Another Shooting

[Irish#1]

My mother would love that. I'm considering moving farther south . Naples has been drawing me a lot the last few years. If this country continues on it's current trend though, I may revisit my old plans to move to Belize.....

I'll tell you what. If I win the lottery, I'll move us both down to Naples. I'll be your campaign manager.

It's now documented. I'll hold you to your commitment! lol

 

[dublinirish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Walmart is temporarily taking down its violent video game displays following the El Paso and Dayton shootings. But it is continuing to sell firearms. <a href="https://t.co/liL3EF0nZU">https://t.co/liL3EF0nZU</a></p>— HuffPost (@HuffPost) <a href="https://twitter.com/HuffPost/status/1159892802064588801?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Bishop2b5]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Walmart is temporarily taking down its violent video game displays following the El Paso and Dayton shootings. But it is continuing to sell firearms. <a href="https://t.co/liL3EF0nZU">https://t.co/liL3EF0nZU</a></p>— HuffPost (@HuffPost) <a href="https://twitter.com/HuffPost/status/1159892802064588801?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And states trying to reduce the number of drunk driving accidents pass tougher laws against driving while intoxicated yet continue to sell cars. Crazy, huh?

 

[Irish YJ]

It's now documented. I'll hold you to your commitment! lol

Write it down!
Hope your wife gets along with my harem.

 

[fightingirish26]

And states trying to reduce the number of drunk driving accidents pass tougher laws against driving while intoxicated yet continue to sell cars. Crazy, huh?

Crazy how many shooting there are in Japan, huh

 

[Irish YJ]

Crazy how many shooting there are in Japan, huh

Japan's lack of homicide in general is more cultural than anything else. Homicide in general, and gun violence in general is closely connected with culture in many regions If you don't see culture as impact, I'd ask you to compare El Salvador to the US.

In the US, there are 120 guns per 100 people. In El Salvador, 12 guns per 100 people. That's 10x more guns per capita in the US.

In the US, the homicide rate is 5.3 murders per 100,000 people. In El Salvador, it's 61.8 murders per 100,000. That's almost 12x the rate.

So El Salvador has 10 x less guns per, but 12x the homicide rate.

In the US.... high homicide rates have a pretty strong correlation to politics.....St. Louis and Baltimore, both have El Salvador level homicide rates. Detroit, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, KC M, Cleveland, Memphis, Newark, and Chicago round out the top 10 and are between roughly 5 and 8 times the national rate. All are Dem strongholds..... Perhaps they should try a different party?

 

[fightingirish26]

Japan's lack of homicide in general is more cultural than anything else. Homicide in general, and gun violence in general is closely connected with culture in many regions If you don't see culture as impact, I'd ask you to compare El Salvador to the US.

In the US, there are 120 guns per 100 people. In El Salvador, 12 guns per 100 people. That's 10x more guns per capita in the US.

In the US, the homicide rate is 5.3 murders per 100,000 people. In El Salvador, it's 61.8 murders per 100,000. That's almost 12x the rate.

So El Salvador has 10 x less guns per, but 12x the homicide rate.

In the US.... high homicide rates have a pretty strong correlation to politics.....St. Louis and Baltimore, both have El Salvador level homicide rates. Detroit, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, KC M, Cleveland, Memphis, Newark, and Chicago round out the top 10 and are between roughly 5 and 8 times the national rate. All are Dem strongholds..... Perhaps they should try a different party?

I wasnt talking about el salvador, what? Bish was implying video games have something to do with gun violence in the US.

 

[Irish YJ]

I wasnt talking about el salvador, what? Bish was implying video games have something to do with gun violence in the US.

Pretty sure Bish was being sarcastic about gun sales compared to cars sold. Basically saying to tool, or literal vehicle is not the problem, just like the gun is not the problem. If I'm incorrect, apologies.

If I'm correct on Bish's intent, I was assuming you were being sarcastic about the lack of shootings in Japan because there are no guns. If that was not your intent, apologies.

My point, is that less guns doesn't always equate to less homicide. There's a strong cultural impact to gun violence, and violence in general.

 

[fightingirish26]

Pretty sure Bish was being sarcastic about gun sales compared to cars sold. Basically saying to tool, or literal vehicle is not the problem, just like the gun is not the problem. If I'm incorrect, apologies.

If I'm correct on Bish's intent, I was assuming you were being sarcastic about the lack of shootings in Japan because there are no guns. If that was not your intent, apologies.

My point, is that less guns doesn't always equate to less homicide. There's a strong cultural impact to gun violence, and violence in general.

had a longer post but i don't want to have to come back and participate in this thread tomorrow. there's a reason i stopped posting in the political threads, plus i mean ffs i'm up at 330am. i got some fkn soccer to watch in four hours.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I wasnt talking about el salvador, what? Bish was implying video games have something to do with gun violence in the US.

I wasn't thinking of video games or implying anything about them per se. My point was just about exactly what YJ said: the problem isn't guns (or cars). It's the values and culture behind the killings, not the weapon, that are the root of the problem and its cause.

 

[GowerND11]

Do I think we, culturally, have become a little too immune to violence, and have allowed more violent pop culture “things” to be acceptable... yes. Video games are definitely part of that. However, I keep thinking about parental responsibilities for your child. I’m not saying these young men might not have been predisposed to mental illness, easily influenced, etc. what I am saying though is, maybe don’t let your 10 year old play GTA or Call of Duty. Idk. Seems like at a household level it could help some.

 

[Legacy]

I wasn't thinking of video games or implying anything about them per se. My point was just about exactly what YJ said: the problem isn't guns (or cars). It's the values and culture behind the killings, not the weapon, that are the root of the problem and its cause.

A culture that just has easy access to weapons does not translate into one that sees its citizens resort to killing each other or themselves in large numbers. Homicidal intent and capacity to plan which be facilitated by communication with others. Owning a handgun or long gun doesn't mean you intend to use it and communication with other responsible gun owners can reinforce the law-abiding rights for self-defense, hunting and other uses.

Modern societies have always limited gun ownership, as we have, prohibiting some members from access to weapons and types of weapons as well as regulate who can make and sell them and what commerce is approved for reasons of public safety and public health. We have also established what is criminal behavior and, to an extent, legislated against hate and terrorism, e.g. Patriot Act.

In fact, society has an obligation to its members to legislate and enforce measures that will protect them and keep them safer. As a republican form of government, in spite of general agreement on some steps that are reasonable, those are not made into law without a constant struggle against moneyed interests to effect change.

Should you wish to argue that the culture and values that a perpetrator - or one who has expressed his intent to commit mass murders- is a causative agent to such violence and that we need to neutralize not only the individuals but environment producing these killers including the individuals around them whether families or groups and the methods they communicate their messages, you would probably meet little resistance.

But, it is apparent who will do nothing about the problem and whose only alternative is a future America where everyone who is so inclined wears a weapon without requiring any background checks or regulation while they bemoan "culture and values". Four more years.

 

[Legacy]

For the majority, Scalia clearly wanted to emphasize that the Second Amendment rights are not unlimited and detailed those limitations

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not[.]”

“The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

In addition to historical prohibition of "dangerous and unusual weapons", Scalia further said that, "weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned". Bans at local and state levels of those weapons have been consistently upheld at all judicial levels. SCOTUS continues to refuse to hear appeals on the decisions affirming those bans.

From the majority decision in District of Columbia v Heller, written by Justice Antonin Scalia

 

[phork]

Do I think we, culturally, have become a little too immune to violence, and have allowed more violent pop culture “things” to be acceptable... yes. Video games are definitely part of that. However, I keep thinking about parental responsibilities for your child. I’m not saying these young men might not have been predisposed to mental illness, easily influenced, etc. what I am saying though is, maybe don’t let your 10 year old play GTA or Call of Duty. Idk. Seems like at a household level it could help some.

Gower, so then its a US problem only. Pretty sure other countries have kids playing these games watching the same movies etc. But everyone else seems in way better shape?

 

[GATTACA!]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0w8qpKhZR2s" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ACamp1900]

Gower, so then its a US problem only. Pretty sure other countries have kids playing these games watching the same movies etc. But everyone else seems in way better shape?

We aren’t even that violent of a country in comparison to many,... but it is a multi layered issue, access the guns being among a them.

 

[Legacy]

After the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Trump has said:
“We have tremendous support for common sense background checks.” and “I think we can get something really good done. I really want to see it happen.” He also said that he favors strengthening laws to keep the mentally ill from obtaining guns.

He implied he would push for universal background checks and red flag laws. His nominee for head of the ATF, Chuck Canterbury, who is appearing before Congressional Committee for his nomination, opposes any new gun regulations including expanding background checks, red flag laws, regulating arms sales or banning assault rifles, etc.

Criminal background checks have stopped more than 3.5 million sales to convicted felons, domestic abusers, fugitives and other dangerous people. But because background checks aren't required for private sales, one in five gun sales occurs without one.

Trump has previously reversed himself when he has advocated any restrictions. He also revoked a regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to buy guns.

Trump quietly used regulations to expand gun access

 

[NorthDakota]

Gun access should be very much universal. I had to pass a background check to get mine. But everyone has a right to own one until they forfeit that right. I feel terrible for my fellow Americans living in heavy gun control states since it appears to be cost-prohibitive to own a gun, that seems to infringe in my opinion.

A lot of these jabronis seem to have to forfeit that right but the government in all of it's glory typically seems to not do its job in that department.

Red flag laws on their face seem fine to me and many others but the possibility for abuse makes me very very very concerned.

 

[drayer54]

Gun access should be very much universal. I had to pass a background check to get mine. But everyone has a right to own one until they forfeit that right. I feel terrible for my fellow Americans living in heavy gun control states since it appears to be cost-prohibitive to own a gun, that seems to infringe in my opinion.

A lot of these jabronis seem to have to forfeit that right but the government in all of it's glory typically seems to not do its job in that department.

Red flag laws on their face seem fine to me and many others but the possibility for abuse makes me very very very concerned.

Red flag laws are not fine to me. Pre-crime punishment is bad. Liberals want to flag a conservative and make them get a lawyer and fight for their stuff? Think Kavanaugh. People are crazy and will do anything to hurt a republican if they can, especially an armed one. Plus, due process matters and we already have ways to disarm people who pose a threat.

 

[BGIF]

Red flag laws are not fine to me. Pre-crime punishment is bad. Liberals want to flag a conservative and make them get a lawyer and fight for their stuff? Think Kavanaugh. People are crazy and will do anything to hurt a republican if they can, especially an armed one. Plus, due process matters and we already have ways to disarm people who pose a threat.

And which ways are they?

You apparently don't know anyone with mental illness that possesses a gun.


Of course there's the way Philadelphia did it tonight with 6 officers shot, hundreds of manhours expended, probably a hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the operation to disarm one person who posed a threat after he took issue with them trying to serve a drug warrant.

Waco, Ruby Ridge, the 1978 Philadelphia Eviction Shooting, and the 1985 Philadelphia Fire Bombing of MOVE approved by the mayor are a few that come to mind resulting in loss of life trying to serve warrants.

 

[BGIF]

POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENTPublished 8 hours ago Last Update 49 mins ago Philadelphia suspect in custody after hours-long ordeal that left 6 officers wounded

 

[Irish YJ]

Red flag laws are not fine to me. Pre-crime punishment is bad. Liberals want to flag a conservative and make them get a lawyer and fight for their stuff? Think Kavanaugh. People are crazy and will do anything to hurt a republican if they can, especially an armed one. Plus, due process matters and we already have ways to disarm people who pose a threat.

The pre-crime stuff is a very slippery slope. With the over-medicated new norm of today, half the nation could be considered having "mental illness". Hell, they should use twitter to determine "crazy" these days.

 

[GowerND11]

Gower, so then its a US problem only. Pretty sure other countries have kids playing these games watching the same movies etc. But everyone else seems in way better shape?

Sorry, been busy painting the new house to get ready for move in so I've been away. As ACamp points out below it is a multi layered issue here in our country. I think there's more to it than violent video games, but they can still contribute. I'm not saying ban them either, what I'm really saying in where is personal (and parental) responsibility in our culture anymore? People want the schools to teach kids everything parents are supposed to, the government to pay for kids meals, etc. etc. We no longer support our local neighborhoods, we don't even know our neighbors! The sense of community is gone, and when community organizers try to do stuff to bring people together, people complain, it's flabbergasting.

We aren’t even that violent of a country in comparison to many,... but it is a multi layered issue, access the guns being among a them.

I agree here. And before any one talks about 2A, we literally have too easy of access to guns in the country. I'm not even talking about law abiding citizen access. The black market, the people in the cities, it's so easy to get a gun these days. So when I worry about shootings, it isn't just these mass shootings that are sickening and tragic, it's the strings of shootings in Chicago, or the events yesterday in Philly, etc. These are major problems that no one wants to address.

 

[Irish#1]

Sorry, been busy painting the new house to get ready for move in so I've been away. As ACamp points out below it is a multi layered issue here in our country. I think there's more to it than violent video games, but they can still contribute. I'm not saying ban them either, what I'm really saying in where is personal (and parental) responsibility in our culture anymore? People want the schools to teach kids everything parents are supposed to, the government to pay for kids meals, etc. etc. We no longer support our local neighborhoods, we don't even know our neighbors! The sense of community is gone, and when community organizers try to do stuff to bring people together, people complain, it's flabbergasting.



I agree here. And before any one talks about 2A, we literally have too easy of access to guns in the country. I'm not even talking about law abiding citizen access. The black market, the people in the cities, it's so easy to get a gun these days. So when I worry about shootings, it isn't just these mass shootings that are sickening and tragic, it's the strings of shootings in Chicago, or the events yesterday in Philly, etc. These are major problems that no one wants to address.

I may be wrong, but IIRC I recently heard that violent video games do not contribute to kids or anyone becoming violent.

I agree. There are plenty of contributing factors need to be addressed. New gun measures is just one area that needs to be addressed.

 

[Legacy]

There is minimal or no association between gun deaths and mental illnesses except as noted below. I understand that the gun lobby would like to distract people from reasonable reforms and that to law-abiding citizens murdering mass numbers of innocent people is unthinkable. Those with major depressive disorders have an increase incidence of suicide and/or killing their spouses. But the gun lobby for years fought extreme risk protective orders without due process. I can't see how they would logically favor involuntary commitments of - or taking guns away from - someone who has verbally expressed an intent to commit gun violence. It's a red herring except for those situations. They might meet criteria for a brief hospitalization, but a judge has to rule within a certain amount of time for them to continue that commitment as a continuing danger to themselves or others. If expression of homicide against groups of others based on race, etc. is a new criteria, think of the masses of hate group individuals who will need to be incarcerated and how long. To commit these takes motivation (hate), intent and planning (rational thinking and sometimes coordination) and access to means to do so. We'd do well to red flag those severely depressed and/or threaten themselves and significant others, while intervening by removing the means, protecting their rights in a subsequent hearing and physician for diagnosis. Too many veterans with PTSD and/or depression commit suicide (handgun). Other vets have support networks that work to identify and get them to hand over their weapon and get to treatment. Take that group as example of what works sometimes - sadly not frequently enough - and extrapolate. Otherwise, guns and mental illness? Ignorance or sos.

 

[drayer54]

There is minimal or no association between gun deaths and mental illnesses except as noted below. I understand that the gun lobby would like to distract people from reasonable reforms and that to law-abiding citizens murdering mass numbers of innocent people is unthinkable. Those with major depressive disorders have an increase incidence of suicide and/or killing their spouses. But the gun lobby for years fought extreme risk protective orders without due process. I can't see how they would logically favor involuntary commitments of - or taking guns away from - someone who has verbally expressed an intent to commit gun violence. It's a red herring except for those situations. They might meet criteria for a brief hospitalization, but a judge has to rule within a certain amount of time for them to continue that commitment as a continuing danger to themselves or others. If expression of homicide against groups of others based on race, etc. is a new criteria, think of the masses of hate group individuals who will need to be incarcerated and how long. To commit these takes motivation (hate), intent and planning (rational thinking and sometimes coordination) and access to means to do so. We'd do well to red flag those severely depressed and/or threaten themselves and significant others, while intervening by removing the means, protecting their rights in a subsequent hearing and physician for diagnosis. Too many veterans with PTSD and/or depression commit suicide (handgun). Other vets have support networks that work to identify and get them to hand over their weapon and get to treatment. Take that group as example of what works sometimes - sadly not frequently enough - and extrapolate. Otherwise, guns and mental illness? Ignorance or sos.

If the reforms were that reasonable, there wouldn't be such broad opposition.

Second, gun violence is a messaging term brought on from an expensive study conducted by the gun-control lobby. The logical assumption is that gun violence is different from any other form of violence. We never hear about hammer violence,car violence, etc..

Third, one can already go through the process of a restraining order and temporarily disarming someone who has threatened violence.

Fourth, you're damn right I don't trust the nasty and hateful liberals in this country who do ridiculous things to conservatives to not abuse these laws. We're discussing advancing a preemptive law in one state that harshly punishes people who make false accusations for this purpose.

Fifth, I hate veteran suicide. I am a veteran and active with the VFW. This is too frequent a topic there. We see support and buddy checks working often, but yes people do commit suicide. Suicide is not gun violence, actual violence, or something that is prevented by gun control. Suicide near a school is also not a school shooting, despite the falsehoods of MDA. If someone has a genuine issue, this should be a path forward to protecting them, but I'm not willing to use these silly red flag/ERPOs like Colorados that everyone seems to want to model to try and tackle this.

 

[NorthDakota]

There is minimal or no association between gun deaths and mental illnesses except as noted below. I understand that the gun lobby would like to distract people from reasonable reforms and that to law-abiding citizens murdering mass numbers of innocent people is unthinkable. Those with major depressive disorders have an increase incidence of suicide and/or killing their spouses. But the gun lobby for years fought extreme risk protective orders without due process. I can't see how they would logically favor involuntary commitments of - or taking guns away from - someone who has verbally expressed an intent to commit gun violence. It's a red herring except for those situations. They might meet criteria for a brief hospitalization, but a judge has to rule within a certain amount of time for them to continue that commitment as a continuing danger to themselves or others. If expression of homicide against groups of others based on race, etc. is a new criteria, think of the masses of hate group individuals who will need to be incarcerated and how long. To commit these takes motivation (hate), intent and planning (rational thinking and sometimes coordination) and access to means to do so. We'd do well to red flag those severely depressed and/or threaten themselves and significant others, while intervening by removing the means, protecting their rights in a subsequent hearing and physician for diagnosis. Too many veterans with PTSD and/or depression commit suicide (handgun). Other vets have support networks that work to identify and get them to hand over their weapon and get to treatment. Take that group as example of what works sometimes - sadly not frequently enough - and extrapolate. Otherwise, guns and mental illness? Ignorance or sos.

What reasonable reforms are you speaking of? I havent seen any really.

 

[Legacy]

 

[NorthDakota]

Which of those is reasonable?

 

[Legacy]

Which of those is reasonable?

Let's have a vote on it. More democratic.

If the reforms were that reasonable, there wouldn't be such broad opposition.

Second, gun violence is a messaging term brought on from an expensive study conducted by the gun-control lobby. The logical assumption is that gun violence is different from any other form of violence. We never hear about hammer violence,car violence, etc..

Third, one can already go through the process of a restraining order and temporarily disarming someone who has threatened violence.

Fourth, you're damn right I don't trust the nasty and hateful liberals in this country who do ridiculous things to conservatives to not abuse these laws. We're discussing advancing a preemptive law in one state that harshly punishes people who make false accusations for this purpose.

Fifth, I hate veteran suicide. I am a veteran and active with the VFW. This is too frequent a topic there. We see support and buddy checks working often, but yes people do commit suicide. Suicide is not gun violence, actual violence, or something that is prevented by gun control. Suicide near a school is also not a school shooting, despite the falsehoods of MDA. If someone has a genuine issue, this should be a path forward to protecting them, but I'm not willing to use these silly red flag/ERPOs like Colorados that everyone seems to want to model to try and tackle this.

On one point. We disagree on measures to prevent suicide and red flag laws. Suicide is two thirds (22k of 36k annually) of gun deaths in the U.S. If you have only taken guns away from other vets when they will surrender them to you and if you give them back when they request them, fine. That must be tough should you have experienced a fellow vet's subsequent suicide. More power to the work that you do and the interventions you can effect. You know your success/failure rate. Those without that kind of support have to deal with their demons with whatever support they have. Gun violence or gun deaths - whichever. Intentional or accidental. Homicide, suicide, accidental. Homicides that are justifiable as a subset. Intimate partner violence - attempts or successes.

Nearly one million women alive today have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner. In an average month, 52 American women are shot to death by an intimate partner and many more are injured. Approximately 4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened with a gun by an intimate partner. Access to a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed.