Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
ltbewr wrote:To me there needs to be a through and extensive study as to this terror event covering lets say 5+ years done of the survivors who were injured, those killed and their families and a sample of those not injured as to the psychological and physical health and financial affects on them. We need to know more so to deal better with the trauma of these victims.
bgm wrote:I don't think anything effective can be done anymore, it's too late. There are just too many guns out there. There also just isn't the will to change any laws, thanks to the NRA propaganda. When nothing was done after those kids were gunned down in an elementary school, I knew there and then nothing would ever get done.
Americans want the right to bear arms? Don't want any background checks? Well, today's events are the consequence of your demands.
The chance of getting universal health care passed is close to diddly-squat, so the mental health thing is most likely a no-go.
Happy days!
NoTime wrote:Tugger wrote:NoTime wrote:It seems that's how the other side works, too. Or, is the use of extremes allowed when it is coming from the left?
I think part of the problem is people are shifting to discussing "a side" and blanketing the person they are speaking/responding to with everything they believe "that side" stands for or wants to do. But individual people are not "a side", you NoTime aren't, I am not, no one is.
Well, that's kind of the pastime around here... from just about everyone... but, in the interest of getting things headed back towards the topic -
I think any effective change has to start with the mental health aspect of the problem. The father of the Vegas shooter was apparently a diagnosed psychopath, and there is apparently a significant genetic operation with that (and other) mental illnesses. The Sandy Hook shooter had a slew of mental health problems. The Santa Barbara shooter had mental problems. The Denver movie theater shooter had mental health problems. The list goes on and on...
The hard part is introducing worthwhile steps to guarantee mental wellness without stepping on people's rights.
I agree with an earlier post that a full gun registry is a non-starter and will never happen. Especially after the Obama administration effectively weaponized certain parts of the government and various newspapers have already published the names and addresses of gun owners in their cities in the name of public safety.
einsteinboricua wrote:Here's a question that came to mind this morning:
The 2nd Amendment is construed to imply that it's the citizenry's way to defend itself against a rogue state. But just when exactly does it start coming into effect? When do I have the right to say that I'm defending myself against what I perceive is a rogue state?
Would Japanese Americans back in WW2 been able to use their 2nd Amendment right to defend themselves against forced internment?
If my state says it's OK to have a small amount of pot and federal agents come to arrest me, wouldn't that qualify as a perception of a rogue authority coming for me?
If someone born to immigrants in this country (ie. they're a citizen) is old enough and purchases a gun, could they defend their immigrant parents from ICE?
I'd be willing to support the notion that guns are just for self-defense (they stay at home) or for sport (hunting, shooting range, etc.) and maybe that's what the framers intended. Until we agree on why the 2nd Amendment was introduced in the first place (or where its limits are), mass shootings will continue to happen.
JJJ wrote:DiamondFlyer wrote:Kiwirob wrote:My cousin bought a handgun at a gun show about two years ago when he and his girlfriend were doing a US roadtrip, his only ID was his NZ passport and drivers license. No checks were done. After three months in the US they handed the gun over to a police station in LA because they didn't know what to do with it and you can't own a handgun in NZ.
So he and the seller committed a felony. Explain to me how more laws would have prevented that? Why don't we enforce those currently on the book.
Would you be OK with a central register of handguns, so that the cops can go after those people whose guns suddenly go missing and end up in the wrong hands?
If a law has no teeth it's worthless.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
...
Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.
NoTime wrote:Interesting read:
"I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise."
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 731a066dc9)
Pretty much comes to the conclusion that many right-minded folks around here have - that "banning guns" isn't going to fix anything.Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
...
Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.
Tugger wrote:Top 20 states with highest gun death rates:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death- ... est-rates/
Utah
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Nevada
Idaho
Arizona
West Virginia
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Montana
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alaska
Tugg
NoTime wrote:Tugger wrote:Top 20 states with highest gun death rates:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death- ... est-rates/
Utah
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Nevada
Idaho
Arizona
West Virginia
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Montana
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alaska
Tugg
This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.
During 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by gun... and 11,008 homicides.
If you remove the "gang related" homicides (which the average American will never encounter), you're left with even less.
jetero wrote:NoTime wrote:Tugger wrote:Top 20 states with highest gun death rates:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death- ... est-rates/
Utah
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Nevada
Idaho
Arizona
West Virginia
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Montana
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alaska
Tugg
This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.
During 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by gun... and 11,008 homicides.
If you remove the "gang related" homicides (which the average American will never encounter), you're left with even less.
Why is “gang related” in quotes, NoTime? It’s OK, we know you mean “black.”
NoTime wrote:jetero wrote:NoTime wrote:
This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.
During 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by gun... and 11,008 homicides.
If you remove the "gang related" homicides (which the average American will never encounter), you're left with even less.
Why is “gang related” in quotes, NoTime? It’s OK, we know you mean “black.”
Please don't project your own racist tendencies onto me. It's such a narrow and racist view for you to assume that only blacks are involved in gang violence.
jetero wrote:NoTime wrote:
This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.
During 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by gun... and 11,008 homicides.
If you remove the "gang related" homicides (which the average American will never encounter), you're left with even less.
Why is “gang related” in quotes, NoTime? It’s OK, we know you mean “black.”
NoTime wrote:This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.
Tugger wrote:NoTime wrote:This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.
Why would you not include suicides in gun death rates?
Tugger wrote:That is a key part of the gun control debate, and as many now agree mental health is something that should be considered when allowing access to or purchase of a gun.
BobPatterson wrote:Tugger wrote:NoTime wrote:This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.
Why would you not include suicides in gun death rates?
So as not to confuse the data regarding crime.Tugger wrote:That is a key part of the gun control debate, and as many now agree mental health is something that should be considered when allowing access to or purchase of a gun.
Suicide (when not part of a crime) should not be considered a crime and, often, has nothing to do with "mental health".
I have no data to support my contention, but I doubt that many people purchase a gun in order to commit suicide. I would suggest, rather, that a gun might be used simply because it is available (and perhaps has been owned for many years for protection).
Perhaps opioids will tend to replace guns for purpose of suicide. If opioids are self-administered it's probably a lot cheaper than going to a hospice to get them.
Dutchy wrote:Suicide has everything to do with mental health. Suicide is per definition a mental health issue.
BobPatterson wrote:Dutchy wrote:Suicide has everything to do with mental health. Suicide is per definition a mental health issue.
So now you have become the word policeman?
I have several dictionaries, including an unabridged, and none of them define suicide with respect to mental health.
Perhaps that is because my dictionaries date from 1975-76.
Definitions created by psychiatrists after our 200th year of independence ought to remain in their specialized lexicon and not clutter up an important reference work used by the American people.
stratosphere wrote:What is sad is this guy was well off made millions from real estate. Certainly had plenty of cash to be a high roller at the casinos. Some would say he had the American dream. I can't think of any reason why this guy would do what he did. Just goes to show you how much evil really does live among us.
jetero wrote:stratosphere wrote:What is sad is this guy was well off made millions from real estate. Certainly had plenty of cash to be a high roller at the casinos. Some would say he had the American dream. I can't think of any reason why this guy would do what he did. Just goes to show you how much evil really does live among us.
That's the real tragedy. He had a lot of money. So he shouldn't have killed.
Spoiler alert: I doubt he did.
Dutchy wrote:BobPatterson wrote:Dutchy wrote:Suicide has everything to do with mental health. Suicide is per definition a mental health issue.
So now you have become the word policeman?
I have several dictionaries, including an unabridged, and none of them define suicide with respect to mental health.
Perhaps that is because my dictionaries date from 1975-76.
Definitions created by psychiatrists after our 200th year of independence ought to remain in their specialized lexicon and not clutter up an important reference work used by the American people.
This is a subject close to my heart, I will not go into the reason why on this forum. I think about suicide in a mental health kind of way and that is, I think, the key to preventing it. Every life saved is one, every life is special, even though people whom commit suicide think about it differently, at that moment in time.
My advice, listen to people whom have had a serious suicide attempt and miraculously survived, there are some really good Ted talks about this on youtube.
stratosphere wrote:What is sad is this guy was well off made millions from real estate. Certainly had plenty of cash to be a high roller at the casinos. Some would say he had the American dream. I can't think of any reason why this guy would do what he did. Just goes to show you how much evil really does live among us.
stratosphere wrote:Who knows with this guy maybe he hated country music and all it's fans or he thought they all were Trump voters.
stratosphere wrote:I am saying that you would think he doesn't have the same stresses the rest of us face you know like money issues for one. However, if he gambled it all away than I guess he wouldn't have any money. Whatever his motive looks like he planned it out for a while will be interesting to see what they find out about him.
KLDC10 wrote:Dutchy wrote:BobPatterson wrote:So now you have become the word policeman?
I have several dictionaries, including an unabridged, and none of them define suicide with respect to mental health.
Perhaps that is because my dictionaries date from 1975-76.
Definitions created by psychiatrists after our 200th year of independence ought to remain in their specialized lexicon and not clutter up an important reference work used by the American people.
This is a subject close to my heart, I will not go into the reason why on this forum. I think about suicide in a mental health kind of way and that is, I think, the key to preventing it. Every life saved is one, every life is special, even though people whom commit suicide think about it differently, at that moment in time.
My advice, listen to people whom have had a serious suicide attempt and miraculously survived, there are some really good Ted talks about this on youtube.
I'm going to guess that you two don't get along for some reason?
But in this instance I'm going to agree with Dutchy. Suicide absolutely is a mental health issue - you have to be really, really broken mentally to take your own life. A person does not go out and commit suicide if that person is of sound mind.
BobPatterson wrote:So you consign a lot of people who have a terminal illness to mental health practitioners rather than just letting them make a sane and logical decision to leave this vale of tears with as little pain as possible.
Have you watched a loved one go through the absolute agony of knowing, in their lucid moments, that they were losing their mind? And have you gone through the agony of having to refuse their request to help them end it all because your assistance in suicide would be illegal?
No one can tell me that suicide is "absolutely" anything other than final.
BobPatterson wrote:So you consign a lot of people who have a terminal illness to mental health practitioners rather than just letting them make a sane and logical decision to leave this vale of tears with as little pain as possible.
Have you watched a loved one go through the absolute agony of knowing, in their lucid moments, that they were losing their mind? And have you gone through the agony of having to refuse their request to help them end it all because your assistance in suicide would be illegal?
No one can tell me that suicide is "absolutely" anything other than final.
KLDC10 wrote:BobPatterson wrote:So you consign a lot of people who have a terminal illness to mental health practitioners rather than just letting them make a sane and logical decision to leave this vale of tears with as little pain as possible.
Have you watched a loved one go through the absolute agony of knowing, in their lucid moments, that they were losing their mind? And have you gone through the agony of having to refuse their request to help them end it all because your assistance in suicide would be illegal?
No one can tell me that suicide is "absolutely" anything other than final.
You are conflating suicide and assisted dying (euthanasia). In the latter case, in countries which allow euthanasia, the person choosing to die is thoroughly counselled on their decision, and they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason - they must meet a certain criteria. The process is structured to ensure that the right decision is being made.
BobPatterson wrote:I realize we are not going to change each others minds about this.
But "they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason" and "to ensure that the right decision is being made" tells me all that I need to know from "the other side of the debate".
I hold that no one has the right to tell me that I do not have the right to determine how and when to die (if I choose to end my life, especially in the case of terminal illness).
I do acknowledge that a hospice has the right to require me to follow their rules if I request their services.
Tugger wrote:NoTime wrote:This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.
Why would you not include suicides in gun death rates? That is a key part of the gun control debate, and as many now agree mental health is something that should be considered when allowing access to or purchase of a gun.
Here is another site for gun death stats:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... -1238134-1
Tugg
KLDC10 wrote:einsteinboricua wrote:Why can't licenses be required to purchase a gun? At the very least it shows that the person has trained and shown to be adept at handling weaponry.
I think this one goes back to the 2nd Amendment. Lots of people have an objection to the government "taking a right and selling you it back". Personally, I don't think you should need a license to have a gun in your own home or use it at a range/on private property, but if you're going to be wandering the streets with it, then some kind of training would be good.einsteinboricua wrote:Why can't a database be instituted so that any sales that raise eyebrows are tracked? It's one thing if Joe Average goes to his local gun shop and buys ammunition or decides to purchase a new gun; it's another when bad hombre Joe Average hits up different stores and buys different weapons of different types in a short time span.
The NRA and other gun-advocacy groups are vigorously opposed to anything resembling a gun registry. I don't think it would get off the ground. In fact, the chances of any laws to restrict gun ownership passing Congress are slim. That's why I think the focus needs to be on mental health and preventing individuals from getting anywhere near the point that they go out, buy a gun and start shooting people at random.
BobPatterson wrote:KLDC10 wrote:BobPatterson wrote:So you consign a lot of people who have a terminal illness to mental health practitioners rather than just letting them make a sane and logical decision to leave this vale of tears with as little pain as possible.
Have you watched a loved one go through the absolute agony of knowing, in their lucid moments, that they were losing their mind? And have you gone through the agony of having to refuse their request to help them end it all because your assistance in suicide would be illegal?
No one can tell me that suicide is "absolutely" anything other than final.
You are conflating suicide and assisted dying (euthanasia). In the latter case, in countries which allow euthanasia, the person choosing to die is thoroughly counselled on their decision, and they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason - they must meet a certain criteria. The process is structured to ensure that the right decision is being made.
I realize we are not going to change each others minds about this.
But "they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason" and "to ensure that the right decision is being made" tells me all that I need to know from "the other side of the debate".
I hold that no one has the right to tell me that I do not have the right to determine how and when to die (if I choose to end my life, especially in the case of terminal illness).
I do acknowledge that a hospice has the right to require me to follow their rules if I request their services.
stratosphere wrote:Just goes to show you how much evil really does live among us.
flyingclrs727 wrote:KLDC10 wrote:einsteinboricua wrote:Why can't licenses be required to purchase a gun? At the very least it shows that the person has trained and shown to be adept at handling weaponry.
I think this one goes back to the 2nd Amendment. Lots of people have an objection to the government "taking a right and selling you it back". Personally, I don't think you should need a license to have a gun in your own home or use it at a range/on private property, but if you're going to be wandering the streets with it, then some kind of training would be good.einsteinboricua wrote:Why can't a database be instituted so that any sales that raise eyebrows are tracked? It's one thing if Joe Average goes to his local gun shop and buys ammunition or decides to purchase a new gun; it's another when bad hombre Joe Average hits up different stores and buys different weapons of different types in a short time span.
The NRA and other gun-advocacy groups are vigorously opposed to anything resembling a gun registry. I don't think it would get off the ground. In fact, the chances of any laws to restrict gun ownership passing Congress are slim. That's why I think the focus needs to be on mental health and preventing individuals from getting anywhere near the point that they go out, buy a gun and start shooting people at random.
Canada tried to implement a long gun registry. Very few Canadians complied, and the whole project was scrapped. I would expect even less compliance with a gun registry in the US.
Dutchy wrote:flyingclrs727 wrote:KLDC10 wrote:
I think this one goes back to the 2nd Amendment. Lots of people have an objection to the government "taking a right and selling you it back". Personally, I don't think you should need a license to have a gun in your own home or use it at a range/on private property, but if you're going to be wandering the streets with it, then some kind of training would be good.
The NRA and other gun-advocacy groups are vigorously opposed to anything resembling a gun registry. I don't think it would get off the ground. In fact, the chances of any laws to restrict gun ownership passing Congress are slim. That's why I think the focus needs to be on mental health and preventing individuals from getting anywhere near the point that they go out, buy a gun and start shooting people at random.
Canada tried to implement a long gun registry. Very few Canadians complied, and the whole project was scrapped. I would expect even less compliance with a gun registry in the US.
Don't know how things are organized in other countries. In the Netherlands, you need to have a permit (prove you can handle one with care and prove you haven't got a mental illness, prove you aren't a criminal) and you have to be either a hunter or a member of a shooting club. You can keep your gun in your home, but there are strict rules which you must comply to. You need to keep your gun in a safe, bullets separate. The police will visit you onces in a while to physically check if you comply to those rules. And because it is kind of a social thing, people in the shooting club or other hunters will keep an eye on you. It works - for the most part - for the legal guns in the Netherlands. A few years ago there was a mass shooting with legal guns, so the whole thing was reevaluated.
flyingclrs727 wrote:Lots of people in the US and Canada don't want the government to have a list of guns that people own already much less a list of firearms people buy now from licened dealers.
Dutchy wrote:BobPatterson wrote:
I hold that no one has the right to tell me that I do not have the right to determine how and when to die (if I choose to end my life, especially in the case of terminal illness).
I do acknowledge that a hospice has the right to require me to follow their rules if I request their services.
I indeed think there is a misunderstanding. I am not talking about euthanasia. In the end I do believe that self-determination is important and almost absolute. Euthanasia should be allowed everywhere and should be practiced in a human matter, with drugs - and a doctor - and your loved ones around you. But that should come at the end of a process where it is determined that the person absolutely doesn't want to live anymore and there is nothing that can be done do reverse the person's mind, either with better care - more pain medicine or more social interaction or whatever the reason might be.
I was talking about suicide, that is an irrational impulsive act. That is a mental illness. If you raise the bar a bit, many people will not do it and hopefully, will seek the help they needed so they can better their lives. People whom contemplate suicide are in a very dark place, a place without light. So someone should bring them a bit of light.
BobPatterson wrote:Dutchy wrote:BobPatterson wrote:
I hold that no one has the right to tell me that I do not have the right to determine how and when to die (if I choose to end my life, especially in the case of terminal illness).
I do acknowledge that a hospice has the right to require me to follow their rules if I request their services.
I indeed think there is a misunderstanding. I am not talking about euthanasia. In the end I do believe that self-determination is important and almost absolute. Euthanasia should be allowed everywhere and should be practiced in a human matter, with drugs - and a doctor - and your loved ones around you. But that should come at the end of a process where it is determined that the person absolutely doesn't want to live anymore and there is nothing that can be done do reverse the person's mind, either with better care - more pain medicine or more social interaction or whatever the reason might be.
I was talking about suicide, that is an irrational impulsive act. That is a mental illness. If you raise the bar a bit, many people will not do it and hopefully, will seek the help they needed so they can better their lives. People whom contemplate suicide are in a very dark place, a place without light. So someone should bring them a bit of light.
Dutchy, I think I understand your position and respect it.
I agree, that terminal illness and other, near end-of-life, situations are one thing, and that "suicide" (in most other cases) is another matter altogether.
My wife and I have living wills and they are supposedly on file with the hospital that would most likely treat us in dire situations. Our kids have copies and know of our wishes regarding "heroic efforts" to keep us alive - no feeding tubes, life support systems, no colostomy operations. etc.
Living Wills : http://www.alllaw.com/articles/wills_an ... ticle7.asp
All we want are meds to ease our passing. We do not need hoops to jump through or counselors to help us change our minds.
Suicide by otherwise (physically) healthy persons is quite another matter, and counseling should be available to them.
Aesma wrote:3% of Americans own 50% of the guns.
A majority of Americans actually don't own one and don't live in a household with one.
Strange that nothing can be done.
Instead of showing the love affair of some US citizens for guns, I think it shows the corruption of US democracy, you can simply buy it.
Aesma wrote:3% of Americans own 50% of the guns.
A majority of Americans actually don't own one and don't live in a household with one.
Strange that nothing can be done.
Instead of showing the love affair of some US citizens for guns, I think it shows the corruption of US democracy, you can simply buy it.
ltbewr wrote:The LV mass terror shooter had been buying a number of non-hunting guns over the last year or so. As he bought them 1 at a time, the USA's ATF didn't know he was amassing an arsenal as current rules only mean attention to the ATF if a person buys 3 guns at once from a licensed dealer. To me there should be change in law/regulations if some individual buys 3 or more guns in a set period of time like 3 months, that could cause a hold on any further sales from that person for a period of months. Not only could this possibly curb the creation of arsenals by individuals or small groups but also 'straw buying' where guns are legally purchased for private and unregulated resale - usually to criminals. Of course the NRA and other 2nd Amendment absolutists won't even allow such a small but possibly effective change.