Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on December 16, 2012 at 12:42pm

The late psychologist, Eric Berne, was a "people person," who tried to bring the complex subject of psychology down to the understanding of the average Man. One of his books was, Games People Play, and rather than concoct my own definition of the concept, I'll use the Wikipedia version, which says it very well:

In 1964 Berne published Games People Play which, despite having been written for a professional readership, became an enormous bestseller and made Berne famous.^[4] The book presented clear, everyday examples of the way in which human beings get caught up in the games they play. Berne gave these games memorable titles such as "Now I've got you, you son of a bitch," "Wooden leg," "Yes, but...," and "Let's you and him fight."

In Berne's explanation of transaction as games, when the transaction is a zero-sum game, e.g. one must win at the other's expense, the person who benefits from a transaction (wins the game) is referred to as White, and the victim is referred to as Black, corresponding to the often likely outcome of a chess game.

The article refers to a game called, "Yes, but,,,," erroneously - the actual title is, "'Why don't you...?' - 'Yes, but...,'" and the difference is important.

In the game, White says, "I have a problem --" then describes the problem. Black, trying to be helpful and provide a solution, says, "Why don't you --?" and provides a possible solution. But White doesn't want a solution, rather White wants a continuation of the game, the attention it provides, and the feeling of superiority it generates by poking holes in Black's best efforts at resolving the issue, so he continues, "Yes, but --" and proceeds to destroy the proffered solution, forcing Black to come up with a new one, and so the game continues.

Berne not only described these games, detailed the payoffs available to White in each game, but offered an antithesis, by which Black could end the game instantly,  an antithesis as regards, "'Why don't you...' - 'Yes, but...,'" in which Black responds, "That really IS a problem, what do YOU see as a solution?" Game over.

So, Unseen, that really IS a problem, what do YOU see as a solution?

Permalink Reply by Dale Headley on December 16, 2012 at 1:36pm

Virtually every statistical analysis ever done has shown, unequivocally, that the best way to vastly increase your chances of dying by gunfire is to keep a loaded gun in your home.  Case in point:

Many years ago, when I was even dumber than I am now, I kept a loaded .32 caliber revolver in the nightstand next to my bed.  I lived alone - no kids ever around - so I felt quite safe having it in my drawer.

One day, as I lay in bed with the flu, two close friends came to visit.   As I engaged one - a devout Baptist - in theological debate, the other - an equally devout Catholic - avoided the discussion, since few Catholics are willing to discuss their religion, and he was bored.  Without my notice, my Catholic friend, Fred, casually pulled open the drawer on my nightstand and removed the gun.  I hadn’t even noticed, energetically engaged as I was in demolishing the arguments of my Baptist friend - Tarvin.

I looked over at Fred, standing at the foot of my bed, and he was pointing the gun directly at me.  I yelped, “Fred, that’s loaded!!!”  Despite his Hispanic skin tone, Fred almost turned white and nearly fainted.  He said, breathlessly, “I was just about to pull the trigger; I thought it was a toy.”  I threw that gun away the next day and have not since replaced it.

Permalink Reply by James Cox on December 16, 2012 at 5:05pm

Sadly ignorance can kill.

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on December 24, 2012 at 7:56pm

You said: "...I threw that gun away the next day..."

2 questions;

1.) Where did you throw it?

2.) Did you unload it first?

Permalink Reply by Marc on December 16, 2012 at 2:56pm

Can anyone remember when kids would take their guns to school on the first day of hunting season, lock them in their lockers and then leave with them at lunch?

This has been purported to be true and I am trying to figure out what timeframe we are talking about.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 16, 2012 at 3:22pm

I think I can remember a kid bringing a disabled war memento Luger to class for show and tell. But of course, I'm ancient. Nothing even remotely like that could happen today without creating an incident. I'm pretty sure a squirt gun would cause a rumpus nowadays.

Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on December 16, 2012 at 3:58pm

It depends on what part of the country, etc., but I've seen multiple eyewitness accounts dating from the 30s and 40s and even 50s

Permalink Reply by Denise Kiser on December 16, 2012 at 3:59pm

I do not feel having one or two armed guards would have made a difference. The list of fatalities would have probably been longer. If armed guards have weapons holstered with safety on and the gunman caught them by surprise they would have been shot before even drawing their weapon. Security guards would be  the first target. Not only that but one or two guards can not cover the whole school. By the time they responded to the shots fired there would have already been fatalities. From what I understand the doors of that school where locked every morning at 930am and the gunman got in anyways. On the same day in China a man attacked a school but his weapon was a knife around 20 children where stabbed but none died. I am very liberal, however, I have not been a big fan of gun control laws. I felt that violent crimes would happen regardless. However, after reading about the two school attacks, the one in China and the one in the US, I realize that violence may still happen regardless but the number of fatalities resulting from these acts of violence can be reduced if access to firearms is restricted. Remember Nancy Lanza died from being shot by her own firearm. Adam Lanza had no prior criminal record prior to the school shooting. People may kill people however the weapon they use can make them more efficient killers... 

Permalink Reply by kOrsan on December 16, 2012 at 4:09pm

People keep comparing this attack to the one in China. It's not an exact parallel though if you ask me. Maybe if the guy in China wanted to, he could've gotten a gun. He obviously wasn't as serious about his act as the other kid. He didn't even kill himself at the end. You can ban guns. But last time I checked murder is banned too. So what are the chances that someone who doesn't follow the rule about murder will follow the one about guns?

Again, I believe it's more important to pinpoint these people, and the reason behind their acts, rather than focus on the tools they use. What if MacGyver had attacked this school? Should duct tape be banned?

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 16, 2012 at 4:19pm

Banning things is a ridiculous solution which only works in retrospect. People can get something to kill with, but if someone is ready to commit suicide, what are you going to charge their body with?

Permalink Reply by kOrsan on December 16, 2012 at 4:25pm

Exactly my point. That's why I think it would be better to put more thought into finding out how we can reduce the number of people flipping out like this, instead of reducing the number of tools.

Permalink Reply by Marc on December 16, 2012 at 4:36pm

I propose we do both. Find out how to reduce the number of people flipping out like this AND make a reasonable and sincere attempt to keep guns out of certain people's hands. It makes no sense to wait and see how effective we are at the first solution when we have worldwide evidence to suggest that the second one does.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• …
• 73
• Next ›
• Page