questioning parents during times of tragedy

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-18-2006
questioning parents during times of tragedy
64
Mon, 07-23-2012 - 6:44pm

Sorry, I have to just go on a little bit of a rant here.

I'm sure by now everyone has heard about the tragedy that befell Aurora, Colorado at the movie theatre. Sad, sickening, revolting. Yet you know what I keep reading online? People questioning the judgement of the parents for taking little kids and babies to a late showing movie. Really?

I was incensed that people would look at this tragedy and begin pointing fingers at anyone but the shooter. What good does it do to question the parenting practices of those in the theater – the victims? It is akin to wondering why a rape victim was dressed scantily at a bar. It is disgusting.

There are people out there who abuse, neglect, and torture children. We're really taking THIS time of tragedy to pass judgement on something so benign? Really?? Like this couldn't have happened just as easily during the day?

How about the millions of other questions we should be asking? About gun control, security in public places, mental health evaluations, etc?

This just makes me very angry. I feel HEARTBROKEN for anyone who lost someone there, regardless of age. It's tragedies like this that makes me wish I hadn't brought kids into this messed up world to begin with!

Awhile back, I posted an article about a local, teenaged girl who was killed by her ex boyfriend. Her father is someone I've known for a long time. Basically, they had sex under a local bridge and that's when he killed her. His reasoning was because "she was doing drugs and I didn't like the changes in her". There have been comments in the local paper along the lines of "where were this girl's parents? She was doing drugs and having sex under bridges?" And let me tell you....she had wonderful, loving, parents who simply adored her. She was a bit wild, perhaps, but it's nothing that her parents did wrong.

Man, things like this just make me so damn angry!

Angie

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2009
Thu, 07-26-2012 - 11:21am

Yup,here our discussions on gun control center on how we can secure our border from gun smuggling and how to make our laws even stricter. 

Here,gun ownership is not a right, it is a privilege. And with that privilege comes responsibilities. You cannot just walk into a gun shop (I don't even know where one is-never seen one) and buy a handgun or a shot gun.  Handguns are restricted firearms. Assault weapons are of course illegal. Those weapons are solely designed to kill, on a large scale. There is no valid reason to have one, except if you are in the military.

We have the advantage here, when it comes to gun control, because of  our different culture and constitution.  It is a "no brainer" here.  Plus, with our Parliamentary system of government & strict limits on campaign contributions (max $1000), lobby groups like the NRA have no influence. We also have the advantage that gun ownership falls under federal control.  It is the same across the country.

 

 

 

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Thu, 07-26-2012 - 12:22pm
See, This puts it into perspective and it's no surprise that the majority of killings are with a gun.

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Thu, 07-26-2012 - 6:43pm

hmm, did I say something funny?

I guess Jams you missed my entire post because I didn't say anything about people going after anyone with a box cutter. So, I will post the whole thing again for you.

"Just something to ponder. I am reading comments about gun control and/or people slaying with a box cutter. Let's not forget how wars were won before guns, as we see today. A man wielding an axe or sword or club, on the unsuspecting public, could easily cause the death toll this gunman caused.

What about homemade bombs? Downing an airplane means only controlling the men/ women in the cockpit. My point being, unstable people will find a way. Taking guns out of their hands isn't going to change that."

Is there something you want to argue there? You don't think some people will just choose other method or do  you just think people would choose a box cutter? Because it seems naive to believe the only other possible weapon available to people is a box cutter or that a box cutter could do any real damage in the situation provided by the OP ... oh, I would imagine there would be a few injuries, but deaths ... not likely. It just seems to me that if someone wants 12 people dead in a public place, there are other inventive ways to accomplish this without a gun.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Thu, 07-26-2012 - 6:48pm

Not really surprising firearms would the #1 choice. Seriously, do you think killings would stop if people didn't have access to guns? Seems to me they would either choose another weapon or, oh yeah, obtain guns illegally.

Other countries also have stiffer penalties then U.S. I wonder what the correlation there would be?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Thu, 07-26-2012 - 6:59pm

That's interesting, all the stats show is people prefer gun use, lol ... so, sure, what is to stop them from using, say explosives, if guns were not available or stop them from purchasing illegal weapons? Or a hatchet, axe, sword ... if someone wants 12 people dead in low lit theatre, seems there many options available to them.

Oh, we would also have to look at the penalties in other countries, as well as the rate of mental illness, among other things. Considering mental illness in the U.S. is also pretty high, how would that affect the outcomes of comparing these statistics. 

And I don't see a real ah-ha moment here. Your stats, are showing 60/40? Not really that impressive, considering 40% still choose another method. What would be interesting is to see is how many of that 60% would still end up with a gun and how many would choose another deadly method.

 

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
I happen to believe that changing laws can make a difference, And I've already addressed what was wrong with this story like him being allowed to buy a a rifle/sniper weapon (please offer up what these are even designed for), the rounds of ammunition and the number of guns he got access to in like, two months.... Mitt Romney spoke about gun control in an interview last night and gasp, I disagree with him on this issue, Don't defend laws with predictions of what criminals will do instead (Romney used what Timothy McVeigh did with fertilizer as an example).

Killings will never just stop and I never suggested otherwise, But gun laws should be examined and I do think there's room for change.

Do you think that crime could have been prevented?

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Fri, 07-27-2012 - 8:31am

Killings will never just stop and I never suggested otherwise, But gun laws should be examined and I do think there's room for change.

I never said otherwise Jams. Once again, the correlation between what I said and your comments is very unclear to me. You can't really oppose what someone said, when that isn't what they said ... lol

Do you think that crime could have been prevented?

Ok, so, in one paragraph you are saying,"Don't defend laws with predictions of what criminals will do instead" in conclusion, you are asking me, "Do you think that crime could have been prevented?"

For starters, lol, there's nothing in what I said that defends any laws and two, telling people they cannot ponder on future events, but then asking them to ponder past events, with predictions of how to avoid such events in the future, makes little sense and is a contradiction. The mere fact you are suggesting stricter guns laws means you are predicting the outcome of that change.

As I stated, there are many factors to consider when examining stats. I don't believe people want to kill simply due to the fact they have access to guns .... is that what you are suggesting? Remove the guns and suddenly, all violence, anger, mental illness .... all this goes away?

Do you really think violent crime will end simply by taking guns out of peoples hands?

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001

What the.... Your posts are so difficult to debate, LoL!

And actually, Past crimes are a reason why laws should change, Look at laws that are named after children and people b/c of events that ALREADY happened; It's another thing all together to assume that changing laws won't make a difference or that people will still kill.  There is no contradiction.

I certainly do think other things should be looked at, Mental illness is a pretty complex issue and it's a tough defense too.

edited to clarify.

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Fri, 07-27-2012 - 4:45pm

Seriously, do you think killings would stop if people didn't have access to guns?

Personally, I think killings would go down to levels that countries with more limited access to guns have. IOW, the number of killings in the US would go down by huge percentages.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Fri, 07-27-2012 - 4:47pm

Considering mental illness in the U.S. is also pretty high...

I am pretty sure that the rates of serious mental illness such as schizoprhenia are consistent universally

.