We have a tremendous amount of gun laws and laws against violence in place already. History didn't start with Columbine.
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.Builder93 said: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?P.C. Principal said: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.MooreTrucker said: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?Builder93 said:
How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?
Can't.be.done.
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.
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.
P.C. Principal said: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.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.
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.
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.P.C. Principal said: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.Builder93 said: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?P.C. Principal said: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.MooreTrucker said: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?Builder93 said:
How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?
Can't.be.done.
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.
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.
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.Ragoo said: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.P.C. Principal said: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.Builder93 said: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?P.C. Principal said: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.MooreTrucker said: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?Builder93 said:
How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?
Can't.be.done.
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.
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.
P.C. Principal said: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.MooreTrucker said: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?Builder93 said:
How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?
Can't.be.done.
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.
what if the gun is stolen?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?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 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?P.C. Principal said: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.Ragoo said: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.P.C. Principal said: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.Builder93 said: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?P.C. Principal said: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.MooreTrucker said: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?Builder93 said:
How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?
Can't.be.done.
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.
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.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/statement-shootings
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.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.
P.C. Principal said: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.Ragoo said: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.P.C. Principal said: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.Builder93 said: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?P.C. Principal said: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.MooreTrucker said: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?Builder93 said:
How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?
Can't.be.done.
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.
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.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/statement-shootings
Your forum 16 victim complex isn't gonna fly here. Actually read the stuff in the link instead of ranting about leftists or whatever.aggieforester05 said:P.C. Principal said: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.Ragoo said: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.P.C. Principal said: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.Builder93 said: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?P.C. Principal said: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.MooreTrucker said: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?Builder93 said:
How do you control or monitor all of the guns in this country?
Can't.be.done.
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.
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.
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?
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.aggieforester05 said:
That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.
Could you not say the exact same thing about a car?Ragoo said:what if the gun is stolen?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.
This also assumes the gun will eventually be used for a crime.
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.aggieforester05 said:
That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.
what is your point?Beer Baron said:Could you not say the exact same thing about a car?Ragoo said:what if the gun is stolen?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.
This also assumes the gun will eventually be used for a crime.
P.C. Principal said: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.aggieforester05 said:
That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.
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.
That regardless of whether her idea is a good one or not, your argument against it is terrible.Ragoo said:what is your point?Beer Baron said:Could you not say the exact same thing about a car?Ragoo said:what if the gun is stolen?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.
This also assumes the gun will eventually be used for a crime.
there is a difference in think those thoughts and thinking those thoughts and acting upon them by killing as many people as you can.hph6203 said: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.aggieforester05 said:
That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.
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.
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.Beer Baron said:That regardless of whether her idea is a good one or not, your argument against it is terrible.Ragoo said:what is your point?Beer Baron said:Could you not say the exact same thing about a car?Ragoo said:what if the gun is stolen?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.
This also assumes the gun will eventually be used for a crime.
Quote:
The latter, Completely lacking empathy and well being for a fellow man, makes one mentally ill.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.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.
Is your friend Fred Loya? I can picture it now, get insurance, buy a gun, don't send in next months insurance payment.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.
hph6203 said: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.aggieforester05 said:
That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.
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.
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.P.C. Principal said: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.aggieforester05 said:
That's what I thought, the never ending at of double standards for leftist trash. Hypocrites of the highest order.
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.