is romanticized BS, but then its storytelling, so part of the PR.
Last edited by notimp,
I think it is pretty clear on which side I fall in the "use people as statistics for political endeavors vs understand the individual to address broader social issue" polarization.
Similar threads
