 |
Eric Harris and Columbine was 1999 . Before that there wasMichael Carneal in Paducah,KyWe have a clear point of delineation because these type of massacres were rare to nonexistent before 1998. You could take Eric Harris interchangeably withNikolas Cruz ....mental illness and prescribed medications .They are the same person sending out the same signals to be ignored .
And why were they rare?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Btw, check out this site, and scroll down to the mass killings before 1998.
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadlie...ting-rampages/
Seems to be one commonality in all those shootings....
Both quit counseling and taking prescribed meds. Soooooo, what can be done about compliance or lack of it for the mentally ill? One of my uncles was bipolar and took lithium which worked great. Then new meds came on the market. His VA psychiatrists, trying to be modern and progressive, prescribed this one and that one. Nothing seemed to work as well as lithium. There's more to this story. Part 2 another day. Btw, mental illinesses are hell.Quote:
You could take Eric Harris interchangeably with Nikolas Cruz ....mental illness and prescribed medications . They are the same person sending out the same signals to be ignored .
I guess you are are saying this is the result of allowing the mentally ill to remain in the community, they should all be institutionalised before they harm anyone, build more looney bins before building more prisons or simply remove the distinctions
Nope. Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
ADDED: "Looney bins" aren't the answer. Compliance is the answer but how will that happen? (P.S. it won't -- I've counseled enough people to know that.) GUNS are the problem. Australia solved the problem with how they dealt with guns. And no, I don't agree our Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns ... or assault weapons ... or cannons.
Hey I'm with you and it only took one looney for Australia to get the message, but then we didn't have a cashed up gun lobby to buy off the politicians, we also have a solution for the illegal immigrant problem, however, the wimps would never adopt that one either. You have a looney President who thinks gun violence is a mental health problem, and the strange part is, he is not paid to think that way, apparently, Compliance isn't the answer, the Constitution is the problem, it allows the offenders to hide behind it. Its wording is purposely vague because the founders knew they wouldn't be the ones to sort out the problems, but they had to good sense not to write it in stone, the current generation appears to think it is written in stoneQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The Founding Fathers had muskets that shot a round or two a minute. They had no idea about the capabilities of muskets in 2018.
AR-15s won't work well against the government's airplanes, bombs, and tanks no matter how many citizens own them.
Women have mental illnesses too, but 98% of the mass shootings are committed by men and easy access to killing machines. Thus, these killings aren't really about mental illness, are they....
Guns are certainly a major part of the problem. Going deeper, the NRA is the chief proponent of not touching the gun problem by citing the Second Amendment and, more importantly, financially supporting the endemic corruption in Congress by donating huge amounts to the re-election campaigns of Congressmen.
In order to cut off the corrupt NRA power, Citizens United must be repealed. Allowing unlimited amounts of cash to be funneled to Congressmen who vote for the NRA position is bizarre and is based solely on the false proposition that a corporation is a "person". "Persons" have free speech so, the argument goes, donating money is a form of free speech. Ergo, corporations can sway Congress to their pocketbook's content.
This idiotic Supreme Court decision went against 100 years of common sense. Its real purpose was solely to put the wealthy as the chief driving force in the nation.
How does one guy have more than 20 contacts with the local law, and not be arrested, no reports or warnings? I bet the incidence reports would shed some light on the biggest most obvious flaw in the law. As well as the source for his money to purchase a military weapon of mass destruction and plenty of ammo to complete his mission. Am I the only one who thinks it odd that soldiers, and cops go through training, and certification before being issued a weapon, but citizens do not?
How come that good guy with a gun is never around when you need him?
And had the h.s. teachers been armed ("the good guys with guns"), how many more students -- and teachers -- would have been shot and killed in the ensuing chaos?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
so if he had used a Remington750 semi-automatic hunting rifle it would not have been a "military weapon of mass destruction "?
schools are "gun free zones " .Even security guards in schools here are unarmed . Only the roughest schools have cops permanently assigned to themQuote:
How come that good guy with a gun is never around when you need him?
When President Reagan was shot, he was surrounded by "good guys with guns." Same when JFK was shot. And Robert Kennedy.
MLK Jr. was shot and killed with a Remington 760.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That was a pump action gun; nobody's definition of a "military weapon of mass destruction ".
I didn't say it was, but it did the job very well, didn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Wonder what those hard core second amendment guys have done at their kids school to prevent a tragedy like the Florida, shootings? What have they done after any shooting?
We can argue semantics all we want my friends, but what's a reasonable solution? Mine would be a total ban of any firearm until a thorough background check could be done, and documentation on qualifications, have been presented, and verified.
If its good enough for the military, its good enough for citizens.
In addition a national registry of ALL firearms no exceptions. Updated continually. If you are so paranoid of your own government confiscating your gun then you are too loony to have one. In addition, a call for A disturbance can result in your gun being taken on the spot, until it is verified you are no risk to anyone, and you must be willing to submit to a search and seizure for illegal firearms, if a cop is called for a disturbance. You are responsible for the safe storage of ALL fire arms you own, and a failure to do so will result in forfeiture of such fire arms until you demonstrate you have secured your firearm in your home.
That should be a GOOD FIRST STEP.
Why firearms in the first place? I've never owned one, needed one, wished I had one (except when I was angry at someone).
national registry like we used to track guns in Mexico ?
Naw. Melt them all down. Issue potato peelers to everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There are many reasons for gun ownership . Hunting ;target practice ,collection ,self protection ,and a safeguard against a tyrannical government are but a few I can think of off the top of my head . The right to own guns is a Constitutional guarantee that No one is going to change . So we can debate which regulations are "reasonable" (yes the Constitution does specify "regulated "),and enact laws based on the desires of 'we the people' .But the idea of gun bans (which is what the left really wants ;they just won't say it ) is off the table .Quote:
Why firearms in the first place? I've never owned one, needed one, wished I had one (except when I was angry at someone).
hmmmmm...herr Donald finally posted something on Twitter that is worth asking :
Quote:
Just like they don’t want to solve the DACA problem, why didn’t the Democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration. Because they didn’t want to, and now they just talk!
The fore fathers put the right to bear arms in the constitution, and gave the legislature the authority to make and enforce the laws, and secure the well being of the nation, and its citizens against all enemies foreign, and domestic... or elected. The responsibility and duty of all it's citizen is to ensure our elected representatives do what the F**** we tell them to do.
Since when do we allow ANY special interest group to circumvent our RIGHTS, and FREEDOMS? Enough talk lets VOTE! I'm with the kids, talk without actions is BS! You want a gun go get one, but play by the rules.
That's the problem! The rules are inadequate for the safety of the citizens! Action is required!
Typical con man BS! Look back and criticize while so far he hasn't done anything about it either except make it a wedge for HIS racist agenda. Does that answer the question?Quote:
Just like they don’t want to solve the DACA problem, why didn’t the Democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration. Because they didn’t want to, and now they just talk!
Hmm, didn't he sign an EO eliminating not just Obamas EO about the dreamers, but also making it easier for the mentally ill to buy a gun? Why are you listening to a PROVEN lying, cheating, racist bully, who colludes with Vlad?
you mean that Obama EO that he signed on his last days in office that never went into effect ;thatdid not change any existing laws regulating who is allowed to purchase guns ? Yes he did . The emperor's order would've made it mandatory for Social Security Adm to release the names of mentally ill SS recipients that the SS Agency deemed too dangerous to own guns ? You do realize that this was an outrageous order that even the ACLU opposed ?
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-co...17/01/ACLU.pdfQuote:
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state
AMERICAN
The rule would have allowed bureaucrats to bar American citizens from exercising a constitutional right on the grounds that to be incapable of managing one’s finances is, by definition, to be a “mental defective.”
Shame on anyone who supported this ruling based on a stereotype and prejudice .
herr Donald's point remains .... the Dems did NOTHING about gun control in the early days of the emperor's reign when they controlled everything .
Guns will not ever give us that safeguard.Quote:
safeguard against a tyrannical government
The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England,
- St. George Tucker,1803
The date says it all. Now, let's rewrite that for the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And tell me Tom has the right of the British people to freedom and liberty been eroded after 200 years, guns still exist in Britain, but they don't suffer the violence of the US. You have swallowed the propagandaQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Clete guns in Great Britain are a privilege not a right . So yes I think their rights are eroded .
This is a perfect example of the right-wing living in the past. Do you really believe a handful of citizens armed with pistols and rifles can stand up against a "tyrannical" government armed with tanks, fighter planes, aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs? Not to mention a multi-million member Army, Navy and Air Force?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No, self-defense is the propaganda the gun lobby wants you to believe, and you have swallowed it wholesale. Wake up and realize that the gun manufacturers are manipulating you to protect their almighty PROFITS!
Nothing to rewrite . The principle is universal .Quote:
The date says it all. Now, let's rewrite that for the 21st century.
Hitler signed the Weapons Law of 1938, which basically said Jews weren’t allowed to own guns. He also issued Weapons Orders in the occupied countries that basically made gun ownership by non-Germans punishable by death.Chairman Mao prohibited firearm ownership in Communist China when he came to power, and that is still in effect today.The resistance movement forces of occupied Europe were comprised of armed civilians .A dictator can only dictate effectively to a population that has no other choice but to follow the dictator's dictates. An armed population always has a choice.
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938
Athos presumes that the Army will stand with the tyrannical government instead of the free people . The clear mind set of the people living in the indoctrinated present .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Armed with WHAT?Has it ever not?Quote:
Athos presumes that the Army will stand with the tyrannical government instead of the free people.
You need to read a book on History. Any book will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Look at the generals around the head of government at present - they even lie for the wanna-be tyrant. Do you seriously think they would stand with anyone but the government? Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
I note you avoided commenting on my gun lobby and profits comment. When you're confused about what is happening, there is an old expression that fits here - FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Okay Tom, let's try this, what do you propose to prevent gun violence, or are you saying nothing to see here move along, and just wait for the next massacre?
The gun lobby is pikers compared to other lobby groups like ...the unions SEIU ;and AFT ,even groups like Planned Parenthood spend more lobbying . The reason the NRA has clout is because it is a true people's lobby. Outside of the echo chamber ,the people support the right to own guns .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tal - He has no proposal. All he can do is strike out at other lobbying groups, none of which have the slightest thing to do with the NRA. That is the typical stance of Trump and the right-wing. Deflect and distract.
He says the NRA "is a true people's lobby". Is he trying to be funny?
The reason the NRA has clout is it pays off the politicians, but the fix to this is to change focus and licence ownership. If you want an AR-15 then be licensed and go through a gun safety course. This doesn't abridge anyone's right of ownership, but it does mean the checks will be done. Why people are so paranoid about their identity is purcular, you can't drive a lethal weapon like a SUV without a license and training
The people support reasonable gun control laws too, overwhelmingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/polit...oll/index.html
to now
Guns | Gallup Historical Trends
Please say whether you favor or oppose each of the following. [RANDOM ORDER].
Favor Oppose No opinion % % % Requiring background checks for all gun purchases 96 4 * Enacting a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales 75 24 1 Requiring all privately-owned guns to be registered with the police 70 29 1 Oct. 5-11, 2017; * Less than 0.5%
What else do you need?
What else do you need, make political payoffs illegal, disband the PAC's and get the snouts out of the trough
Generally agree. The opposition to registry is perhaps paranoia . But there is a concern that what was once legal will become illegal and the government can use that registry to confiscate . Think despots haven't done that in the past ? Think again.Quote:
If you want an AR-15 then be licensed and go through a gun safety course. This doesn't abridge anyone's right of ownership, but it does mean the checks will be done. Why people are so paranoid about their identity is purcular, you can't drive a lethal weapon like a SUV without a license and training
Tal you know and I know that the ones screaming the loudest if you got your way would be the public and private labor unions .
Good Suggestion Aussie!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Then you should have no issue getting your panacea laws passed ;and the question remains . If it was so popular then why didn't the Dems and the emperor pass those laws in 2009-11 when they had absolute majorities in the elective branches of government ?Quote:
The people support reasonable gun control laws too, overwhelmingly.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/polit...oll/index.html
to now
Guns | Gallup Historical Trends
Please say whether you favor or oppose each of the following. [RANDOM ORDER].
Favor Oppose No opinion % % % Requiring background checks for all gun purchases 96 4 * Enacting a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales 75 24 1 Requiring all privately-owned guns to be registered with the police 70 29 1 Oct. 5-11, 2017; * Less than 0.5%
What else do you need?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 PM. |