More Thoughts & Prayers

[InsideThePark]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

All but 3 states have 18 as the age to purchase a long gun.

For assault weapons, that should change, no?

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

A lot of people will refuse to deal with their mental illness because of the negative stigma and labels they may get. In our society they are looked down on. Your argument sort of proves it. If a person is diagnosed with a mental illness that frequently causes the person to be violent then yes, they should not have a gun but they still need to have their due process (yes I'm stuck on constitutional rights too). The bottom line is we aren't doing enough to for the mentally ill in this country and way to many of them do slip through the cracks. That has to change

I agree with the above.
But i also think we have to acknowledge there are varying degrees.  Mental illness is such a wide range of things anymore, most of which are personal and not dangerous to others.  
ANY mental illness isnt something that prevents a person from being and leading a normal life, we have to deal with those cases that are and not hold those that are not accountable for the extremes.  
If we stop trying to lump them all in a giant fuck you basket it would remove the stigma, and more would seek help.  Its the whole "Ban all mental illness" thing that is what causes people not to seek help.  Christ anymore i think almost all of of has  some limited issues, better be careful when we start taking stuff from large groups of us. 

[Blarg]

It is a strange conundrum that the legal age to buy something like an assault weapon would be 21 while if you enlist in the armed services you not only are issued one for free along with all the ammunition you can fire but are given many opportunities to kill people with it at 18.

Maybe we should raise the age for enlistment to 21. An age when these people are more mature and make clearer life choices regarding using weapons.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Blarg

[Lou]

I'd be interested in seeing some data on the ages of these school shooters. 

 

 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, InsideThePark said:

For assault weapons, that should change, no?

Long guns is anything but a handgun. Actually I'm fine with that. I'm OK with raising the legal adult age to 21 too.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, InsideThePark said:

Trump's executive order made it easier for some who are mentally ill to avoid the process you suggested.

I thought that order was in regards to a social security bureaucrat making those decisions. If they aren't being legally adjudicated I don't know if that's a good thing to be doing. I honestly do not know the particulars of that order and what it did. 

[Lou]

4 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

 Do you think that someone who is mentally ill should be allowed to go out and purchase a gun. Yes or no ? 

Are you asking if everyone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness be banned from buying a gun? 

[Lou]

10 hours ago, nate said:

The data I posted earlier showed that violent crime in the US is at the same rate as other developed countries, the death rate in the US is through the roof compared.  One reason: guns

Maybe we're just more accurate shooters  

[Jason]

55 minutes ago, Lou said:

Maybe we're just more accurate shooters  

Or we don’t value life as much as they do

[Tank]

8 hours ago, Jason said:

A lot of people will refuse to deal with their mental illness because of the negative stigma and labels they may get. In our society they are looked down on. Your argument sort of proves it. If a person is diagnosed with a mental illness that frequently causes the person to be violent then yes, they should not have a gun but they still need to have their due process (yes I'm stuck on constitutional rights too). Do you think everything listed in the DSM V make a person ineligible to posses a firearm? The bottom line is we aren't doing enough to for the mentally ill in this country and way to many of them do slip through the cracks. That has to change

that seems like all the more reason to prevent them from buying something that can kill a lot of people with relative ease.

[arch stanton]

His point is that you haven’t clearly defined “them”

[Tank]

1 minute ago, arch stanton said:

His point is that you haven’t clearly defined “them”

fair enough. someone who presents a danger to themselves or others, or someone who is emotionally unstable, or has a diagnosed illness such as being bi-polar, schizophrenic, etc.

[Tank]

i posted this in another thread but it probably belongs here.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/opinions/why-we-dont-give-a-damn-about-mass-shootings-robbins/index.html

this is a good read with a lot of valuable thoughts about this issue. it's worth your time.

as a nation, we're in an absolute standstill about this right now. both sides, namely the extremists it seems, are so entrenched in their views that we've become completely impotent about doing something to really address the problem. cries of "but they're trying to take all your guns" and "laws only affect those who follow them and wouldn't have prevented any of these shootings" are rampant. we also hear "congress has do something - ANYTHING! - to put a stop to these shootings." we've somehow created this as an all-or-nothing issue, and that's foolish and politically motivated.

what's abundantly clear is that there are several layers in this issue to be considered: mental health issues and better screening procedures for who can get guns, what kind of guns can/should/shouldn't be available to the public, the role of the NRA, the role of congress, arming more citizens, arming teachers, etc. There isn't any kind of easy or quick solutions for this, but maintaining the current status quo will continue to result in an increased body count. I don't know the answer, but i firmly believe that if somehow a group can set aside politics and really dig deep on finding reasonable solutions, then progress can start to be made. Until that happens, the page count in this thread will challenge the 'Trumped' thread page count sooner rather than later. 

[arch stanton]

Congratulations. You just created an entire industry based on proving or unproving emotional stability and at what level that strips you of your right to bear arms. Should we use this to decide who gets to use scissors or cut his own steak in a restaurant? Vote? Drive a car.

[Lou]

6 hours ago, Jason said:

Or we don’t value life as much as they do

Hmmmm, interesting point. 

nope, I'm going with more accurate shooters. 

[Tank]

8 hours ago, arch stanton said:

Congratulations. You just created an entire industry based on proving or unproving emotional stability and at what level that strips you of your right to bear arms. Should we use this to decide who gets to use scissors or cut his own steak in a restaurant? Vote? Drive a car.

alright, so what would you do? how would you define mental illness/deficiency? and don't you think the professionals in our society would do a pretty reasonable job of defining this? or are you in favor of guns for anyone who wants them, regardless of their mental stability?

maybe this particular 'right' needs a tad more definition and clarity than the others, none of which can be used in such a way as to slaughter a bunch of people when used in the ways we've see so much of in the last thirty years.

of course, we could always continue doing the status quo and start planning for the next batch of child funerals in the next couple of weeks.

[floplag]

8 hours ago, Tank said:

i posted this in another thread but it probably belongs here.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/opinions/why-we-dont-give-a-damn-about-mass-shootings-robbins/index.html

this is a good read with a lot of valuable thoughts about this issue. it's worth your time.

as a nation, we're in an absolute standstill about this right now. both sides, namely the extremists it seems, are so entrenched in their views that we've become completely impotent about doing something to really address the problem. cries of "but they're trying to take all your guns" and "laws only affect those who follow them and wouldn't have prevented any of these shootings" are rampant. we also hear "congress has do something - ANYTHING! - to put a stop to these shootings." we've somehow created this as an all-or-nothing issue, and that's foolish and politically motivated.

what's abundantly clear is that there are several layers in this issue to be considered: mental health issues and better screening procedures for who can get guns, what kind of guns can/should/shouldn't be available to the public, the role of the NRA, the role of congress, arming more citizens, arming teachers, etc. There isn't any kind of easy or quick solutions for this, but maintaining the current status quo will continue to result in an increased body count. I don't know the answer, but i firmly believe that if somehow a group can set aside politics and really dig deep on finding reasonable solutions, then progress can start to be made. Until that happens, the page count in this thread will challenge the 'Trumped' thread page count sooner rather than later. 

I cant help but notice that almost every one of your bullet points was gun related and even when you mention mental issues you tie it to screening. 
 
The status quo isnt even that.  Weve had these incidents as long as ive been alive.  We are now in a time when we have more restrictive laws in much of the nation than ever before, much more focus on gun sales, security, and every possible related topic and yet, they are increasing in frequency and loss of life.   This logically doesnt make any sense,  you would think with all the focus on the guns that the opposite would occur.  It hasnt. 

In that same time frame we have gone backwards on dealing with and addressing mental health, general health, and literally every other possible underlying casue focusing only on the guns, the end result is to me very telling. 

I wonder how many have considered the possibility that this is at least partially being manufactured?  I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but look at whats happening in the media and government on one side who everytime this happens we hear the same rhetoric over and over riling up the populous.  The easiest way to strip people rights is to get them to ask you to do it.    They have created the perfect storm, they have de-funded those things which might be a true prevention, they are drugging us to hell and back, they are bringing hard emotions to bear pitting us against each other... the end result was inevitable. 

[arch stanton]

17 minutes ago, Tank said:

alright, so what would you do? how would you define mental illness/deficiency? and don't you think the professionals in our society would do a pretty reasonable job of defining this? or are you in favor of guns for anyone who wants them, regardless of their mental stability?

maybe this particular 'right' needs a tad more definition and clarity than the others, none of which can be used in such a way as to slaughter a bunch of people when used in the ways we've see so much of in the last thirty years.

of course, we could always continue doing the status quo and start planning for the next batch of child funerals in the next couple of weeks.

You need to have a pretty strong case to proactively prove murderous tendencies. I’d be much more concerned about a new generation rising that will be practically void of conflict resolution skills or impulse control. 

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, floplag said:

In that same time frame we have gone backwards on dealing with and addressing mental health,

I may be wrong, but I don't think this is true. Mental health issues were never brought up in public when I was growing up. Nobody was "bipolar" or had ADHD. 

Attention and treatment of mental health issues is far more prevalent today than it was 25 years ago. 

[Lou]

17 hours ago, InsideThePark said:

Trump's executive order made it easier for some who are mentally ill to avoid the process you suggested.

How so? 

[Jason]

10 minutes ago, Lou said:

I may be wrong, but I don't think this is true. Mental health issues were never brought up in public when I was growing up. Nobody was "bipolar" or had ADHD. 

Attention and treatment of mental health issues is far more prevalent today than it was 25 years ago. 

They handled it differently then

 

[floplag]

37 minutes ago, Lou said:

I may be wrong, but I don't think this is true. Mental health issues were never brought up in public when I was growing up. Nobody was "bipolar" or had ADHD. 

Attention and treatment of mental health issues is far more prevalent today than it was 25 years ago. 

In that sense you are correct.  I myself was one of the original rydilin (sp) kids back before they knew what ADHD even was.  For the most part those particular "illnesses" have become commonplace and acceptable, for lack of a better term.  

These are also not those which general result in harm to others, and dont have as much stigma attached as those which would be considered more dangerous, that noone want to talk about or even acknowledge or get tested for or anything else.  There is no benefit to seek help for more dangerous ones, but a lot for the lesser ones.  

Again it comes down to what you lump under that umbrellla.  Is it more know in general, yes, of course.  are we any further down the road on the more dangerous ones, i would suspect not. 

[InsideThePark]

15 hours ago, Lou said:

How so? 

The executive order made it easier for the mentally ill who are receiving Social Security checks because of their condition, and who are not mentally fit to handle their own finances, to get a gun. After taking a quick look, I can't say for certain whether or not they would have already had their due process.

[Lou]

45 minutes ago, InsideThePark said:

The executive order made it easier for the mentally ill who are receiving Social Security checks because of their condition, and who are not mentally fit to handle their own finances, to get a gun. After taking a quick look, I can't say for certain whether or not they would have already had their due process.

No, they would not. If they were receiving SSI and we're deemed unable to handle their personal finances, the SS Dept. would be required to forward their name to be added to the " don't sell this person a gun" list. 

So, none of these school shootings would have been prevented, Trump or no Trump. 

It was basically a violation of a person's 2nd and 4th Amendment rights. That's why groups like the ACLU fought hard for Trump to issue the Executive Order. 

[InsideThePark]

21 minutes ago, Lou said:

So, none of these school shootings would have been prevented, Trump or no Trump. 

Agreed, in this instance, that wasn't in question.

I personally would like to see a ban on assault weapons, but if not that then at the very least, I think the minimum age for purchase should be 21, as it is with handguns.