WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[AsburySkinsFan]

So now we need armed guards at all of our schools AND armed guards protecting our firemen. Let not control guns more than we are now - what a wonderful world, thanks NRA.

My thoughts exactly. This is a crazy person problem AND a gun problem.

[MartinC]

Texas Shoots back (not about twa :pfft:)

http://news.msn.com/us/thousands-sign-us-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan

Thousands sign US petition to deport Piers Morgan

I admit, I have only seen a few random and brief segments of Morgan's interviews, but from what I saw, he would be one of approximate 280,000,000 people in America I'd deport if possible. :evilg:

Merry Christmas!

Well we don't want him back here thank you very much. You are more than welcome to him and Simon Cowell for another ....

---------- Post added December-24th-2012 at 03:00 PM ----------

My thoughts exactly. This is a crazy person problem AND a gun problem.

The combination is not a good one is it.

We have had similar incidents in the UK where kids or adolescents have set traps for emergency services, they throw rocks or stones at them. That's unpleasant and deeply irresponsible not to say stupid but its not resulted in anybody being killed as yet.

[Special K]

Correlation does not imply causation. And the NRA and Joe Manchin basically put the blame STRAIGHT on violent video games. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman also believe the same.

They play no role. The world plays violent video games, yet most of the incidents are centralized in America. If it were a video game issue, wouldn't the rest of the world have rampant issues with violent games too?

First, no, that is not what Hillary Clinton believes...or else she wouldn't be such an ardent supporter of laws like the Brady Bill, which her husband signed into law in the 90's.

Second, to completely disregard legitimate, peer-reviewed studies indicating a correlation between viewing violent shows and video games and an increased level of aggression and saying "well it doesn't directly say causation" is...well, not very smart and shows you are not open to any type of reasonable discussion regarding violent video games and television. No one out there is saying media violence is THE single cause of anything. People are saying it's a factor that may need to be addressed when looking at causative agents of this alarming trend of mass shootings in our country.

Third, it is also unwise to compare two different cultures ad societies and base a black/white, yes/no opinion off of something you "think" about another society (e.g. I highly doubt you follow all the news regarding violence in these other countries you are comparing our society to). There are a multitude of factors that make our society unique, and one of those factors is the glorification of violence as seen in movies produced by Hollywood and even the increasing popularity of physical violence occuring in reality television shows (e.g "Bad Girls Club," fights in the "Ultimate Fighter" household, fights on "Housewives of <insert city>," and a plethora of other reality tv shows). So, comparing countries with very different cultures and cultural outlook on violence is extremely short-sighted as far as I'm concerned...

The notions of video games influencing behavior is totally ridiculous.

Clearly there is no reasoning with you since you won't even acknowledge legitimate research studies that unequivocally prove you wrong :doh:

One of the reasons I don't like it is the gateway effect. Recent studies have shown that children are prescribed psychopharmocological agents as children are far more likely to use illegal drugs when they grow older. Part of that is because the authorities in their lives taught them that drugs are a good recourse. Their locus of control becomes externalized and they seek external solutions whenever things look bad.

Likewise, kids often look more at our actions than our words. How do our actions inform kids who suddenly see guns in their hallways and the figures of authority in the school armed? What idea does that reinforce in their mind and where could that gateway lead?

It's dangerous to teach kids that lesson. Mind you, having militias marching up and down the school hallways is probably a better solution than arming teachers, but it's still not a good choice especially, in a country where so many people are killed in gun accidents. Plus, the first time a militia man hesitates when a young kid is going crazy and then somehow gets that gun... guess what everyone is going to say?

Hey Burg, you bring up a very good point...much better than the PTSD stance brought up earlier (IMO).

Interestingly, my sister's fiance was born and raised in Lebanon (moved over here with family in middle school). And he brings up the very same point you're making (fyi, he's a big supporter of gun owner rights). He has some insane stories of his time over there and of his most recent visit a few years ago (where his family tried to assassinate him by shooting him, but I digress). First, he said something like this CT shooting would hardly make the news back there. But the main point he brought up when the family were all discussing placing National Guard, etc. in the school, over dinner the other night, was that American society does not fully realize the psychological impact placing uniformed, armed guards in schools will have on people, particularly children. He talked about how drastic the psychological change was for him when his family fled Lebanon where armed guards were EVERYWHERE and moved to SoCal where even at that point, there were no armed guards visible in even the airports. He said it was hard to explain, but he said he thought the detrimental psychological impact would be much more than our society would be "okay" with.

I brought up putting them in plain clothes with concealed weapons, like US Air Marshals, and he said that might be a better idea than openly militarizing, or giving kids the perception they were attending a militarized school or zone or whatever.

I don't know, I just think it would be a good use of resources to put National Guard or reserves on duty at schools in plain clothes. Being in plain clothes would also potentially make them a harder target for a gunman to identify and take out... That said, I absolutely agree with your viewpoint and am just trying to figure out a way to minimize potential psychological effects it would have on our children.

[Zguy28]

This happened this morning in a little town/village about 15 minutes from where I live, and it's on the front page of CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I have a hard time blaming guns. It's people. These people who do this stuff are SICK.

Still waiting to find out if I knew anyone involved.

Wasn't this an episode of Criminal Minds? Or was it Law and Order: SVU?

This kind of sick twisted crap is right in front of our eyes every night of the week.

[Going Commando]

Texas Shoots back (not about twa :pfft:)

http://news.msn.com/us/thousands-sign-us-petition-to-deport-piers-morgan

Thousands sign US petition to deport Piers Morgan

I admit, I have only seen a few random and brief segments of Morgan's interviews, but from what I saw, he would be one of approximate 280,000,000 people in America I'd deport if possible. :evilg:

Merry Christmas!

I wish the people who sign it would be deported.

[Special K]

I wish the people who sign it would be deported.

Yeah, that's seriously ridiculous. Especially since the people who signed that petition are likely very strong supporters of the Constitution...apparently just not the free speech part, lol. Ding dongs.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I wish the people who sign it would be deported.

And therein lies the major problem why you'll never get on top of the gun problem. That type of person with that type of attitude. (And man does it sound utterly ridiculous and crass to call it a 'problem' after all the utterly pointless loss of innocent life this past month alone. Sighs.).

God rest those two brave firefighters doing their job to protect the public. Thoughts and prayers go out to their family's and colleagues; and for the two wounded to pull through and make a complete recovery.

The perps must be so proud of their gutless lil' selves. This may make me a bad Christian, I don't know, but I can't say the above toward the gunmen found dead at the scene.

Hail.

[alexey]

People who will end up committing violent acts are likely to be interested in violence and seek out violent content.

Finding violent content on their hard drives tells us little about causality.

I am all for changing our culture, things we do, and things we glorify... But we have to be honest about what we can and what we cannot tell from the available data.

[Bang]

So I hope no one tries to tell me that without the guns these two firefighters would have been snipe-knifed, or long distance smothered, or tiger trapped with punji stakes anyway.

I mean, crazy people will do what they'll do and all.

especially if they can do it so easily at a distance with no one seeing them. That's got to be appealing.

ah, but I digress.

More of the same usual reactions..coming up. gasp, oh,. how shocking, etc.

Is anyone really shocked by these murders anymore?

Disgusted? Sure. Frustrated, Probably.

Surprised?

Nope. Not even a little bit.

More to come, bank on it.

~Bang

[alexey]

I am thinking since shootings are popular nowadays, we will be hearing more stories about them on the news. There are plenty of great stories out there

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I'm just waiting for the NRA to announce that all firefighters should be armed.

This is getting more ****** up by the passing day.

Hail.

[ixcuincle]

People who will end up committing violent acts are likely to be interested in violence and seek out violent content.

Finding violent content on their hard drives tells us little about causality.

I am all for changing our culture, things we do, and things we glorify... But we have to be honest about what we can and what we cannot tell from the available data.

But studies prove violent people get violent by violent media!

[Special K]

Finding violent content on their hard drives tells us little about causality.

I am all for changing our culture, things we do, and things we glorify... But we have to be honest about what we can and what we cannot tell from the available data.

Could you explain what you mean by that? Are you saying there is no evidence to support the viewing of violent media/game correlation with aggressive behavior, or that there is evidence to support that?

[ixcuincle]

First, no, that is not what Hillary Clinton believes...or else she wouldn't be such an ardent supporter of laws like the Brady Bill, which her husband signed into law in the 90's.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500397_162-713544.html

Second, to completely disregard legitimate, peer-reviewed studies indicating a correlation between viewing violent shows and video games and an increased level of aggression and saying "well it doesn't directly say causation" is...well, not very smart and shows you are not open to any type of reasonable discussion regarding violent video games and television.

Basic statistics courses can tell you that correlation does not imply causation. It is a tenet of statistics.

http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm

One of the most common errors we find in the press is the confusion between correlation and causation in scientific and health-related studies. In theory, these are easy to distinguish — an action or occurrence can cause another (such as smoking causes lung cancer), or it can correlate with another (such as smoking is correlated with alcoholism). If one action causes another, then they are most certainly correlated. But just because two things occur together does not mean that one caused the other, even if it seems to make sense.

Unfortunately, our intuition can lead us astray when it comes to distinguishing between causality and correlation. For example, eating breakfast has long been correlated with success in school for elementary school children. It would be easy to conclude that eating breakfast causes students to be better learners. It turns out, however, that those who don’t eat breakfast are also more likely to be absent or tardy — and it is absenteeism that is playing a significant role in their poor performance. When researchers retested the breakfast theory, they found that, independent of other factors, breakfast only helps undernourished children perform better.

I spent a lot of time doing research in undergrad and grad school. I can tell you this as a positive fact. And most any other educated post-secondary collegiate student who has taken a basic statistics course can also tell you that you can't say for sure that video games are responsible for violence. You need an experiment to do that.

No one out there is saying media violence is THE single cause of anything. People are saying it's a factor that may need to be addressed when looking at causative agents of this alarming trend of mass shootings in our country.

I suggest you take a look at what Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said then.

Clearly there is no reasoning with you since you won't even acknowledge legitimate research studies that unequivocally prove you wrong :doh:

I've done my fair share of studies and research to know what is reliable and what is not. I've also seen ample "studies" perpetuated on the media about how eggs raise cholesterol, or how women shouldn't drink any alcohol at all lest they get cancer. Forgive me if I am a little jaded.

[alexey]

But studies prove violent people get violent by violent media!

So that person will not be playing violent video games but cutting up his neighbours cat or something. Causality is difficult to establish here. If I had to pick one thing, for example, i would blame social seclusion over exposure to violent content.

Do not get me wrong - I see tons of problems in our culture and media, and I think we should talk about it. I just want to make sure that we are not focusing on the narrow picture.

[ixcuincle]

Could you explain what you mean by that? Are you saying there is no evidence to support the viewing of violent media/game correlation with aggressive behavior, or that there is evidence to support that?

Have you ever taken a statistics course

You cannot infer causality from correlation

My problem is anyone blaming video games is simply making an excuse to blame a scapegoat, an easy cop-out. It's easy to say "Video games cause violence", and one can make all the research "studies" they want. But until you sit down in an experiment, control the variables, and know for sure that violent video games do for a fact lead to violence, then the studies are unsubstantiated, regardless of "peer review" or not.

The issue is not as simple as "Those who play violent video games MUST be violent." What if the people who played the games and then shot up various establishments were inherently violent? Do you understand? We must explore further rather than ****izing the issue. When we ****ize the issue, we skirt and ignore the real problem in this country, mental health.

I worked as a psychologist doing experiments for some time back in the day. I oversaw many experiments and studies. I can tell you right now there is no positive link between video games and violence.

[Special K]

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500397_162-713544.html

You just gave me a link about Hillary's argument against violence and sexual content in video games and media. No place in the article does Hillary state violence are mass shootings are caused "STRAIGHT" by exposure to violent video games and/or media and place all the blame on this factor as you stated in a previous post. :doh:

Here it is in case you don't recall:

And the NRA and Joe Manchin basically put the blame STRAIGHT on violent video games. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman also believe the same.

Basic statistics courses can tell you that correlation does not imply causation. It is a tenet of statistics.

Basic statistics (which I took in undergrad) and advanced stats (which I took multiple courses of in grad) also tell you that you cannot say with absolute certainty that "X" plays "NO ROLE" in outcome "Y" if a correlation is observed as statistically significant.

Which you did below (again, quoted for your recollection)

They play no role.

I suggest you take a look at what Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said then.

You might want to actually read the blogs before you post them as reference. They certainly are not the solidifying, case-closing facts you apparently think they are...

And again, you provided a link where this Senator did not place "STRAIGHT" blame of mass shootings on violent video games. Instead, he stated that the effects of these and mental health issues need to be "looked into."

Typically, when intelligent people observe a correlation in a relationship between various agents, they proceed to "look into" that correlation instead of: 1) dismissing it and saying "correlation does not prove causation!!!" 2) call or insinuate that people suggesting these could likely be a potential factor amongst a plethora of societal factors involved in facilitating an environment conducive to violence and mass shootings, are nutjobs 3) proceed to further display their lack of knowledge about statistical analysis outcomes and terminology by steadfastly claiming that a factor that has been proven to have a correlation with an outcome instead "play(s) no role" in that outcome. You're right that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. But to state that correlation means "plays no role" is an absurd and incorrect leap in logic. :doh:

Forgive me if I am a little jaded.

It's not your jadedness that's the issue.

---------- Post added December-24th-2012 at 08:09 PM ----------

Have you ever taken a statistics course

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about exact stats courses and number of stats courses taken. If you really want to know though, I did science in undergrad and grad...so I guess you could say I've taken one or 2 courses I've also been involved in research and one of the studies I collaborated on has been published. I sincerely hope qualifies me to discuss statistics with you.

The issue is not as simple as "Those who play violent video games MUST be violent." What if the people who played the games and then shot up various establishments were inherently violent? Do you understand? We must explore further rather than ****izing the issue. When we ****ize the issue, we skirt and ignore the real problem in this country, mental health.

People (and the studies I gave you if you cared to read even the abstracts) are NOT saying those who play video games MUST be violent. Studies are showing positive correlation between viewing violence and displays of agressive behavior. They are stating this MAY be ONE of the MANY factors we need to address at some level.

And why, if you're a psychologist or mental health professional, are you separating potential psychological effects of viewing violent television/video games from MENTAL HEALTH??? :doh: This is an aspect of mental health, particularly when discussion is geared toward people would are predisposed to violent behavior and how they are psychologically affected by viewing violent material.

[twa]

I'm just waiting for the NRA to announce that all firefighters should be armed.

This is getting more ****** up by the passing day.

Hail.

It has certainly been proposed before, and some areas they do not respond to w/o police and a full crew, unfortunately shooting at firemen(and other traps) are not new

add

seems a lovely fellow that should have been executed years ago

New York gunman died of self-inflicted gunshot wound, and had served time for killing his grandmother with a hammer, police said.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Gunman-Kills-Two-Firefighters-Responding-to-House-Fire-184678511.html

Webster police identified the gunman Monday afternoon as William Spengler, 62, and said he died by a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Spengler had served nearly 18 years in jail for killing his 92-year-old grandmother in 1980 at the house next to where Monday's attack happened, and he had a "lengthy criminal record," police said. After serving time for manslaughter in his grandmother's killing, police said he was on parole until 2006 and could not legally own a gun. A motive for Monday's shooting was unclear

[KDawg]

I find political posturing to be laughable, to be honest.

I know one of the people who were injured. He's not accounted for in the stories as a number, just as an "off duty cop" who was passing by and got a shrapnel wound. He works in MY town, another suburb of Rochester as an officer. He is ALSO our school resource officer. (You know, one of the ones who got cut because we don't have money). He's a great guy.

It seems like he's going to pull through okay, and he was treated on scene.

But this just hit entirely too close to home. The shooter had everyone scared to leave their houses within a 15 mile radius for the morning and into the afternoon.

I won't sit here and pretend to know what the answer is. I don't know what it is and I'd be a prick if I sat here and preached. But I do know this: If we don't work together to find middle ground and solutions, we'll never do anything. Our wheels will keep spinning in the mud. Gun lovers, you'll have to sacrifice some. Gun haters, you'll have to allow the fact that you'll never get rid of all guns. The same can be said for any issue.

And before you think about doing it, don't turn around and say, "Yeah, but the other guys won't do what you're saying, so why should I?"

If you go there, I'm going to tell you to grow up... REAL fast.

[FletchLives]

Wow, this is a popular thread.

[Going Commando]

Yeah, that's seriously ridiculous. Especially since the people who signed that petition are likely very strong supporters of the Constitution...apparently just not the free speech part, lol. Ding dongs.

It also makes a mockery of petitions. In an ideal world signing thousands of names to a petition and sending it to the government should be a way to give voice to legitimate grievances. Getting pissed off at some pundit on CNN for his stance on gun control does not qualify as a legitimate grievance.

[Special K]

It also makes a mockery of petitions. In an ideal world signing thousands of names to a petition and sending it to the government should be a way to give voice to legitimate grievances. Getting pissed off at some pundit on CNN for his stance on gun control does not qualify as a legitimate grievance.

Wouldn't disagree with you on that. Although petitions have been ridiculous for quite a while now, not just what's happening with Piers Morgan. I can't count how many silly petitions I've been asked to sign just on facebook alone...

I actually think it would be pretty comical to be the petition "person" in D.C. or wherever who screens these things when they first get sent out...

[Going Commando]

Gun haters, you'll have to allow the fact that you'll never get rid of all guns.

I'm not sure I accept this as given. You won't get rid of all guns in the absolute sense but I think, in my lifetime, we can eradicate virtually all guns from our society like Japan and many other Western democracies have.

It's the broad trend for developed nations like ours. In general, the US has been slower to liberalize than the countries who got devastated by WWII. We came out of that conflict essentially unscathed and as imperialistic and powerful as ever compared to the other major participants. The aftermath of the war shaped geopolitics for five + decades.

The country is rapidly changing though. Imperialist doctrines like American-Exceptionalism are dying. The millennials are the bluest generation in American history and generation Z will be even more liberal when all of them start voting. In a couple decades this country will be radically different. Far more socially liberal and a series of tipping points like Newton will lead to legislation that will eventually progress to comprehensive gun bans like those that exist in other developed countries.

The pro-gun crowd is fighting against the tide. They've got the same basic problem the anti-gay marriage crowd had--they lack a (philosophically speaking) good reason for their position. All of the fantasies posed as arguments about John Wayne citizens fighting off killers with their guns and overthrowing the military in an uprising against a hypothetical tyranny are just flimsy arguments to dress up the real motivation for their position--guns are recreation for the pro-gun crowd and they don't want to lose their hobby and toys. Similar to how the pro-violent video game crowd wants to keep their status quo. They don't feel like they should have to give up their toys because some bad person somewhere else is killing other people with guns and that they deserve to be able to continue buying and keeping their toys. That justification is just not going to get it done in the long run, any more than religious dogma has been enough to prevent the country from liberalizing on gay marriage.

[Special K]

I'm not sure I accept this as given. You won't get rid of all guns in the absolute sense but I think, in my lifetime, we can eradicate virtually all guns from our society like Japan and many other Western democracies have.

It's the broad trend for developed nations like ours. In general, the US has been slower to liberalize than the countries who got devastated by WWII. We came out of that conflict essentially unscathed and as imperialistic and powerful as ever compared to the other major participants. The aftermath of the war shaped geopolitics for five + decades.

The country is rapidly changing though. Imperialist doctrines like American-Exceptionalism are dying. The millennials are the bluest generation in American history and generation Z will be even more liberal when all of them start voting. In a couple decades this country will be radically different. Far more socially liberal and a series of tipping points like Newton will lead to legislation that will eventually progress to comprehensive gun bans like those that exist in other developed countries.

The pro-gun crowd is fighting against the tide. They've got the same basic problem the anti-gay marriage crowd had--they lack a (philosophically speaking) good reason for their position. All of the fantasies posed as arguments about John Wayne citizens fighting off killers with their guns and overthrowing the military in an uprising against a hypothetical tyranny are just flimsy arguments to dress up the real motivation for their position--guns are recreation for the pro-gun crowd and they don't want to lose their hobby and toys. Similar to how the pro-violent video game crowd wants to keep their status quo. They don't feel like they should have to give up their toys because some bad person somewhere else is killing other people with guns and that they deserve to be able to continue buying and keeping their toys. That justification is just not going to get it done in the long run, any more than religious dogma has been enough to prevent the country from liberalizing on gay marriage.

Wel, IMO, the problem with your argument is the whole 2nd amendment issue. There is way too much money invested in protecting that and there is no way that will ever be overturned. I think we'll see much stricter gun control in our lifetime, but essentially ridding our nation of guns like Japan and other nations won't happen. That actually is something I can confidently say "never" to.

The "war" on violent video games will likely enact some minimal control standards, and I see gay marriage and legalization of weed nationwide happening in our lifetime...but getting rid of all guns? No way.

[Going Commando]

It doesn't take wholly getting rid of the 2nd amendment IMO because of the "well regulated milita" part of the clause opens up avenues for redefining it's meaning. Right now it's been taken to mean "guns are fine for recreation" and has been used to support very loose gun laws and wide-scale armament of the population. I don't think that's going to last.