Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real solution on mass shootings as well as the homeless crisis, is to address mental illness - and bring back long term, institutionalization.
But there's pretty much zero chance of that happening.
Couple thoughts on this. Most mentally ill people are not violent, but I agree with you about institutionalization. That's a hard one, though. My sister is in the initial stages of finding a residential spot for her autistic son. It's heartbreaking. In his case, we've known for a very long time that he wasn't going to be able to function on his own in society, and it's still an excruciating thing to go through. It's no wonder that parents of functioning, but psychologically damaged, kids (like Adam Lanza) aren't willing to face the truths about these kids.
The other thing is, even when the parents know what their kids are capable of, it's often times nearly impossible for them to get the help they need. I've referenced this before. Back when Sandy Hook happened, there was a mom who wrote an article about trying to get her son institutionalized - or at least get some outside help for him. She was pretty much turned down at every bend because her son hadn't (yet) done something quite horrible enough to warrant arrest. Even though he was violent with family members and caused problems at school, she was still unable to do anything that would alleviate the problem.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...fort-next-year https://www.dailywire.com/news/38212...-emily-zanotti
Anyone surprised? Of course not, democrats don't want to reduce crime, violence or deaths they want "gun control". They claim to want to unify the country and then the first thing they want is something guaranteed to alienate half the country, proving they aren't about unity, healing or America they want to appease their loud, violent, liberal base.
Without the Senate and White House they won't actually accomplish anything, except to sell more guns and ammunition, maybe even more than Obama was able to sell.
I wonder how many more states will pass laws saying they will ignore federal laws that violate the 2nd amendment? Several have already. It's nice that liberal states like California and WA have set the precedent that it's Ok to pass laws that are in direct opposition to federal law.
I'm not surprised the two sources cited are basically internet RW tabloids.
Rally the troops! Let's make yet another issue a tool for dividing the country!
I see where they are proposing universal background checks, that is not aggressive gun control.
You're right, but it's also a do-nothing idea. First of all, who is going to enforce this? If one neighbor decides to sell his gun to another, who is going to even know? The answer is, nobody. Second, even if they go to an FFL and do the background checks, so what? The recent shooters all passed background checks, so how is this going to make any difference? Third, this places YET ANOTHER burden on gun owners. Are you going to offer to pay for the FFL fees? Are you going to pay for the time and gas money spent getting to the FFL? And.... let's not forget... basic rights are NOT supposed to be taxed, never mind infringed. How about we institute a fee for anyone who wants to vote?
Gun control is a lose/ lose no win platform for the dems. If they push it, the GOP gets their base mobilized and moderate dems get put off since they want to own guns as much as the conservatives do. You'll get activists and the urban poor paying lip service for it but they won't want it either. But they would support it if big social entitlements were promised with it. They could be suckered that way, promise it to them but don't deliver. But that would anger them and you'd lose them next election. Guns, guns, everybody wants them and nobody wants to give them up. And the deep state sits there scratching their red baboons asses wondering why everything they do has the opposite effect of what they intended.
Post #27 recommends media cease identifying the shooter by name. While I appreciate the intent, it’s unreasonable. Identity is often disclosed on social media before publicly released. And sometimes, social media gets it wrong, very, very wrong.
The public demands the name, a picture, race, ethnicity, religion, political ideology and what they ate for breakfast.
Even with identity, there are some who believe mass shootings are false flags and crisis actors were used.
Some go to the homes of grieving families demanding proof. Some harass the families for years. And in the case of Sandy Hook, some families are taking a specific media to court for perpetuating theories that the whole deal was faked.
No shortage of folks seem to prefer to blame anything except the shooter. It’s government, guns, bad parenting, schools, LE, lack of religion and on and on.
Those closest to the shooters tend to function in denial. They tend to know something is off yet do not perceive a physical threat.
Homicide rate has been declining for 30 years. About 3% of all gun deaths are the result of these "massacres" you are talking about (assuming you mean mas shootings). They are tragic, but not the epidemic you are trying to make them out to be.
Most gun deaths are gang-related, which stems from the war on drugs. End that and you should see the homicide rate drop significantly.
It's actually much lower than that, less than 1/10 th of 1% chance of dying in a mass carnage event. I believe there have been 168 mass shootings recorded in the U.S.. It still sucks but not what everyone makes it out to be.
That said, one can still be smart about being out in public like avoiding large masses of people in a gun free zone with no armed security force.
I see where they are proposing universal background checks, that is not aggressive gun control.
It is if we aren't getting universal access to firearms.
We pass the "universal background check" we get suppressed full auto belt feds no questions asked.
I hope the House passes all sorts of extreme left bill - strict gun control, amnesty for illegals, free college, medicare for all - because none of them have a snowball's chance in #ell of passing and it will help GOP turnout in 2020.
Post #27 recommends media cease identifying the shooter by name. While I appreciate the intent, it’s unreasonable. Identity is often disclosed on social media before publicly released. And sometimes, social media gets it wrong, very, very wrong.
The public demands the name, a picture, race, ethnicity, religion, political ideology and what they ate for breakfast.
The public can pound sand sticking their noses where it doesn't belong. Are they the ones responding to the scene? No.
Are they the ones investigating the incident? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Even with identity, there are some who believe mass shootings are false flags and crisis actors were used.
Some go to the homes of grieving families demanding proof. Some harass the families for years. And in the case of Sandy Hook, some families are taking a specific media to court for perpetuating theories that the whole deal was faked.
Makes for a compelling reason for the media to keep it to a minimum. I'm not implying they are responsible for victims being confronted. However you release the names in today's day and age... this isn't the time before I was born where news didn't circulate like wild fire. Everything is publicly accessible these days. I found the synagogue scumbag in 5 minutes when his name was released. Imagine others like him finding the names of the victims and their families?
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
No shortage of folks seem to prefer to blame anything except the shooter. It’s government, guns, bad parenting, schools, LE, lack of religion and on and on.
Those closest to the shooters tend to function in denial. They tend to know something is off yet do not perceive a physical threat.
What's worse, when the scumbags are known by locals and law enforcement, yet, are protected via good feels initiatives. Or bureaucracies that are "supposed" to be overseeing the laws enforced as written, but don't follow through on their end.
Why have the ATF if the FBI is responsible for background checks? Meanwhile, why isn't the FBI looking into legitimate credible threats of violence? Parkland scumbag made his presence known in advance. Pulse scumbag was reported to the FBI by my local gun store.
Why wasn't the Texas church scumbags military criminal records forwarded to the FBI NICS division for a case of domestic violence?
Enabling outliers...
Maybe it's due to the fact I perform the duties I've been hired to perform, call me crazy, I would have had both of those scumbags scooped up out in public unlike Ruby Ridge or Waco, take them into custody and after thorough investigation and court order, neither would have been able to carry out their atrocities.
Those that are proponents of the first amendment, may say or argue, how do you differentiate between being edgy/joking/trolling, and not for real hell bent on carrying out chaos?
Hence, thorough investigation into the individual.
Communication between feds and local PD and county sheriff's to be monitoring them, surveiling them. Detaining them if need be if they won't answer questions when approached. That whole... due process, innocent until proven guilty thing...
That's just me though. If I was an agent of a federal bureaucracy with millions/billions of dollars worth of tools and assets available... I'd be putting it to good use. Not pointing the finger at well, I'm just doing my job as it is directed by my supervisor at your expense in tax dollars... just following .gov protocol... it's out of my hands...
I'm not anti government. I'm anti ineptitude. I just call it how I see it...
You may want to rethink that position...
I can see democrats taking that ball and running with it.
Welp. Conservatives and gun owners say it's the mentally ill and not them and that we are conflating them with the actions of those in possession of the implements we don't like. Fine.
How about we make everyone get screened before purchasing a firearm after such and such a date, by a mental health expert of our choosing in every county.
And when it is determined by an "expert" that the desire to acquire a firearm is on par with diagnosis of such and such disorder/tendencies, and massive waves of denials roll through...
Can't say I didn't warn ya...
However, I do agree that those that are so dangerous they cannot be trusted with a firearm, should be institutionalized and kept out of society. I'm not saying round up every returning veteran and put them in VA hospitals just because.
cant require a mental health evaluation as it would be an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
