Connecticut School shooting!

[jpeyton]

Some A-rated NRA member beg to differ.

Both those lawmakers are Democrats. Right now 99 out of 100 Democrats are falling in line behind their leader on gun control.

Firearms regulations are a political third-rail for the GOP. Any House GOP member voting for an assault weapons ban can kiss his/her seat goodbye in 2 years. That's simply the reality they live in.

 

[spidey07]

Both those lawmakers are Democrats. Right now 99 out of 100 Democrats are falling in line behind their leader on gun control.

Firearms regulations are a political third-rail for the GOP. Any House GOP member voting for an assault weapons ban can kiss his seat goodbye in 2 years. That's simply the reality the reality they live in.

Thank god republicans have the house.

 

[jackstar7]

According to the CDC, firearms-related homicides numbered 11,101 in 2011. Of those, about 4% involved rifles of any kind, with 2% or less being semi-automatic "assault" rifles.

Not to mention that those 2% of murders would simply be replaced by other weapons.

Iron-clad logic there.

You heard it here, these 200+ people are neither significant nor have any hope to remain alive.

 

[Geosurface]

the status quo = 20 murdered children


weird thing to be in favor of.

That follows exactly as much as opposing invading Iraq implied approval of Saddam's killing of Kurds or rape rooms etc.

Or me saying to you "thousands die to drunk drivers, yet you want to leave alcohol legal? Weird thing to be in favor of!"

Stop thinking so simplistically and thinking there's a law that can fix everything. There isn't.

 

[TallBill]

Iron-clad logic there.

You heard it here, these 200+ people are neither significant nor have any hope to remain alive.

Ummmmmm

 

[BladeVenom]

This quote is meaningless because liberalized concealed carry is a relatively new phenomenon. Moreover, I believe it's false, if only because of the shooting at Accent Signage here in Minneapolis in September, in a business which was not a gun-free zone.

Accent Signage Systems employees were allowed to carry weapons? Link? Most factories don't allow it.

 

[spidey07]

This quote is meaningless because liberalized concealed carry is a relatively new phenomenon. Moreover, I believe it's false, if only because of the shooting at Accent Signage here in Minneapolis in September, in a business which was not a gun-free zone. Any number of other catastrophic workplace shootings have occurred in non-gun free zones. Moroever, the public-vs.-private area distinction is deliberately inserted to suggest a nonexistent "trend" - in fact, most public areas where large numbers of people gather are gun free zones. I would be very wary of trusting anything in an article so haphazardly researched.

Are you this fucking stupid? Yes, you are. You are speaking about things you are fucking ignorant about. I suggest you shut your fucking mouth. Totally fucking clueless about your own state's laws, let alone talking about other states.

I suggest you go review your state's laws. Lawyer - go fuck youself. You are a total disgrace in your advice and knowledge.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Are you this fucking stupid? Yes, you are. You are speaking about things you are fucking ignorant about. I suggest you shut your fucking mouth. Totally fucking clueless about your own state's laws, let alone talking about other states.

I suggest you go review your state's laws. Lawyer - go fuck youself. You are a total disgrace in your advice and knowledge.

I said nothing about my state's laws. Go back to picking presidential candidates, loser.

 

[spidey07]

I said nothing about my state's laws. Go back to picking presidential candidates.

Answer the question fucker.

What crime have I commited by carrying a weapon onto private property.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Answer the question fucker.

What crime have I commited by carrying a weapon onto private property.

Where did I say you had? Calm down, dummy.

You seem like a nice enough guy when you're asking for help with rehabilitating your bedraggled car - why are you such a jackass here?

 

[Geosurface]

I find it just bizarre and frankly shameful that you're so insistent on nothing positive coming out of this incident.

I've made my suggestion, which was a national network of psychologists linked to self-reported people who express concern that they may be headed toward acting out in this way, and would then be linked with one of the therapists registered in the system who was in their local area. These therapists would ideally sign on for working at reduced rate or even free if necessary, when dealing with these specific individuals. Anonymously.

A little more tongue in cheek but perhaps more effective, how about we start a national network of hot women who volunteer to have sex with guys who declare they are contemplating a mass killing? Or just legalize prostitution and that might help.

But seriously, here you are implying that I'm a bad person or "shameful" or whatever because I don't necessarily think there's anything that can be done to stop this sort of thing?

By that logic, anyone who comes along and wants to do MORE automatically gets the moral high ground and can turn around and accuse you of being shameful and immoral and a piece of crap for not wanting to do as much as they want to. Person Z comes along and says "I want a full ban on all firearms and ammo, and I want all people who have ever sought any sort of mental health treatment to be locked away for life!" now because they've gone more extreme in their knee jerk to this event do they become entitled to look down their nose and sneer at you because you don't go that far?

Keep in mind, my declaration that I don't think anything can really be done to help this, harsh and cold as it may sound... actually matches up with reality better than what anyone else is saying, and I think on some level you know that.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I've made my suggestion, which was a national network of psychologists linked to self-reported people who express concern that they may be headed toward acting out in this way, and would then be linked with one of the therapists registered in the system who was in their local area. These therapists would ideally sign on for working at reduced rate or even free if necessary, when dealing with these specific individuals. Anonymously.

A little more tongue in cheek but perhaps more effective, how about we start a national network of hot women who volunteer to have sex with guys who declare they are contemplating a mass killing? Or just legalize prostitution and that might help.

But seriously, here you are implying that I'm a bad person or "shameful" or whatever because I don't necessarily think there's anything that can be done to stop this sort of thing?

By that logic, anyone who comes along and wants to do MORE automatically gets the moral high ground and can turn around and accuse you of being shameful and immoral and a piece of crap for not wanting to do as much as they want to. Person Z comes along and says "I want a full ban on all firearms and ammo, and I want all people who have ever sought any sort of mental health treatment to be locked away for life!" now because they've gone more extreme in their knee jerk to this event do they become entitled to look down their nose and sneer at you because you don't go that far?

Keep in mind, my declaration that I don't think anything can really be done to help this, harsh and cold as it may sound... actually matches up with reality better than what anyone else is saying, and I think on some level you know that.

I think you and I cohere on the mental heath issue (though I would call for stronger measures), which is why I find it frustrating that you keep saying there is nothing we can do to alleviate the risk of events like this and there's no sense trying.

 

[Geosurface]

I think you and I cohere on the mental heath issue (though I would call for stronger measures), which is why I find it frustrating that you keep saying there is nothing we can do to alleviate the risk of events like this and there's no sense trying.

Well I'm all for offering more widely available, cheaper, more effective mental health treatments...

but I cannot sign off on removing peoples' rights for theoretical actions they may take later but have not taken yet.

Unless there are direct, credible threats that can be shown to have come from them.

So much of what I'm suggesting requires these people to self-report and to seek help... which by the nature of their problems, is highly unlikely.

Hence the fatalism.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Well I'm all for offering more widely available, cheaper, more effective mental health treatments...

but I cannot sign off on removing peoples' rights for theoretical actions they may take later but have not taken yet.

Unless there are direct, credible threats that can be shown to have come from them.

So much of what I'm suggesting requires these people to self-report and to seek help... which by the nature of their problems, is highly unlikely.

Hence the fatalism.

I see the reason for your fatalism, because you have adopted an impractically broad protectiveness toward personal freedom which would totally fail to protect the public. You, unlike me, would rather see James Holmes or Jared Loughner free to commit killing sprees. I think your perspective is woefully misguided (having quite a bit of experience with such things myself), but you have a right to your opinion, I suppose.

I hope your laissez-faire attitude never leads to the death of you or one of your loved ones. Frankly, had my parents taken your perspective when I was a kid, it's quite likely my sister would have killed me, my parents, and/or herself. Instead, she spent about a year in an institution, likely saving several lives, a trade-off I find more than worthwhile. I can also assure you my recent murder client would rather he could have been committed indefinitely when he was in the throes of severe mental illness, since he was released after a 72-hour hold and killed his son in the midst of a psychotic episode.

 

[Geosurface]

Explain what sort of behaviors or declarations or whatever a person would need to exhibit to justify committing them, I must confess I have no direct experience with the seriously unhinged.

What did your sister say or do that justified this?

I will certainly entertain what you're suggesting if you lay it out, on the mental health front... tell me the boundaries of what you envision.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Explain what sort of behaviors or declarations or whatever a person would need to exhibit to justify committing them, I must confess I have no direct experience with the seriously unhinged.

What did your sister say or do that justified this?

I will certainly entertain what you're suggesting if you lay it out, on the mental health front... tell me the boundaries of what you envision.

To me, off the top of my head, the criteria would be that the patient was suffering from a DSM-V-recognized severe mental disorder (this would be subject to statutory definition, but psychotic features would alone qualify), and demonstrating a stated intent to harm himself or another, or exhibiting threatening behavior. Jared Loughner and James Holmes would have qualified for this, as would my client and my sister. My sister, at age 14, was floridly mentally ill (though as far as I know she was not psychotic), and had threatened to kill my parents, me, and herself. The treating medical staff agreed it was appropriate to commit her and she was held for a full year.

I don't know if you saw this piece, but to me it provided a really interesting insight into the perspective of the parent of a violent, mentally ill kid: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...er-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html I think it is critical that people in this situation have realistic treatment options, potentially including long-term commitment, that are not predicated on a criminal conviction.

 

[Geosurface]

To me, off the top of my head, the criteria would be that the patient was suffering from a DSM-V-recognized severe mental disorder (this would be subject to statutory definition, but psychotic features would alone qualify), and demonstrating a stated intent to harm himself or another, or exhibiting threatening behavior. Jared Loughner and James Holmes would have qualified for this, as would my client and my sister. My sister, at age 14, was floridly mentally ill (though as far as I know she was not psychotic), and had threatened to kill my parents, me, and herself. The treating medical staff agreed it was appropriate to commit her and she was held for a full year.

I don't know if you saw this piece, but to me it provided a really interesting insight into the perspective of the parent of a violent, mentally ill kid: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...er-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html I think it is critical that people in this situation have realistic treatment options, potentially including long-term commitment, that are not predicated on a criminal conviction.

Okay, I'll agree with that. Those sorts of behaviors, I agree, justify action.

Perhaps I overreacted to what I thought people were saying, I don't like the idea of everyone who has struggled with depression or something being stigmatized by society even more. I worry it could discourage them seeking help even more when it's already a problem.

One of my best friends made two attempts on his life some years ago, and is now perfectly fine. He received no mental health help, just worked through his family, friends, and church. He just had a rough patch.

I agree that if the behaviors are blatantly threatening to others and demonstrate someone who is honest to goodness unhinged, their family committing them is a good move.

But this is so inexact, do we penalize families for not committing them if they do something? That seems wrong.

Do they ever truly get cured in the worst cases? Do they just learn what they need to say to get released? I don't know.

But, as I understand it, I think I can agree with what you're saying. Is that any different than what has always been the case?

 

[kg2095]

I don't think think you provided a single correct fact, other than your approximation of when the Bill of Rights was written. The UK has a much higher rate of violent crime.

That's true for assault in general but not for firearm violence.

In 2002 for example, the UK with its population of 60 million people had just 14 murders by firearm. The US with its population of 300 million people had 9,369 murders by firearm.

So the US has 5 times the UK population and 669 times the number of gun related homicides.

Now that's pretty hard to sweep under the rug.

From here: http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

 

[Geosurface]

So the US has 5 times the UK population and 669 times the number of gun related homicides.

Maybe we have 5 times the number of people who need shooting?

If you could reduce gun deaths to zero, the primary result of this would probably be even more criminal pieces of shit overrunning the country.

I think gang violence where thugs and criminals are the fatalities are a win for society.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

But, as I understand it, I think I can agree with what you're saying. Is that any different than what has always been the case?

It's a case-by-case, state-by-state thing (not that I am an expert on these laws generally). The ACLU, among other organizations, has campaigned for patient's rights, and the existing laws limit commitment to the extent that, say, James Holmes could not be committed despite the entire U of CO psychiatric staff believing he posed a threat to public safety. In general our mental health infrastructure has shrunk (mostly under Reagan) to the point that many families with dangerously crazy kids can't get help - see, e.g., http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...store-slayings-Suspect-s-creepy-past-recalled

By the way, I apologize if I may have been a little firebreathing toward you in this thread - I just really reject the idea that no possible reforms could help prevent tragedies like this one.

 

[akshatp]

That's true for assault in general but not for firearm violence.

In 2002 for example, the UK with its population of 60 million people had just 14 murders by firearm. The US with its population of 300 million people had 9,369 murders by firearm.

So the US has 5 times the UK population and 669 times the number of gun related homicides.

Now that's pretty hard to sweep under the rug.

From here: http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

They dont have any stats that arent 10 years old?

 

[Farmer]

That's true for assault in general but not for firearm violence.

In 2002 for example, the UK with its population of 60 million people had just 14 murders by firearm. The US with its population of 300 million people had 9,369 murders by firearm.

So the US has 5 times the UK population and 669 times the number of gun related homicides.

Now that's pretty hard to sweep under the rug.

From here: http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

It's not useful to compare per capita rates in general between different countries because countless social factors are not made transparent, i.e., you are implicitly making the assumption that society in the US and UK are nearly identical, which is far from the truth. For instance, if we compared per capita gun violence in China versus the US, it is probably far lower in China. Does that mean we should aim to replicate Chinese policy on guns and violence? Moreover, gun violence rates are lower in Switzerland, does this mean we should strive to have policies similar to that in Switzerland (these two nations have vastly different policies, with the Swiss policy far closer to the current US policy in most gun-friendly states).

What is more significant to consider is the change in time of gun crime rates after institution of a law in a given nation, which could be used to gauge the effectiveness of said law. Since the late 90s UK firearm ban, gun violence in that nation has increased. In other words, the firearm ban did not achieve its intended effect.

Same data, different conclusion.

If we instead look at the time history of gun crime rates in the US, we will see that it has been steadily declining for the past 1.5 decades. Despite the sunset of the "assault weapon" ban and massive increase in legal gun sales, this decline has persisted to today.

 

[Ausm]

You're right!

It doesn't work!

So time to take your fucking guns away!

yippie! teabagging scum!

You are going to make Spidey rip the padding off the wall in the room they lock him up in.

 

[Ausm]

Maybe we have 5 times the number of people who need shooting?

If you could reduce gun deaths to zero, the primary result of this would probably be even more criminal pieces of shit overrunning the country.

I think gang violence where thugs and criminals are the fatalities are a win for society.

What would you consider the innocent people taking out along the way? Collateral damage?

 

[jackstar7]

What would you consider the innocent people taking out along the way? Collateral damage?

Why he doesn't consider them at all!