Open Forum Discussions and Debate

I don't think there is any one cause the can be pointed to with the changing values we see today. I believe the biggest cause might be mass media leading children to believe they can do and get whatever they want without working for it and earning their just ends. I don't think the education system can be solely blamed, as teachers today face a horrendous job when faced with the unreal expectations that children get from movies, the Internet, music, parents, etc. It comes down to family values and family management, as only parents can instill values and work ethics in their children. In this modern society the concept of family as we grew up with it seems to have deteriorated. Two parents (possibly) working, TV and Internet entertainment (as opposed to human interaction and youthful imagination), false expectations based on the exposure to TV and the Internet. Do most families talk anymore as a family? Do children get values from the family environment, schools, churches (regardless of faith)? Are people just so busy that they ignore their children? Where do they go for guidance and advice?

In respect to Janes comment I agree that the 'me' generation is part of the issue, they are what you teach them. but gun control is the answer. However, I am tired of discussing that issue here on site with those in america that think it is their god given right to bear arms. I feel sorry every time for the families of all the innocent killed and maimed by these gun attacks but in general I see how foolish the laws of your country are.
I apologise if that is too blunt for some to accept but guns and killing people for what you want out of life (at personal or government level) is not being very respectful of anyone or anything. It takes leadership to want peace not a gun.
There are ways to legislate for those that need guns for legitimate means.

Rosemary - I agree with your opinion on gun control, but that wasn't the point of my message. After all, if guns were not available, these lunatic murderers would probably use a bomb, the components of which are readily available to one and all - anywhere in the world.

Well said, Greg. Values, self esteem, and work ethic should be taught at home. Parents need to be aware of all aspects of their children's lives. Where are they? What are they doing? Who are they with? Who are their friends? What's going on daily at their school? Do I think that was the case with the families of these shooters? Absolutely not. How can a kid get to that point and no one notices? Probably an unanswerable question...

As we in the US debate (endlessly it seems) the pros and cons of gun conrol, I would love some feedback from the Aussies on this article from the Sydney Morning Herald. (Actually, it's just the first few paragraphs - the rest of the article can be accessed through the link at the end)

THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

HEADLINE: Buyback has no effect on murder rate
BY: Matthew Moore
DATE: October 24, 2006

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

(See following website for rest of article):
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/11614 55665717.html

It's too bad we can't make the hunters use muzzle loading guns. That what was approved in the constitution.

Jane, spot on with that article from the SMH, by the way.
We're not immune here in Australia unfortunately.
While gun control is a good idea, it only controls those who respect the law. The "me" generation do not think laws are made for THEM to observe, only if they can get something out of it, eg compensation.
The awful truth about all this is that even if guns were outlawed, these people will find and use them illegally - whether in the US, Australia or elsewhere.
I just wish I could offer a solution! Somebody suggested leadership - definately - but it's going to take more than that. I can't help thinking that a breakdown in family values must be a factor.

cynb, the me generation seems to always be getting bailed out of the trouble they get into by their parents who think they can do no wrong. I agree that parents should be a bit more strict on their kids, like teaching responsibility and accountability for their actions.

I think part of the problem is that some of the people in authority sometimes overstep their boundary and try to push the limit of their authority at times.

I have three muzzle loading firearms; a 50 Cal. Hawken, a 32 Cal. Penna. long rifle and a 12 ga. dbl shotgun. They are a lot of fun to shoot, but they are still deadly. In the wrong hands it would make no difference.

you are right jeb, any weapon is dangerous in the wrong hands. but how do you teach control whether it be with firearms are tempers??

All those guns taken out of our society here in australia has meant that so far we have not had a repeat of Port Arthur. reaching for a knife instead makes it difficult to take away the lives of many innocent people in a blink of an eye. we read weekly sometimes daily of these shootings in america ....
the credentials of those who did the study is required to know if they did the study from the perspective of supporters of gun ownership or non supporters. there is a huge difference. also it is reported in britain??

Rosemary, is your point anti-gun or anti-American?

Yes Steve, totally agree - and good family values should include parents AND children taking responsibility for the things they do and parents not always bailing out their children. The chant of the "ME" generation seems to be "It's not my fault".

Personally I think if the media put a black ban on reporting such horrific mass killings, it might slow down the rate of these things happening. Guns will always find their way into the wrong hands if one is desperate enough to get one. Not all mass killings are by the ME generation, so give them a fair go.

I agree, Maureen. Two topics have gotten jammed together that don't belong together. One, of course, is gun control (or the lack thereof).

The other is old folks whinging about the younger generation, which has been going on since Plato and before.

Ian & Maureen - of course you're both right. I admit to being a grumpy old woman and a dinosaur. It was refreshing recently to meet Susan and her family and be reminded that teenagers can be lovely, as hers were.
One can get carried away by current events and forget that most people whether young or old are nice, decent, honest and worthwhile.

totally anti-guns and I thought that was obvious

Following is an excerpt from an AP report on the most recent rampage shooting. The third paragraph is what I don't understand. How could anyone, possibly, feel the NEED to slaughter his fellow man? What has happened to our collective conscience?

As word of the shootings rippled throughout the country, students and authorities alike reacted with frustration and - tellingly - resignation.

"I don't think there's anything that could be done," said Brittany Dornack, 21, a sophomore at the University of Minnesota.

"People do what they feel like they need to do, and I don't think anyone is going to be able to stop them. People will just have to either learn to live in fear ... or they'll just have to not think about it."

Jane is this what society is becoming?

next we'll have to watch out for vigilante groups. and that makes us no better than those who do the shooting if we condone it

First of all, no one should ever have to go through what those students and families have had to go through.

(Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the US has an arsenal of guns, but if you look only at the news, movies & TV you'd probably think just that.)

My answer is a massive public ad campaign telling those thinking of mass killings to just skip the first part and go straight to the second part....in other words, be a hero and just kill yourself first.

But seriously, the part that everyone misses when thinking of gun control is the CONTROL part. Targeting VIOLENCE control instead may be the better aim. Taking away guns may take away the fastest method of killing, but it does not take away the fact that television & movies have shown a whole generation glorified violence. (Sorry, Ian & Maureen, but most of these campus shootings ARE done by student age shooters.) Coming out shooting sells better than shows & movies about trying to control our violent thoughts & reactions ...and they show this over and over and over in our homes. We have learned that violence is acceptable ...even entertainment! We have learned that all "disses" are a justifiable reason to hurt someone.
Since most of these shooters end up killing themselves in the end, it is a murder-suicide situation. Somewhere along the line, the hurting person who wanted to kill themselves now feels the need to take as many as they can along with them. "I hurt, so I'll stop the misery by killing myself," has morphed into, "I hurt and I'm going to take as many people as I can with me when I kill myself." Maybe we have to figure out why they feel that putting themselves into the history books by killing innocent people before killing themselves is now desirable; the mystique of why despicable is desirable. So it's not just a suicidal person, it's now a very angry suicidal person seeking fame.
So...maybe Maureen is correct in the black ban...but just on the shooter's identity. In other words, take their aim away: notoriety. Unfortunately, it's much easier to gain notoriety by violence than by doing something good. Their perceived right of having their "15 minutes of fame" is much easier to get by doing something horrendous than by working hard to do something good in the world. It's just plain angry glorified violence rearing it's ugly head.

Sheila - that's basically what I said in my first post that started this discussion. There will always be suicides among young people, but now some of them are taking other people with them. They used to think "They'll be sorry. After I'm gone, everyone will miss me". Now it's, "I'll teach them. I'll take them with me". The notoriety is certainly a factor, and media exposure to crime and violence, also, but I still think there is a cause/effect here based on egocentricism. That being said, the vast majority of young people - here in the US and elsewhere - are fine people. Unfortunately, all it takes is a few rotten apples.....

Two topics merged , no doubt..yes.But each are closely related. The lenient law that enables the wrong population(me generation) to get hold of the weapon is the matter of concern here.Just debating at the time of the incidence,highlighting the issue and forgetting abt it till another such incidence erupts, seems to be the norms!! no use..Atleast the campus must be maintained arms free..strict law/ vigil must be imposed..Only then further loss of precious life of innocent yougsters in future may be avoided..

While the campus murders are committed by young people, many others are (typically) white males in their 30s and 40s.

And I think, Appy, that other topics could just as well be closely related. For example, is the nannification/feminization of America a contributor? In the recent past, a fellow who beat up his wife would get a beating from her brothers and that would be the end of it. Now the brothers are in just as much trouble, and they all have to go to anger management classes. That wouldn't mean much to a sociopathic murderer.

Had several passengers been armed on 9/11, the highjackers would have been dead and the people in the towers would have lived. Same for the students at NIU.

The question remains, if you are not allowed to protect yourself, who will protect you? Will they protect you, or use their power and your vulnerability to subjugate you? Does the number of these incidents mean we should take away guns, or make sure more people have them?

I hope you're right in one way, that we'll debate it for a while and forget about it. I certainly hope we don't pass a lot of laws in hysteria.

And by the way, about the same number of people just died in an illegal (street) car racing accident and a similar number in a sugar refinery explosion--all in the last two days.

nothing is ever cut and dried with these kinds of things it's always a conglomeration of things and no one knows what a person is thinking when they do these things.

Steve, I'm not sure it even matters what they're thinking, except to (maybe) diagnose the condition in someone else in the future. And that is a very frightening thought for the next generation.

The fact is that there are things out there that stand on their hind legs, wear clothing, and make noises that sound like words. They even use tools to eat.

But they're not human, in any sense of the word. They're missing some element that makes the rest of us part of the human race and subject to its norms and restraints.

And since they're not human, they have to be dealt with in exactly the same way we would deal with a rabid animal. And with no more hesitation or reluctance than that.

Your words are harsh Ian. Things? Not human? These are people, men AND women, who have not been taught to respect the value of life. Some are warped, but others have been warped by media and denial of common human norms in their upbringing. I am certainly not defending anyone who commits an atrocity, but I do believe that somewhere along the line these individuals (unless they were born insane) where either failed or given false believes and false values about life and basic human interaction.

Right. Nothing is anybody's fault. Nobody's responsible for anything. There is no such thing as evil, just misunderstanding.

Just doing my usual Lurking here .LOL
Interesting discussion, pro's and con's for both sides.
Think I'll just sit on the fence for a little while, before I put in my 2 cents worth.

Hi Ian. I wasn't saying that there aren't evil people in the world. There are lot's of them, but there are a lot more people out there who are being warped with false believes and false values. I do strongly believe that MANY people who commit 'evil' actions could have been intercepted before they took action if they had caring concerned people around them. I also believe like you that SOME people are evil, and those people influence the borderline people to become evil. Hope that made sense.

Ian, Angie, you were right. This should have stayed on the Easy page. We would have more (hopefully) input.

CG, good point, just look at what has been done with misguided people who join "cults". There's not enough that can be said about how people fall under the spell of some really strange people: Post 1923 Germany, Helter Skelter, Jonestown, Waco, the list goes on. Some people don't have a firm enough grip on themselves that they need somebody else to tell them when to breath.

I am sure that had this discussion gone forth on the Easy page, somebody would have complained.

Aside from those who fall under the spell of warped individuals, I think that in today's society people are falling under the hope of false expectations. The Internet and mass media seems to have led to many youngsters to believe they can get anything and everything easily. A good relationship, a good future, the greatest job, lots of ready cash, etc. Many youth get frustrated when they realize it is not as easy as the media says, and they get depressed. The suicide rate in youths has risen dramatically, and some youths obviously believe that if they are going to take there own life, they'll take others lives as well. This is evident in many areas of the world that where considered 'backward' until modern communication and the Internet found its way into their society. This is the new Hitler, Reverend Jones, etc. Easy access to weapons that kill just makes their self destruction easier.

Just a couple of questions
1. Is there an age limit for buying guns the same as the age limit to learn to drive and if so, should it be raised to say 21?
2. Why do people need to buy rapid-fire guns? Should there be controls over the type of guns citizens can buy as a defence measure. Obviously you need a different gun for shooting and I'm sure even shooters don't need rapid-fire guns.
3. Is there a limit on the number of guns a person can have (of course depending on whether they live in a city or a farm etc)?
4. Are there any controls at all? As an Australian it seems like there aren't any and it is time some were instituted.

Not all of the me generation are mindless, robotic types easily influenced by tv,dvds and the internet. Many are genuinely nice, caring people who will take their place in society and contribute to the general good of the population.

Yes victoria, you are right..Not all of the present generation is mindless.Now the debate is how to curtail the small minority that pose as human but not human, that jeopardize the lives of this in your own words,"genuinely nice, caring people who will take their place in society and contribute to the general good of the population."
and yes, even I have those questions that you have raised, as I come from a nation where guns aint available in open market and a lot of procedures has to be followed to procure one.

Victoria and Appy, I can't speak to the accessibility of guns in the United States. Here in Canada we have the strictest gun laws in the world. Automatic weapons have been restricted/prohibited since the late 1970s and we have a (controversial) gun registry in place that requires even hunting rifles and shotguns to be registered. Age of purchase is 18, but control of the purchase is very strict, requiring a full police check prior to the 'gun' being acquired. Our biggest problem has always been smuggled weapons coming in from outside of Canada. Needless to say, this still doesn't stop gun violence.

Just to voice an opinion from the perspective of a firearms owner and ex-avid shooter: I have been around sporting weapons all my life and have spent a great deal of my free time, over the years, afield in happy persuit of supper. In all that time, I have never seen an instance where an automatic or semi-automatic weapon was of any value in increasing the experience. Some waterfowlers will defend their use of auto-loading shotguns, of course. Auto-loading rifles for big game hunting is a joke. A sales gimmic created by the manufacturers to pay for the R & D engineers (in my opinion). In short, there is absolutly no reason I can see for anyone to posess a firearm that has auto or even semi-auto capabilities. A year ago, out of sheer madness and a spineless concession to lobying powers, the Kansas St. legislature passed a law allowing the concealed carring of handguns. Go figure.

In Oregon we have concealed carry laws. To get a concealed carry permit, you must go through a background check and are tested on your use, care & handling of firearms. The permits are not permanent - require renewal (recheck) and can be revoked at any time. People who are authorized to carry are generally not involved in shootings and have stopped shootings from happening.

I personaly know one person, who the Sheriff refused to renew his conceal carry permit. He was having problems in his personal life and was also drinking. I was there when he was informed. Have to say I agreed with the Sheriff - when he turned to the bottle. About 6 months later he was evicted from his million dollar home by a swat team, because they knew he had firearms. He left with no incident and moved to Palm Springs, CA.

The Sheriff - here - personally knows the people who have conceal carry permits and does not give them out willy-nilly. That is why many of supported the school teacher in Medford, who had a conceal carry permit to carry in school (especially when her ex had threatened her life). Her ex's permit was revoked with the threat. However if had come to the school, she not only could protect herself, but the children in her classroom. The local judge recently denied her or any teacher to carry in the school - however this is against state law.

If a teacher desires AND can be approved for a conceal carry permit - it would be good to have them carrying in the classroom. When a student wants to kill himself and take others out with him, he may think twice about attempting it, knowing someone on campus may be carrying.

The Sheriff refused to give the local paper the names of those who have Conceal Carry Permits in the county. I'm sure many people believe I carry, I won't say if I do or don't. I would hope that they believe I do (for my sake and theres).

Many businessmen/women have conceal carry permits and carry. Not knowing who does and who does not carry is good. It stops those who would do harm to the innocent - or at least makes them think twice. This is why I supported the Sheriff in not releasing the names to the press of those who have conceal carry permits.