We have a tremendous amount of gun laws and laws against violence in place already. History didn't start with Columbine.

Builder93 said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?

---

This is the $64,000 question, and why true gun control will never happen in the US. All you can really do is take guns away from those that have actually registered their guns. Illegally owned guns will still be out there being used to kill people. How do you track down and confiscate those?

Can't.be.done.

---

Yeah, we because we have a truly ridiculous number of guns in the country. More than one per person. That is insane. You're right, we cant confiscate or ban them. The cat is way too far out of the bag.

But this also shows that widespread availability of guns are the problem. It's insanely easy to get your hands on a gun as a mentally unstable/evil person with intent to kill. It's not like the US has more mentally unstable people. It's that coupled with ease of access to firearms. That's why the US has a unique gun violence problem among developed nations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

The Dayton killer had a hit list that the police knew about in 2012, and he still legally purchased a firearm. That is insane. And completely unacceptable.

---

I agree with this. Any one who exhibits this kind of behavior should not be able to purchase a firearm. You forfeit your right to a weapon if you exhibit sociopath behaviors. The problem here is that it can be used as a tool of retribution. Who will do the labeling and/or diagnostics?

This is a problem for vets with PTSD. They don't want to be labeled but they don't want to lose rights so they don't get the help they need because they don't want the stigma and the limitations on their freedoms that come with the diagnosis.

---

Separate issue but this is why I take issue with everyone writing off shooters as mentally ill. It's often not true and stigmatizes people with diagnosable mental illness. The El Paso guy wasn't mentally ill, he was a racist hateful person who had a direct target in mind.

P.C. Principal said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

The lead get buried on this issue. People focus on gun deaths to distract from the real killer in this country, which is death in auto collisions. About 3x the number of people die in car crashes than by firearm homicide, and a hugely disproportionate number of those are children.

It's time for America to demand change and set highway speed limits at 40 mph to fight this epidemic.

---

We've done a lot to combat auto collisions actually. Changed design of vehicles to lessen impact, implemented auto braking technology, harsher punishment for reckless/drunk driving, passed laws related to texting while driving, made penalties much more severe for DWIs if you have minors in the vehicle.

When we have a problem, we take steps to fix it. Even if we know we won't eliminate 100% of the deaths/injuries that result from it.

---

If every car was fixed with a governor that capped speed at 40 mph, it would essentially eliminate vehicle collision deaths. Especially when including some of the technology you mention (that weirdly isn't mandatory).

The point is, what's the value here? What are we trying to do? Is saving the lives of children the most important thing, for example? It can't be, right? Because if it were, then people would care MORE about vehicle deaths than shooting deaths.

Or, maybe, people harp on shooting deaths because they're trying to manipulate your emotions for their own personal gain. And they pick a battle that is destined to go on forever because, unlike having a driver's license or setting speed limits, gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

P.C. Principal said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?

---

This is the $64,000 question, and why true gun control will never happen in the US. All you can really do is take guns away from those that have actually registered their guns. Illegally owned guns will still be out there being used to kill people. How do you track down and confiscate those?

Can't.be.done.

---

Yeah, we because we have a truly ridiculous number of guns in the country. More than one per person. That is insane. You're right, we cant confiscate or ban them. The cat is way too far out of the bag.

But this also shows that widespread availability of guns are the problem. It's insanely easy to get your hands on a gun as a mentally unstable/evil person with intent to kill. It's not like the US has more mentally unstable people. It's that coupled with ease of access to firearms. That's why the US has a unique gun violence problem among developed nations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

The Dayton killer had a hit list that the police knew about in 2012, and he still legally purchased a firearm. That is insane. And completely unacceptable.

---

I agree with this. Any one who exhibits this kind of behavior should not be able to purchase a firearm. You forfeit your right to a weapon if you exhibit sociopath behaviors. The problem here is that it can be used as a tool of retribution. Who will do the labeling and/or diagnostics?

This is a problem for vets with PTSD. They don't want to be labeled but they don't want to lose rights so they don't get the help they need because they don't want the stigma and the limitations on their freedoms that come with the diagnosis.

---

Separate issue but this is why I take issue with everyone writing off shooters as mentally ill. It's often not true and stigmatizes people with diagnosable mental illness. The El Paso guy wasn't mentally ill, he was a racist hateful person who had a direct target in mind.

---

explain to the class how someone who wakes up in the morning with their sole purpose that day being to kill as many people as they can is mentally stable.

Ragoo said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?

---

This is the $64,000 question, and why true gun control will never happen in the US. All you can really do is take guns away from those that have actually registered their guns. Illegally owned guns will still be out there being used to kill people. How do you track down and confiscate those?

Can't.be.done.

---

Yeah, we because we have a truly ridiculous number of guns in the country. More than one per person. That is insane. You're right, we cant confiscate or ban them. The cat is way too far out of the bag.

But this also shows that widespread availability of guns are the problem. It's insanely easy to get your hands on a gun as a mentally unstable/evil person with intent to kill. It's not like the US has more mentally unstable people. It's that coupled with ease of access to firearms. That's why the US has a unique gun violence problem among developed nations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

The Dayton killer had a hit list that the police knew about in 2012, and he still legally purchased a firearm. That is insane. And completely unacceptable.

---

I agree with this. Any one who exhibits this kind of behavior should not be able to purchase a firearm. You forfeit your right to a weapon if you exhibit sociopath behaviors. The problem here is that it can be used as a tool of retribution. Who will do the labeling and/or diagnostics?

This is a problem for vets with PTSD. They don't want to be labeled but they don't want to lose rights so they don't get the help they need because they don't want the stigma and the limitations on their freedoms that come with the diagnosis.

---

Separate issue but this is why I take issue with everyone writing off shooters as mentally ill. It's often not true and stigmatizes people with diagnosable mental illness. The El Paso guy wasn't mentally ill, he was a racist hateful person who had a direct target in mind.

---

explain to the class how someone who wakes up in the morning with their sole purpose that day being to kill as many people as they can is mentally stable.

---

Because you're going with the layman's understanding of mental illness and not the actual scientific understanding of it. Mental instability != illness. He did what he did because he's evil and was targeting immigrants, not because his magical pink unicorn friend Tony told him to.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/statement-shootings

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

P.C. Principal said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?

---

This is the $64,000 question, and why true gun control will never happen in the US. All you can really do is take guns away from those that have actually registered their guns. Illegally owned guns will still be out there being used to kill people. How do you track down and confiscate those?

Can't.be.done.

---

Yeah, we because we have a truly ridiculous number of guns in the country. More than one per person. That is insane. You're right, we cant confiscate or ban them. The cat is way too far out of the bag.

But this also shows that widespread availability of guns are the problem. It's insanely easy to get your hands on a gun as a mentally unstable/evil person with intent to kill. It's not like the US has more mentally unstable people. It's that coupled with ease of access to firearms. That's why the US has a unique gun violence problem among developed nations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

The Dayton killer had a hit list that the police knew about in 2012, and he still legally purchased a firearm. That is insane. And completely unacceptable.

---

I don't think any level of legislation will reduce the number of these events. As you pointed out, we have a lot of guns in this country.

Outlaw, ban, limit type, magazine capacity - anything. It will not not have any effect.

So many guns out there, the black market will immediately fill any void created by gun control legislation.

The sound bites by politicians are only flute music. They sound good for votes but will have zero effect.

I think the problem boils down to the family unit, and you can't regulate that. It's gotten too far away from where it needs to be and it's never coming back. Kids aren't being raised right because their parents (if there are two of them together) don't know how to raise them right.

So now you move on to the next root cause above that. You either tackle the way we handle mental illness or start teaching everyone what to do in a mass shooter situation, or both. Having people trained to take on an active shooter in every place people congregate will be a start.

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

what if the gun is stolen?
This also assumes the gun will eventually be used for a crime.

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

So now I have to pay for my constitutional right to defend myself? Do you have to pay for your right to say whatever the hell you want?

F that.

P.C. Principal said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?

---

This is the $64,000 question, and why true gun control will never happen in the US. All you can really do is take guns away from those that have actually registered their guns. Illegally owned guns will still be out there being used to kill people. How do you track down and confiscate those?

Can't.be.done.

---

Yeah, we because we have a truly ridiculous number of guns in the country. More than one per person. That is insane. You're right, we cant confiscate or ban them. The cat is way too far out of the bag.

But this also shows that widespread availability of guns are the problem. It's insanely easy to get your hands on a gun as a mentally unstable/evil person with intent to kill. It's not like the US has more mentally unstable people. It's that coupled with ease of access to firearms. That's why the US has a unique gun violence problem among developed nations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

The Dayton killer had a hit list that the police knew about in 2012, and he still legally purchased a firearm. That is insane. And completely unacceptable.

---

I agree with this. Any one who exhibits this kind of behavior should not be able to purchase a firearm. You forfeit your right to a weapon if you exhibit sociopath behaviors. The problem here is that it can be used as a tool of retribution. Who will do the labeling and/or diagnostics?

This is a problem for vets with PTSD. They don't want to be labeled but they don't want to lose rights so they don't get the help they need because they don't want the stigma and the limitations on their freedoms that come with the diagnosis.

---

Separate issue but this is why I take issue with everyone writing off shooters as mentally ill. It's often not true and stigmatizes people with diagnosable mental illness. The El Paso guy wasn't mentally ill, he was a racist hateful person who had a direct target in mind.

---

explain to the class how someone who wakes up in the morning with their sole purpose that day being to kill as many people as they can is mentally stable.

---

Because you're going with the layman's understanding of mental illness and not the actual scientific understanding of it. Mental instability != illness. He did what he did because he's evil and was targeting immigrants, not because his magical pink unicorn friend Tony told him to.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/statement-shootings

---

so now that we have establish the evil within the individual do you now admit he likely would have carried out some other event fulfilling his evil mindset if a gun was not available to him?

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

We already have both civil and criminal systems in place for dealing with negligent firearm owners. Just tax the ever-loving hell out of ammo if the goal is to limit access to functioning weapons to only those with means.

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

I really love your optimism that this was going to be anything other than what it turned out to be and you're willingness to jump back in and give it another swing. Not being sarcastic or condescending.


It always blows my mind the absolutely horrendously bad arguments that gun rights advocates use to explain why gun control won't work, and the naivety of those that advocate for gun control have.


Here's my proposal, autonomous vehicles that throw knives/run over the first person who shoots a gun in a non-gun designated area. Feel free to carry your gun with you, but if you shoot before someone else does then you're gonna have knives thrown at you and a car run you down, because we all know that knives and cars are as effective as guns at killing. Second shooters get a free pass until Kit determines that the first shooter either has a knife in their heart or a tire tread on their head.

P.C. Principal said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?

---

This is the $64,000 question, and why true gun control will never happen in the US. All you can really do is take guns away from those that have actually registered their guns. Illegally owned guns will still be out there being used to kill people. How do you track down and confiscate those?

Can't.be.done.

---

Yeah, we because we have a truly ridiculous number of guns in the country. More than one per person. That is insane. You're right, we cant confiscate or ban them. The cat is way too far out of the bag.

But this also shows that widespread availability of guns are the problem. It's insanely easy to get your hands on a gun as a mentally unstable/evil person with intent to kill. It's not like the US has more mentally unstable people. It's that coupled with ease of access to firearms. That's why the US has a unique gun violence problem among developed nations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

The Dayton killer had a hit list that the police knew about in 2012, and he still legally purchased a firearm. That is insane. And completely unacceptable.

---

I agree with this. Any one who exhibits this kind of behavior should not be able to purchase a firearm. You forfeit your right to a weapon if you exhibit sociopath behaviors. The problem here is that it can be used as a tool of retribution. Who will do the labeling and/or diagnostics?

This is a problem for vets with PTSD. They don't want to be labeled but they don't want to lose rights so they don't get the help they need because they don't want the stigma and the limitations on their freedoms that come with the diagnosis.

---

Separate issue but this is why I take issue with everyone writing off shooters as mentally ill. It's often not true and stigmatizes people with diagnosable mental illness. The El Paso guy wasn't mentally ill, he was a racist hateful person who had a direct target in mind.

---

explain to the class how someone who wakes up in the morning with their sole purpose that day being to kill as many people as they can is mentally stable.

---

Because you're going with the layman's understanding of mental illness and not the actual scientific understanding of it. Mental instability != illness. He did what he did because he's evil and was targeting immigrants, not because his magical pink unicorn friend Tony told him to.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/statement-shootings

---

So the Dayton shooter did it because he was an evil socialist not because he was mentally ill? Or do only people who are perceived as right wing commit politically motivated violence despite sanity?

aggieforester05 said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

P.C. Principal said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

Builder93 said:

---

How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?

---

This is the $64,000 question, and why true gun control will never happen in the US. All you can really do is take guns away from those that have actually registered their guns. Illegally owned guns will still be out there being used to kill people. How do you track down and confiscate those?

Can't.be.done.

---

Yeah, we because we have a truly ridiculous number of guns in the country. More than one per person. That is insane. You're right, we cant confiscate or ban them. The cat is way too far out of the bag.

But this also shows that widespread availability of guns are the problem. It's insanely easy to get your hands on a gun as a mentally unstable/evil person with intent to kill. It's not like the US has more mentally unstable people. It's that coupled with ease of access to firearms. That's why the US has a unique gun violence problem among developed nations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

The Dayton killer had a hit list that the police knew about in 2012, and he still legally purchased a firearm. That is insane. And completely unacceptable.

---

I agree with this. Any one who exhibits this kind of behavior should not be able to purchase a firearm. You forfeit your right to a weapon if you exhibit sociopath behaviors. The problem here is that it can be used as a tool of retribution. Who will do the labeling and/or diagnostics?

This is a problem for vets with PTSD. They don't want to be labeled but they don't want to lose rights so they don't get the help they need because they don't want the stigma and the limitations on their freedoms that come with the diagnosis.

---

Separate issue but this is why I take issue with everyone writing off shooters as mentally ill. It's often not true and stigmatizes people with diagnosable mental illness. The El Paso guy wasn't mentally ill, he was a racist hateful person who had a direct target in mind.

---

explain to the class how someone who wakes up in the morning with their sole purpose that day being to kill as many people as they can is mentally stable.

---

Because you're going with the layman's understanding of mental illness and not the actual scientific understanding of it. Mental instability != illness. He did what he did because he's evil and was targeting immigrants, not because his magical pink unicorn friend Tony told him to.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/statement-shootings

---

So the Dayton shooter did it because he was an evil socialist not because he was mentally ill? Or do only people who are perceived as right wing commit politically motivated violence despite sanity?

---

Your forum 16 victim complex isn't gonna fly here. Actually read the stuff in the link instead of ranting about leftists or whatever.

The El Paso shooter was targeting immigrants and drove 10 hours to commit his crime because he had an evil hatred for immigrants. His motivation was clear.

No comment on the Dayton guy yet, more facts need to come out.

That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.

We live in a society where left wing violence is marginalized by the media and right wing violence is highlighted. Don't you see the problem with that? Violence and is roots should be condemned whether it's from a white supremacist or a anti American socialist.

aggieforester05 said:

---

That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.

---

I'm simply pointing out that it's wrong to assume that every shooter is mentally ill because that frames this ONLY as a mental health issue. My point all along has been that mental health is PART of the problem but certainly not the whole thing.

The El Paso guy's motive was clear, not sure why that's controversial. Evidence of mental illness for him is weak, even if he's an evil unstable person.

I COULD NOT GIVE A SINGLE **** WHO HE OR THE DAYTON GUY SUPPORTS POLITICALLY. People who get hung up on that are disgusting hacks. What matters to me is the motive only.

edited to clean up some unnecessary language.

Ragoo said:

---

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

what if the gun is stolen?
This also assumes the gun will eventually be used for a crime.

---

Could you not say the exact same thing about a car?

aggieforester05 said:

---

That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.

---

You calling these shooters mentally ill is tantamount to me calling you mentally ill, because you believe that "leftists" are intentionally trying to destroy this country from within through propaganda, social programs and taxation. It's wrong thinking, but it doesn't, by definition, make you mentally ill. Granted you may be mentally ill, but I don't know enough about your situation or your thought patterns to clearly define that.


You're both wrong thinking, they just take it to the extreme of committing a mass shooting, you just resort to posting you're wrong thinking on a message board. I appreciate you restraining your wrong thinking to a not palatable, but much more palatable outlet than the alternative.


I'm also all for you having a gun, though you do exhibit some traits in your line of thinking that would give me pause, I don't think you're to the point where someone should infringe on your rights.

Beer Baron said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

what if the gun is stolen?
This also assumes the gun will eventually be used for a crime.

---

Could you not say the exact same thing about a car?

---

what is your point?

P.C. Principal said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.

---

I'm simply pointing out that it's wrong to assume that every shooter is mentally ill because that frames this ONLY as a mental health issue. My point all along has been that mental health is PART of the problem but certainly not the whole thing.

The El Paso guy's motive was clear, not sure why that's controversial. Evidence of mental illness for him is weak , even if he's an evil unstable person.

I COULD NOT GIVE A SINGLE **** WHO HE OR THE DAYTON GUY SUPPORTS POLITICALLY. People who get hung up on that are disgusting hacks. What matters to me is the motive only.

edited to clean up some unnecessary language.

---

A mass shooter perfectly fits the definition of antisocial personality disorder, which is absolutely a DSM-5 diagnosis

Ragoo said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

what if the gun is stolen?
This also assumes the gun will eventually be used for a crime.

---

Could you not say the exact same thing about a car?

---

what is your point?

---

That regardless of whether her idea is a good one or not, your argument against it is terrible.

hph6203 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.

---

You calling these shooters mentally ill is tantamount to me calling you mentally ill, because you believe that "leftists" are intentionally trying to destroy this country from within through propaganda, social programs and taxation. It's wrong thinking, but it doesn't, by definition, make you mentally ill. Granted you may be mentally ill, but I don't know enough about your situation or your thought patterns to clearly define that.


You're both wrong thinking, they just take it to the extreme of committing a mass shooting, you just resort to posting you're wrong thinking on a message board. I appreciate you restraining your wrong thinking to a not palatable, but much more palatable outlet than the alternative.


I'm also all for you having a gun, though you do exhibit some traits in your line of thinking that would give me pause, I don't think you're to the point where someone should infringe on your rights.

---

there is a difference in think those thoughts and thinking those thoughts and acting upon them by killing as many people as you can.

The latter, Completely lacking empathy and well being for a fellow man, makes one mentally ill.

Beer Baron said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

what if the gun is stolen?
This also assumes the gun will eventually be used for a crime.

---

Could you not say the exact same thing about a car?

---

what is your point?

---

That regardless of whether her idea is a good one or not, your argument against it is terrible.

---

you don't insure a vehicle in the off chance that it is stolen and/or used in a crime. Which is essentially the basis of the initial point re: liability insurance for a gun owner.

Quote:

---

The latter, Completely lacking empathy and well being for a fellow man, makes one mentally ill.

---

I'm glad the legal system is able to make this distinction better than you are or else pretty much every violent offender of every type would have a pretty solid defense for their crimes.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Misunderstood your point.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

The latter, Completely lacking empathy and well being for a fellow man, makes one mentally ill.

---

I'm glad the legal system is able to make this distinction better than you are or else pretty much every violent offender of every type would have a pretty solid defense for their crimes.

---

my point is that there is some flaw within the mentality of the individual which causes them to inflict harm into other individuals. It is not the responsibility of the gun, it is not the existence of the gun, that causes the manifestation to present itself with the violence show.

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

Sort of like a poll tax in order to vote?

The two events are interesting contrasts, I think.

The El Paso shooter seems clearly motivated by racial animus, and in particular the "invasion" of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. His actions were designed to make a statement regarding his beliefs.

The Dayton shooter, apparently, was on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and has expressed disdain for big corporations and the like. But I have a harder time connecting his actions to his ideology, at least based on what we know now. If he had stormed a corporate headquarters, then sure. But he shot up a local bar at 1:00 am. He has also some history toward fascination with violence (the "hit and rape list" in high school, for example). I'm speculating, of course, but it seems his motive was just to harm people, without any larger meaning to anyone other than himself (he must have rationalized some reason for doing this). I'm also skeptical that his sister being one of his victims was just a coincidence. Perhaps some perceived social slight from her or her friends set him off.

Also, as to the mental health issue, it seems there is disagreement as to what that means in this context. It's easy to conclude that anyone who commits an act like this is emotionally damaged in some way, because at a very basic level these acts are so irrational and senseless. But regardless of how irrational these acts may be, if the perpetrator understands the significance of his acts, understands he is killing indiscriminately, and placing his own life in danger in the process, is it sufficient just to say "mental illness" and call it a day?

Quote:

---

Also, as to the mental health issue, it seems there is disagreement as to what that means in this context. It's easy to conclude that anyone who commits an act like this is emotionally damaged in some way, because at a very basic level these acts are so irrational and senseless. But regardless of how irrational these acts may be, if the perpetrator understands the significance of his acts, understands he is killing indiscriminately, and placing his own life in danger in the process, is it sufficient just to say "mental illness" and call it a day?

---

This is what I've been saying. I don't think it's sufficient because it lets them off the hook to some degree. If you're mentally ill, there's something going on that's beyond your control. What the Aurora shooter did was just as bad, but from what I recall he was having full-on, actual delusions. That's fundamentally different than El Paso or Sutherland Springs.

LawHall88 said:

---

The two events are interesting contrasts, I think.

The El Paso shooter seems clearly motivated by racial animus, and in particular the "invasion" of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. His actions were designed to make a statement regarding his beliefs.

The Dayton shooter, apparently, was on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and has expressed disdain for big corporations and the like. But I have a harder time connecting his actions to his ideology, at least based on what we know now. If he had stormed a corporate headquarters, then sure. But he shot up a local bar at 1:00 am. He has also some history toward fascination with violence (the "hit and rape list" in high school, for example). I'm speculating, of course, but it seems his motive was just to harm people, without any larger meaning to anyone other than himself (he must have rationalized some reason for doing this). I'm also skeptical that his sister being one of his victims was just a coincidence. Perhaps some perceived social slight from her or her friends set him off.

---

TBH this is why it makes my blood boil when someone on the left or right latches onto their political views like it truly matters. It's peak opportunism and hackery. OMG he's a Bernie supporter!! Liberals are so evil!!1! Same with people talking about Trump in the same way.

Sometimes the intent is clear (El Paso - hatred of Hispanic immigrants, Orlando - hatred of gays, NZ - hatred of Muslims). And we really need not look further than that. Who cares if the El Paso guy wrote about climate change? That CLEARLY was not his motivating factor and you're a dishonest, disgusting hack if you act like it was.

Agree with what you said about the Dayton guy. Right now it does not look like his motivation was political, though people are talking about how he was far left.

It's pretty easy to be a mature adult and acknowledge that being a Trump/Bernie/Warren/Hillary supporter was not a driving force behind committing murder. It's usually not political, but based out of racism/hatred of other people.

LupinusTexensis said:

---

A friend floated the idea of liability insurance on guns similar to car insurance. Thoughts? In this case you wouldn't have to have the specific gun or number of guns registered, just show the card to prove you have coverage when you buy the gun. Coverage would be for payment to victims for whatever crimes were carried out with said gun.

---

Is your friend Fred Loya? I can picture it now, get insurance, buy a gun, don't send in next months insurance payment.

hph6203 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.

---

You calling these shooters mentally ill is tantamount to me calling you mentally ill, because you believe that "leftists" are intentionally trying to destroy this country from within through propaganda, social programs and taxation. It's wrong thinking, but it doesn't, by definition, make you mentally ill. Granted you may be mentally ill, but I don't know enough about your situation or your thought patterns to clearly define that.


You're both wrong thinking, they just take it to the extreme of committing a mass shooting, you just resort to posting you're wrong thinking on a message board. I appreciate you restraining your wrong thinking to a not palatable, but much more palatable outlet than the alternative.


I'm also all for you having a gun, though you do exhibit some traits in your line of thinking that would give me pause, I don't think you're to the point where someone should infringe on your rights.

---

Evil or not, I do not believe a mentally rational person would do what these shooters have done. Sane people do not shoot up crowds of people. That shows a clear lack of rationality and/or empathy. I have no problem with keeping guns away from the mentally ill and violent criminals. In fact I recently served on a jury that handed down a 15 year sentence for a felon possessing a firearm. What I have a problem with is when those prohibitions infringe on the rights of law abiding sane citizen even a little bit. I've done nothing to deserve to have my rights to buy an AR-15 taken away from me. That's exactly what the left wants to do.

Your inability to see that the left no longer has the best interest of this country at heart is wrong think and gives me pause as to whether or not you are competent to own a weapon. See how that works?

What I have a problem with are people who are fine with associating every mass shooter with the right, but call foul when you "politicize a shooting by pointing out the shooter was a rabid leftist. " It's a double standard and hypocritical at best. Especially when every shooting is immediately politicised by leftist media to further their gun control and anti white agenda.

I'm sure any sort of firearm restriction (or ban) will drastically reduce the murder rates of Chicago or Detroit.

P.C. Principal said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.

---

I'm simply pointing out that it's wrong to assume that every shooter is mentally ill because that frames this ONLY as a mental health issue. My point all along has been that mental health is PART of the problem but certainly not the whole thing.

The El Paso guy's motive was clear, not sure why that's controversial. Evidence of mental illness for him is weak, even if he's an evil unstable person.

I COULD NOT GIVE A SINGLE **** WHO HE OR THE DAYTON GUY SUPPORTS POLITICALLY. People who get hung up on that are disgusting hacks. What matters to me is the motive only.

edited to clean up some unnecessary language.

---

I don't care if the guy is a violent antifa nerd or a white nationalist. There are lots of evil people with hate in their heart. Most do not go shoot up innocent people. Mentally unstable people can plan, travel and take out attacks in other areas just like a sane person could if they wanted (but likely won't). I don't dispute the fact that the guy was a racist POS, but maybe that ideology combined with mental illness is what set him off. I'd suspect most of the time that lone gunman carry out attacks like this they are mentally unstable. Very different than a group of people like a Jihadist organization.

I see in a later post that you condemned the politicization of the El Paso shooting against Trump and I respect that. I'm just frustrated with the constant double standard we see in the media and from liberals. It's maddening when everything is politicized in one direction.

We should all be united in fighting the problem of mental illness and hateful ideologies on both sides of the spectrum. Currently we blame guns for the violence of the mentally ill and the media magnifies every perceived right wing attack while minimizing any attack associated with someone who held leftist ideological views.

The media needs to start self policing, because they are tearing this country apart.