# Active shooter in Dayton Ohio



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

Something insane is going on.

https://www.whio.com/news/crime--law...26CylnDLdZQxM/

_Published: Sunday, August 04, 2019 @ 1:19 AM
Updated: Sunday, August 04, 2019 @ 2:24 AM
By: Breaking News Staff

— UPDATE @ 2:24 a.m.:

Police scanner traffic has indicated that there may be as many as 7 dead, and police are searching for a second possible shooter that may have left the area in a dark-colored Jeep.

UPDATE @ 2:12 a.m.:

Police and medic scanner traffic indicate that a triage area has been established in the Oregon District, and police are checking the bars in the area for any additional shooting victims. 

Medics are reporting critical patients in the area.

Initial reports also indicate that medics are directing “walking wounded” to Grandview and Kettering hospitals.

INITIAL REPORT:

Police are responding to a report of an active shooter in the area of East 5th Street in the Oregon District.

Initial reports indicate multiple people shot, and medics are responding to the area. Reports also indicate that a shooter is down.

We are working to learn more and will update this story as we hear more
_


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news...26CylnDLdZQxM/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

More tragedy, nine more dead, sixteen more injured, no one involved will ever be the same. 

29 people dead, at least 42 injured within 24 hours. What is wrong with our world?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nehi, insanity is very misused, misunderstood and manipulated word.
Evil is active every single second of every single day. Always has been and always will be.
The folks below don't get a thread every time crime took one of their lives but they have no less value.
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/07/29/weekend-shootings-gun-violence-4/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

This shooter was stopped in just over a minute. He was heavely armed and if not stopped so quickly the number of deaths could have been so many more.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The shootings in parts of Chicago (and other areas) seem to be brought out only when another mass shooting has occurred. They seem to be used as a distraction. That's my opinion, anyway.


----------



## Micheal (Jan 28, 2009)

This AM wife and I were talking about the shooting(s)..... Sadly she was reffering to the Ohio shooting and I was talking about the only one I knew of - the Texas one..... Made for a confusing conversation until she enlightened me about the Ohio shooting...

To bad the polarizing conversation will now be again on gun control and not on Mental Health.......


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Micheal said:


> This AM wife and I were talking about the shooting(s)..... Sadly she was reffering to the Ohio shooting and I was talking about the only one I knew of - the Texas one..... Made for a confusing conversation until she enlightened me about the Ohio shooting...
> 
> To bad the polarizing conversation will now be again on gun control and not on Mental Health.......


I used to be of the opinion that all mass shootings were due to some type of severe mental health issue, I no longer do. If it was a mental health issue there would be a variety of types and sexes of human beings involved in the shootings, instead there is an overwhelming majority of a single type and sex. In most instances, the motive is boiled down to one thing, hate. 

Not there isn't a horrible lack of mental health care in the US, it's truly appalling, but not every act of violence can be blamed on mental illness.


----------



## Micheal (Jan 28, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I used to be of the opinion that all mass shootings were due to some type of severe mental health issue, I no longer do. If it was a mental health issue there would be a variety of types and sexes of human beings involved in the shootings, instead there is an overwhelming majority of a single type and sex. In most instances, the motive is boiled down to one thing, hate.
> 
> Not there isn't a horrible lack of mental health care in the US, it's truly appalling, but not every act of violence can be blamed on mental illness.


Sorry, but I believe anyone who has enough "hate" to pick up a gun or any weapon and just go out and kill people has more than a screw loose...... he/she is mentally unstable and in need of help!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> More tragedy, nine more dead, sixteen more injured, no one involved will ever be the same.
> 
> 29 people dead, at least 42 injured within 24 hours. What is wrong with our world?


Too many unhinged nut jobs


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I used to be of the opinion that all mass shootings were due to some type of severe mental health issue, I no longer do. If it was a mental health issue there would be a variety of types and sexes of human beings involved in the shootings, instead there is an overwhelming majority of a single type and sex. In most instances, the motive is boiled down to one thing, hate.
> 
> Not there isn't a horrible lack of mental health care in the US, it's truly appalling, but not every act of violence can be blamed on mental illness.


A slight push is all it takes for someone standing on the edge.

Hate and mental instability are a bad mix.


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

Does anyone wonder if these mass shootings might be False Flags designed to whip up frenzied support for gun control?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

nehimama said:


> Does anyone wonder if these mass shootings might be False Flags designed to whip up frenzied support for gun control?


They are effectively used for that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

That is correct. These young men shot all those people to facilitate gun control.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

nehimama said:


> Does anyone wonder if these mass shootings might be False Flags designed to whip up frenzied support for gun control?


The parasites and bottom feeders who surround these events and virtue signal, point fingers, label and monger fear would turn a blind eye if there were.
They don't create them but they cradle them in their arms like a newborn babe.
The faceless and nameless who die every day one by one from countless methods and beings don't suit them as does the events that can manipulate.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> That is correct. These young men shot all these people to facilitate gun control.


The story is being used by those that advocate for gun control


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> They are effectively used for that.


Does a muslim homicide bomber kill jews or westerners thinking it will further their cause? Yes, sometimes.
Does it make them insane? Some believe a job or opportunity can change all that...

Does an American who hates a certain group believe mass murder will further his cause? They might, but the truth is that they do more to shift influence in the other direction, and recent events should further solidify that and enforce the evidence that
these "manifestos" are more illogical ranting than core beliefs. I'm still waiting for groups here to claim responsibility for gun violence.
Lots of entities just wanting to drive the story along their own path with their own vehicles.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nehimama said:


> Does anyone wonder if these mass shootings might be False Flags designed to whip up frenzied support for gun control?


I believe many people could be convinced to support an agenda.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

It certainly does not help that irresponsible news outlets (like Drudgereport) published a link to the first shooter manifesto. There are too many that will do these kinds of hateful acts for that kind of publicity - one is too many. Time to stop publicity for these kind of acts.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> That is correct. These young men shot all those people to facilitate gun control.


Is it beyond belief that there are people trying to further their agenda by manipulating these individuals?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

There are groups that advocate for violence against corporations and social structures.
I haven't' heard groups like antifa call into CNN and claim responsibility for too many yet.
There are groups advocating for violence against our police, but where are the ones willing to stake their freedom on their like minded followers stepping up.
Is there a group no forming and creating a flag for those who are willing to pour water on their local sheriff?
People can sit in their lazy boy or behind their tablet and agree or disagree with evil; still waiting for them to start posting ads for mercenary work in the lower 48.

There is no place on earth left to match the garden of eden, and yet numbers seem to mean more to some who are not willing to grasp one life at a time.


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

Moonriver said, "Is it beyond belief that there are people trying to further their agenda by manipulating these individuals?"

That is what I was getting at.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Given human history, is anything beyond belief?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Do any of you really believe that these young men were pushed into mass murder to facilitate gun control or is that just what you want to believe?

Do you believe the same about Muslim terrorist attacks? They were pushed into it by Americans to facilitate something?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I used to be of the opinion that all mass shootings were due to some type of severe mental health issue, I no longer do. If it was a mental health issue there would be a variety of types and sexes of human beings involved in the shootings, instead there is an overwhelming majority of a single type and sex. In most instances, the motive is boiled down to one thing, hate.
> 
> Not there isn't a horrible lack of mental health care in the US, it's truly appalling, but not every act of violence can be blamed on mental illness.


I am extremely curious (especially about the younger men) if they were on any prescribed mental health medication at the time of the shootings. Never a mention of it though, even when the family says they have long-running mental health problems.

I've seen prescribed medications have terrible mental health side effects on my daughter, one requiring a hospital stay because she turned into a scary person that wasn't her. The thing I do know, having a lot of mental illness running through the family, is that girls tend to turn the violence of a break toward themselves, boys tend to turn the violence outward. I've seen medications turn people I love into people I didn't recognize. 

I don't think we can rule out severe mental health issues until we know the full stories. And for some reason we never know the full story, because it takes away from someone's narrative. We should be angry at that.


----------



## Micheal (Jan 28, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Do any of you really believe that these young men were pushed into mass murder to facilitate gun control or is that just what you want to believe?


Not hardly.... but half the talking heads will and are using these events to promote their agendas and lo & behold - "gun control" 
is very popular........


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

The people who do these acts are bad people, but even worse people take advantage of that to push their own agendas,......the agendas being pushed are clear and this will be used to further that agenda......no matter what the reality of it is or the why,......it will be used as a tool.

The worst realization is the agendas being pushed are in no way intended to help or protect citizens,...…...its just billed as that to push the agenda...…….


The even starker reality is that in pushing these agendas is what causes this...….when people are pushed they get like scared animals backed in a corner,......much like was commented on above, it usually results in the opposite effect intended.


Its basic logic and human nature and just the way things work, the more you try to control and protect, the less control and less protected we become.


All these crimes and more are well documented thru out history, its just the way of things, societies have struggled with the same issues for thousands of years, so we have data to compare and see what works and what does not. 

The truth is out there, most are just too willfully ignorant to acknowledge it.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

My thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and families of the victims and the perps. I cannot imagine how it would feel to be a close family member of a mass murderer, that must be the most terrible feeling ever.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

i want to know where all these card carrying NRA members that go everywhere fully armed are when these incidents happen. Just twiddling their thumbs waiting for a cop? Maybe they dont really need to be armed in public if they are such wimps? Isnt defending the community part of NRA justification for ever more gun owners packing in public places?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HermitJohn said:


> i want to know where all these card carrying NRA members that go everywhere fully armed are when these incidents happen. Just twiddling their thumbs waiting for a cop? Maybe they dont really need to be armed in public if they are such wimps? Isnt defending the community part of NRA justification for ever more gun owners packing in public places?


Seems like the last one was killed in under a minute. Police are saying they killed him, some bystander reports are that someone grabbed his gun and shot him, stopping him from entering the bar.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I used to be of the opinion that all mass shootings were due to some type of severe mental health issue, I no longer do. If it was a mental health issue there would be a variety of types and sexes of human beings involved in the shootings, instead there is an overwhelming majority of a single type and sex. In most instances, the motive is boiled down to one thing, hate.
> 
> Not there isn't a horrible lack of mental health care in the US, it's truly appalling, but not every act of violence can be blamed on mental illness.


That sort of hate can only come from mental illness. 

It's one thing to hate another person so deeply that someone seeks out that person and kills then. It's another thing to grumble and gripe, or even tell bad jokes about, say, short people. Both of those things seem to be hard-wired into the human firmware. 

It's an entirely different thing to foster a hatred for short people so deeply that you develop a bloodlust for all short people that you don't even know. Worse, in most cases, these hateful people are going out and killing tall people just because they might be mixed in with short people, or just to create a "look at me" stir, so they can get their message of hate out to as many people as possible. 

I've said it before, and each of these incidents end up making me more convinced of the assessment: we're dealing an epidemic of fatal narcissism.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Maybe they dont really need to be armed in public if they are such wimps? Isnt defending the community part of NRA justification for ever more gun owners packing in public places?


The short answer is no, defending the community is not part of a private citizen/gun owner's responsibility, nor their right.
And neither responsibility nor rights to do so would come from any group or agency.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That sort of hate can only come from mental illness.
> 
> It's one thing to hate another person so deeply that someone seeks out that person and kills then. It's another thing to grumble and gripe, or even tell bad jokes about, say, short people. Both of those things seem to be hard-wired into the human firmware.
> 
> ...


Narcissism, if that's the issue with the majority of the mass killers, is a personality disorder with no cure. Treatment may help, but from what I've read it's not likely. There is controversy if it's even a mental disorder. 

It's my opinion that not all mass killers are mentally ill, or even have personality disorders. Even if it's true, there are a series of events that must take place prior to the killings for it to occur.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Micheal said:


> Not hardly.... but half the talking heads will and are using these events to promote their agendas and lo & behold - "gun control"
> is very popular........


A certain political party will exploit these tragedies and stand on the still warm bodies of the dead to push an agenda.
Happens every time, and will continue to happen.


----------



## ydderf (Dec 15, 2018)

Are there any studies around the mass killers that look at things like, are they unemployed, are they homeless, are they poorly educated, are they in financial difficulties, are they in legal trouble.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Depends world wide, national, local.
World wide, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.


----------



## montysky (Aug 21, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> A certain political party will exploit these tragedies and stand on the still warm bodies of the dead to push an agenda.
> Happens every time, and will continue to happen.



imho we have two political parties doing this, one to the right of the body and one to the left.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The identity of the shooter has been released. His sister was one of the people killed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/d...-mass-shooting-today-2019-08-04-live-updates/

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ohio-shooting/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...-day-after-mass-shooting-texas/?noredirect=on

So very sad. My sympathy goes out to all the friends and families of the victims.

The police were very responsive and saved lives when they neutralized the perp. They deserve a round of thanks.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Never before, in the history of mankind, have we had the capabilities to remotely identify people who are potentially mentally ill, and then enter their head and manipulate them. Social media is more powerful than any priest of old could imagine. It's a portal directly to the inner workings of the human psyche. Most people build a wall against such intrusion, but those who don't, openly advertise it without prompting. "Look at me, Look at me, I'm insane!" "Stand by while we whip you into a murderous frenzy to promote our agenda while we insulate ourselves from your actions." You have to admit that the platform exists, the hard thing to admit is that there are people wicked enough to use the technology for such purposes.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

montysky said:


> imho we have two political parties doing this, one to the right of the body and one to the left.


Yes. With bodies piling between the two.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Narcissism, if that's the issue with the majority of the mass killers, is a personality disorder with no cure. Treatment may help, but from what I've read it's not likely. There is controversy if it's even a mental disorder.
> 
> It's my opinion that not all mass killers are mentally ill, or even have personality disorders. Even if it's true, there are a series of events that must take place prior to the killings for it to occur.


You would not label that level of hate as a mental disorder?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> What is wrong with our world?


Too many people pushing agendas.

This seems to be a copycat.

Of course on the other hand, the other 65+ million gun owners didn't shoot anyone at all. But they will be the ones blamed.



> painterswife said: ↑
> That is correct. These young men shot all those people to facilitate gun control.


It's called "terrorism". It's quite common.
The NZ shooter wrote it all out in his "manifesto".

These last two are the only ones to *ever* wear hearing protection.
Coincidence?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> This shooter was stopped in just over a minute. He was heavely armed and *if not stopped so quickly* the number of deaths could have been so many more.


Yes, more people need to be allowed to protect themselves.
A rapid armed response has once more been proven to be the best solution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> They seem to be *used as a distraction*. That's my opinion, anyway.


Much in the same way the "sympathy" is displayed in the wake of a "mass" shooting?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nehimama said:


> Does anyone wonder if these mass shootings might be False Flags designed to whip up frenzied support for gun control?


It's quite likely they are coordinated in some way.
The timing is odd, and the use of "hearing protection" is unprecedented.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's quite likely they are coordinated in some way.
> The timing is odd, and the use of "hearing protection" is unprecedented.


Yeah, I'm not getting the whole hearing protection thing. First off, you're reducing your situational awareness as you can't hear someone coming up on you. Secondly, as the shooter you have to expect you're going to be killed either during or after the spree, why bother protecting your hearing?

Maybe they're just insane people unable to think logically or rationally. What do I know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe the same about Muslim terrorist attacks? They were pushed into it by Americans to facilitate something?


They are pushed by their fanaticism. 
There are also gun control fanatics who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

I don't know why you would assume it's only about "Americans".
Is it because you aren't one?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> i want to know where all these card carrying NRA members that go everywhere fully armed are when these incidents happen.


They don't get the headlines, but they prevent crimes more often than you think.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes. With bodies piling between the two.


So what do we do?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> So what do we do?


Exactly. I can't say, maybe you can.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

HermitJohn said:


> i want to know where all these card carrying NRA members that go everywhere fully armed are when these incidents happen. Just twiddling their thumbs waiting for a cop? Maybe they dont really need to be armed in public if they are such wimps? Isnt defending the community part of NRA justification for ever more gun owners packing in public places?


Yeah, let's mock the NRA and legally armed Americans, that'll help.
The NRA has been around for a long time and we didn't have this problem.
Think about when this problem started and why.
Or maybe it's just a good excuse to get rid of the NRA, America's top civil rights organization and disarm people.
After all, the way to protect defenseless people is to make sure they are defenseless.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. I can't say, maybe you can.


Find and cure the cause and stop blaming those who didn't so it.
Take the politics out of it and stop using these tragedies for political agendas.
What we are doing now just makes the problem worse.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Find and cure the cause and stop blaming those who didn't so it.
> Take the politics out of it and stop using these tragedies for political agendas.
> What we are doing now just makes the problem worse.


Exactly. How do we do that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> After all, the way to protect defenseless people is to make sure they are defenseless.


It's worked well for communists.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

This situation isn't going to be fixed by arguing on an internet forum, it will be fixed in the voting booth. Every mass killing impacts more and more registered voters. Just sayin'.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. How do we do that?


We can't


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> This situation isn't going to be fixed by arguing on an internet forum, it will be fixed in the voting booth. Every mass killing impacts more and more registered voters. Just sayin'.


Therein lies the motivation for it. Everyone is on fire and everyone is spraying each other with gasoline.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

nehimama said:


> Does anyone wonder if these mass shootings might be False Flags designed to whip up frenzied support for gun control?


But who does the designing?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

light rain said:


> But who does the designing?


An excellent point.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I've been reading a little more about the Dayton shooter, one report says his sister was a victim, another states he had a hit list in high school.

Could have been his intent to just kill his sister for all anyone knows.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/dayton-o...dentified-sister-among-9-killed-officials-say

https://www.wcpo.com/news/mass-shooting/dayton-shooting-suspect-idd-reportedly-had-prior-hit-list


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. How do we do that?


At a minimum we (myself included) all need to stop assuming we know what's driving these people to do this, and demand that we're given factual information instead of some of the facts which push an agenda, or hide an agenda. So that we can figure out what is actually going on.

Regardless of how anyone feels about any ideology, most people within that group never kill, or even physically harm another human being. What makes people who are willing to actually kill others different? Is it biology? Environment? Mental illness? Medications? 

We can make guns illegal tomorrow and it won't stop mass killings. There are a gazillion ways I can think of to kill a large number of people at once without using a single gun, if I were so inclined (I am not, will not be, have no desire to, don't flag me internet spy operations!).

None of this will stop until we become adult enough to put our agendas aside and look at the real problem honestly. We're incapable of that, it seems, so it'll continue regardless of whether we ban guns or not because we're not addressing the problem. We're just arguing about a symptom of the problem. Humans are dumb.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> This situation isn't going to be fixed by arguing on an internet forum, *it will be fixed in the voting booth*. Every mass killing impacts more and more registered voters. Just sayin'.


It won't be "fixed" by more gun control laws, since it's already illegal to kill people.

Here's a "mass shooting" that *didn't* happen:
https://my2centsvideos.com/2018/10/29/armed-citizen-prevents-mass-shooting-in-alabama/



> _“A brave dad armed with a pistol stopped what could have been a mass shooting Saturday inside an Alabama McDonald’s when he took down a masked gunman who had stormed in and opened fire._
> 
> _The unidentified father was leaving the establishment with his sons when a masked man walked into the Birmingham fast-food restaurant and started shooting, WBRC-TV reported. The father returned fire and, during the ensuing shootout, the gunman, the father and one of the man’s teenage sons were struck, according to the station._
> 
> _The gunman, who was not identified, later died of his injuries. The other two injuries were not considered life-threatening”_


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The Dayton mass shooting gunman’s sister was among the nine victims killed in the slaughter, officials revealed Sunday.
> 
> Megan Betts, 22, was shot dead when her brother, 24-year-old Connor Betts, opened fire on a crowded street in the Ohio city lined with bars and restaurants around 1 a.m., officials said in a press briefing.
> 
> ...


https://nypost.com/2019/08/04/dayto...ughtered-own-sister-during-rampage-officials/


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

ydderf said:


> Are there any studies around the mass killers that look at things like, are they unemployed, are they homeless, are they poorly educated, are they in financial difficulties, are they in legal trouble.


I believe that many of our youth today were not taught empathy, have no belief in a higher power/God, and have been marinated in violence in tv, movies and video games even before elementary school. Also they have not accumulated the education and skills to support themselves financially in the same level of income they grew up in. When it hits them that they don't have the resources to make a gainful living they get angry at everyone. Then they express that anger in a way that causes the most pain to innocent people. Major temper tantrum with horrific consequences....

Back 40 years ago there were more facilities for the criminally insane. Some were horrible and should have been bulldozed. However to say that everyone can safely function and be intergrated into society is false. 

I agree with Mish that some of the psychotherapeutic drugs may be at work in these tragedies. Each person that takes these chemicals may react differently. These rxs were developed to improve one's mental health and to make hospitalization/removal from public unnecessary. Maybe this a totally unrealistic approach. Is anyone compiling information on whether these shooters were taking any of these prescription drugs?

I feel terribly sad for the victims and their families who were killed but also as sad for the victims and their families who were injured. Not only for them having to face the physical effects of their injuries but also to come to terms of the evil done to them by someone who doesn't even know their name. 

I believe that there are many mistakes in childrearing that help spawn these mass murderers. I think to raise a child without a belief in God comes into play and a lack of attention/responsibility by parents to how the child is developing the 1st 18 years may have a bearing. Just a thought... I wonder how many of these murderers have regularly attended church throughout their childhood.

There may even be a particular bacterial overgrowth in the gut that predisposes the person, usually a young, white male, to violently attack strangers. Not that that should be a criminal defense but it may be recognized as contributing factor. 

We need to completely and honestly look at the reasons why these horrific situations are increasing before we can figure out ways to curtail or stop them...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Very well said @light rain


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

light rain said:


> I believe that many of our youth today were not taught empathy, have no belief in a higher power/God, and have been marinated in violence in tv, movies and video games even before elementary school. Also they have not accumulated the education and skills to support themselves financially in the same level of income they grew up in. When it hits them that they don't have the resources to make a gainful living they get angry at everyone. Then they express that anger in a way that causes the most pain to innocent people. Major temper tantrum with horrific consequences....
> 
> Back 40 years ago there were more facilities for the criminally insane. Some were horrible and should have been bulldozed. However to say that everyone can safely function and be intergrated into society is false.
> 
> ...


God (or religion) has nothing to do with morality. It's the innate right and wrong in all of us that directs what we'll do, and what we won't. 

Other than that, I agree with much of what you've posted.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> An excellent point.


I don't think some are aware of my sentiments. I believe in both good and evil and the agendas of both parties. These parties are not the Democrats and the Republicans and there will be no change coming from walking into a polling place...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

light rain said:


> I don't think some are aware of my sentiments. I believe in both good and evil and the agendas of both parties. These parties are not the Democrats and the Republicans...


I'm sorry. Which parties are they?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are pushed by their fanaticism.
> There are also gun control fanatics who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.
> 
> I don't know why you would assume it's only about "Americans".
> Is it because you aren't one?


BFF You like to bring up where I was born at every opportunity. I am not sure why that matters so much to you. Yes, I was born in Canada but I am married to someone born in the US. I have now lived here almost 20 years. I came here legally and live and follow the laws of the US. My opinion's are just as valid as yours or any HT member because I have lived , worked and paid taxes under both systems and I have the ability to speak about both countries from personal experience. 

I did not assume it was only about Americans but my example and question was relative to the point I was asking about. Once again you made it about me personally instead of the question I asked.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry. Which parties are they?


Do you think that is a productive question in this dialogue?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

light rain said:


> Do you think that is a productive question in this dialogue?


Yes I do. You said that it wasn't a political party, yet didn't elaborate. I feel it matters what you meant to say, I assumed I knew, perhaps others did as well.

ETA: Yet you indicate there will be no difference entering a polling place?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> BFF You like to bring up where I was born at every opportunity.


It's merely a fact.



painterswife said:


> I did not assume it was only about Americans


I can only go by the actual words you posted:



painterswife said:


> They were pushed into it *by Americans* to facilitate something?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Here you go, HermitJohn:

https://i.imgur.com/TqnUHK7.mp4


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's merely a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I can only go by the actual words you posted:


Then why does where I was born matter?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Then why does where I was born matter?


Context always matters.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Where I was born matters to how someone answers a question I ask another HT member ? Well that is a new one.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> This situation isn't going to be fixed by arguing on an internet forum, it will be fixed in the voting booth. Every mass killing impacts more and more registered voters. Just sayin'.


No,it will be fixed in the home because that is where it broke in the first place. Yes, some of these shootings, whether it be a mass shooting or the shooting of a single person, are due to mental illness, it is far from reality to suggest that mental illness is the cause for all, or even the majority. It isn’t video games, access to weapons, lack of religion or any of the simplistic reasons that have been proposed. 

We are raising generations of children who think that anger and violence are the solutions to any and every imaginable slight they may suffer in life. We have children who react violently to the tiniest of things like being bumped in line. We have children who have no ability to give and or receive an apology with grace. We have children with no ability to see things from the other guy’s perspective. We have children who have no ability to disagree in a civil manner. Is it any wonder that they grow up to be adults who reach for a weapon of whatever type when they are angry?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Well said @SLFarmMI


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> This situation isn't going to be fixed by arguing on an internet forum, it will be fixed in the voting booth. Every mass killing impacts more and more registered voters. Just sayin'.


Politicians stoke the flames, so this will never be decided at the voting booth. If anything, an attempt to remove guns from Americans will "trigger" consequences beyond anything we can imagine.

The only way this issue can be addressed is by honest politicians and a responsible media. In other words, it won't be resolved. Politicians need to leave politics out of it and go to the root causes, and I don't see that happening.

Social media could make a difference.

Belittle the shooters. Label them losers. 

Create a socially acceptable alternative.
Praise people who get help, rather than act out.
Create algorithms for early detection.
Cooperate with law enforcement.
Develop training for parents and peers
These shooters are a subculture that is able to exist only because of the Internet and cable news. That's where the solution lies.

Instead of blaming politicians, we need to hold the media and social media companies responsible.

ETA: Growing up, I bet we all knew another kid or young adult that wasn't all there. The thing is, they were isolated from the world. There was no easy way from them to meet others like them. The Internet changed that. 

They can find others like them and share their victim hood. And then they can start modeling each other's behaviors. When a person for whatever reason has no conscious, how do you influence their behavior?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> No,it will be fixed in the home because that is where it broke in the first place. Yes, some of these shootings, whether it be a mass shooting or the shooting of a single person, are due to mental illness, it is far from reality to suggest that mental illness is the cause for all, or even the majority. It isn’t video games, access to weapons, lack of religion or any of the simplistic reasons that have been proposed.
> 
> We are raising generations of children who think that anger and violence are the solutions to any and every imaginable slight they may suffer in life. We have children who react violently to the tiniest of things like being bumped in line. We have children who have no ability to give and or receive an apology with grace. We have children with no ability to see things from the other guy’s perspective. We have children who have no ability to disagree in a civil manner. Is it any wonder that they grow up to be adults who reach for a weapon of whatever type when they are angry?


So after "raising *generations* of children who think that anger and violence are the solutions to any and every imaginable slight they may suffer in life. We have children who react violently to the tiniest of things like being bumped in line. We have children who have no ability to give and or receive an apology with grace. We have children with no ability to see things from the other guy’s perspective. We have children who have no ability to disagree in a civil manner." 

_Everyone_ is going to suddenly raise children that don't react with anger and violence? How is that going to happen?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> So after "raising *generations* of children who think that anger and violence are the solutions to any and every imaginable slight they may suffer in life. We have children who react violently to the tiniest of things like being bumped in line. We have children who have no ability to give and or receive an apology with grace. We have children with no ability to see things from the other guy’s perspective. We have children who have no ability to disagree in a civil manner."
> 
> _Everyone_ is going to suddenly raise children that don't react with anger and violence? How is that going to happen?


You think there can be a "sudden" solution?

The decay and rot that brought us here took years. It will NOT improve. It will only get worse.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> You think there can be a "sudden" solution?
> 
> The decay and rot that brought us here took years. It will NOT improve. It will only get worse.


I agree. Why did you so enthusiastically agree with the prior post?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree. Why did you so enthusiastically agree with the prior post?


What did you find disagreeable?


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Politicians stoke the flames, so this will never be decided at the voting booth. If anything, an attempt to remove guns from Americans will "trigger" consequences beyond anything we can imagine.
> 
> The only way this issue can be addressed is by honest politicians and a responsible media. In other words, it won't be resolved. Politicians need to leave politics out of it and go to the root causes, and I don't see that happening.
> 
> ...


And any parents that ignore/facilitate threats of violence from family members and the shooters themselves need to be held responsible...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> What did you find disagreeable?


Nothing at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> Politicians stoke the flames, so this will never be decided at the voting booth. If anything, an attempt to remove guns from Americans will "trigger" consequences beyond anything we can imagine.
> 
> The only way this issue can be addressed is by honest politicians and a responsible media. In other words, it won't be resolved. Politicians need to leave politics out of it and go to the root causes, and I don't see that happening.
> 
> ...


The only change that "We the People" can invoke is in a voting booth.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

light rain said:


> And any parents that ignore/facilitate threats of violence from family members and the shooters themselves need to be held responsible...


I agree with this generally, but can think of instances where people have literally begged the system for help and got nothing. It's incredibly hard to get help for an unstable minor, it's almost impossible for an unstable adult that doesn't want help.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> The only change that "We the People" can invoke is in a voting booth.


Really? Social change can be made by the society. This is largely a cultural problem, which government intervention will likely only make worse. Churches, doctors and mental health professionals, social media, media, schools, individuals, civic organizations, etc, all have a role to play.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> A certain political party will exploit these tragedies and stand on the still warm bodies of the dead to push an agenda.
> Happens every time, and will continue to happen.


Where the other party just prays and does nothing useful, not more mental health treatment, no increased enforcement of existing gun laws, nothing... absolutely NOTHING except voting their wealthy patrons a big tax break. But hey the rest of us can pray for them when they get shot by some psycho.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> The only change that "We the People" can invoke is in a voting booth.


And what might our elected leaders offer us that so far we have been denied?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> The short answer is no, defending the community is not part of a private citizen/gun owner's responsibility, nor their right.
> And neither responsibility nor rights to do so would come from any group or agency.


Funny they were spouting exact opposite as to why they should be allowed open carry in several states. Apparently whichever argument is most beneficial at the time without taking any responsibiilities. With privilege comes responsibility unless you are the NRA?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

HDRider said:


> And what might our elected leaders offer us that so far we have been denied?


 Ask Bernie. Think he has a whole laundry list.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> Really? Social change can be made by the society. This is largely a cultural problem, which the government will likely only make worse. Churches, doctors and mental health professionals, social media, media, schools, individuals, civic organizations, etc, all have a role to play.


Haven't they (we) all been trying to play a societal role? How has that worked out? I could be snarky, but I really don't have to due to recent events.

"We the People" will invoke change in the voting booth.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HermitJohn said:


> Ask Bernie. Think he has a whole laundry list.


He does promise paradise.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> So after "raising *generations* of children who think that anger and violence are the solutions to any and every imaginable slight they may suffer in life. We have children who react violently to the tiniest of things like being bumped in line. We have children who have no ability to give and or receive an apology with grace. We have children with no ability to see things from the other guy’s perspective. We have children who have no ability to disagree in a civil manner."
> 
> _Everyone_ is going to suddenly raise children that don't react with anger and violence? How is that going to happen?


When did I say anything will happen suddenly? It didn’t break suddenly and it won’t be fixed suddenly. 

You start within your circle of influence, working with those children and adults who know, love and respect you, those with whom you have a relationship.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I cannot even begin to believe any official in DC can solve this problem. I cannot fathom any new law that can change our course.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> When did I say anything will happen suddenly? It didn’t break suddenly and it won’t be fixed suddenly.
> 
> You start within your circle of influence, working with those children and adults who know, love and respect you, those with whom you have a relationship.


Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for my assumption. We'll have how many more generations until the influence has rippled through society?

I reiterate, the only change that "We the People" can make is in the voting booth. There are many, many things that can be rectified in the voting booth.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for my assumption. We'll have how many more generations until the influence has rippled through society?
> 
> I reiterate, the only change that "We the People" can make is *in the voting booth*.


How will this help?

What miracle is this newly elected person going to perform?

Make all guns disappear?
Make all hate disappear?
Make all shooters disappear?
Make all crime disappear?

Please tell me what they might do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> How will this help?
> 
> What miracle is this newly elected person going to perform?
> 
> ...


No. Nothing so magical, but I only expect something different than is being done now. What is Einstein's definition of insanity?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

"When someone robs a liquor store or assaults their girlfriend, we don’t automatically assume they are mentally ill. Even people who murder neighbors, rivals, or family members don’t garner such diagnostic speculation. So why is it different after a mass shooting? It’s as though once the body count exceeds a certain number, we can no longer explain it with plain old criminal behavior. Or maybe on some level, we all understand the desire for people we know to be dead, but killing a group of total strangers for no obvious gain or motive seems inconceivable. It defies logic, so we call it “mental illness,” and pretend that is reason enough.

Most mass shooters, though, didn’t have a diagnosis of a serious mental illness before their attack. Having ”mental health issues” like getting in fights at school, beating your spouse, or being a loner who spends too much time on Internet hate sites is different from having a mental illness like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Consider a medical corollary: a man in his mid-40s who lives a sedentary lifestyle. He eats a lot of fast food and takeout, usually in front of his television, and washes it down with a few beers until he falls asleep on the couch. He’s a good 50 pounds overweight, and his only source of exercise is walking outside for his regular smoke breaks."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...yjyk93CZCYUpyi2iIB2gE4gC0nFz51Y7bjZevXj95NB78


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> No. Nothing so magical, but I only expect something different than is being done now. What is Einstein's definition of insanity?


What have we not tried?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> What have we not tried?


Absolutely nothing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> "When someone robs a liquor store or assaults their girlfriend, we don’t automatically assume they are mentally ill. Even people who murder neighbors, rivals, or family members don’t garner such diagnostic speculation. So why is it different after a mass shooting? It’s as though once the body count exceeds a certain number, we can no longer explain it with plain old criminal behavior. Or maybe on some level, we all understand the desire for people we know to be dead, but killing a group of total strangers for no obvious gain or motive seems inconceivable. It defies logic, so we call it “mental illness,” and pretend that is reason enough.
> 
> Most mass shooters, though, didn’t have a diagnosis of a serious mental illness before their attack. Having ”mental health issues” like getting in fights at school, beating your spouse, or being a loner who spends too much time on Internet hate sites is different from having a mental illness like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Consider a medical corollary: a man in his mid-40s who lives a sedentary lifestyle. He eats a lot of fast food and takeout, usually in front of his television, and washes it down with a few beers until he falls asleep on the couch. He’s a good 50 pounds overweight, and his only source of exercise is walking outside for his regular smoke breaks."
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...yjyk93CZCYUpyi2iIB2gE4gC0nFz51Y7bjZevXj95NB78


I agree. We should simply consider that the blame lies squarely with somber actions of the shooter.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Absolutely nothing.


So somewhere, hiding is the solution, waiting for our vote to put it into action?

I fail to see your reason for hope


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I agree. We should simply consider that the blame lies squarely with somber actions of the shooter.


You should have read the entire article, instead of just the quotes. It was a bunch of gobblety **** trying to justify gun control.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> You should have read the entire article, instead of just the quotes. It was a bunch of gobblety **** trying to justify gun control.


It always is.

I still stand by what I said.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> You should have read the entire article, instead of just the quotes. It was a bunch of gobblety **** trying to justify gun control.


Is it? Or is that just your opinion of the article? Shouldn't a non mentally ill adult be responsible for their actions?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

I'm just not sure what more gun laws are going to do if the shooters aren't typically mentally ill. A non-criminal, non-mentally ill person can currently purchase/own a firearm legally. What laws could we put in place that are going to weed out people that just want to kill other people? A complete ban is just unreasonable and impractical, and isn't even done in places like the UK.

It's a complicated situation and will take a concerted effort first to figure out what is actually going on, why, and start working toward an actual solution. No one seems interested in even starting, we're all so focused on guns. Honestly, blaming the existence of the internet and the 24 hour murder porn media industry makes more sense than blaming guns if you want to look at why this is ramping up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Why do we assume there is an answer?

Is it because we HOPE there is an answer?

Why is this answer so elusive?


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Really? Social change can be made by the society. This is largely a cultural problem, which government intervention will likely only make worse. Churches, doctors and mental health professionals, social media, media, schools, individuals, civic organizations, etc, all have a role to play.


And parents.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> When did I say anything will happen suddenly? It didn’t break suddenly and it won’t be fixed suddenly.
> 
> You start within your circle of influence, working with those children and adults who know, love and respect you, those with whom you have a relationship.


Respect. Not a popular concept in 2019...


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Mish said:


> I agree with this generally, but can think of instances where people have literally begged the system for help and got nothing. It's incredibly hard to get help for an unstable minor, it's almost impossible for an unstable adult that doesn't want help.


This connects with the philosophy that everyone can be cured by psychotherapuetic rx's. There HAVE to be more facilities built to do inpatient therapy and more research to show how family dynamics affect the patient. If a patient is in a chaotic, unstable environment at home this is going to cause a destabilization of their behavior. They should still be held accountable for their actions but maybe a new approach maybe beneficial to their improvement.

Getting help, inpatient help, should not be that hard and maybe, Irish Pixie is right, in "one" area. We need to revamp mental health accommodations/therapy and we need to stop thinking drugs are the only answer in the USA without looking at environment, media and family dynamics...

*if you believe you have a positive suggestion to help prevent these tragedies, don't let anyone silence you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> Yeah, I'm not getting the whole hearing protection thing. First off, you're reducing your situational awareness as you can't hear someone coming up on you.


They may have been electronic:

https://usa.palmettostatearmory.com...MI3JGmq6Tp4wIVS18NCh3XzgkZEAQYAiABEgIxT_D_BwE


> [*]Sleek, extremely low profile earcup design allows for full clearance of firearm stock
> [*]Automatic 4 hour shut-off increases battery life
> [*]AUX jack connects to MP3 players and scanners
> [*]Automatically shuts off loud impulse noise to a safe 82dB while amplifying conversation and range commands


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *Where I was born* matters to how someone answers a question I ask another HT member ? Well that is a new one.


Isn't it also where you lived most of your life?

It really has nothing to do with "how someone answers" though.

My comment was about the question you asked, and it's implied assumption that "Americans" were the culprits. That was clear. Again, context matters.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Isn't it also where you lived most of your life?
> 
> It really has nothing to do with "how someone answers" though.
> 
> My comment was about the question you asked, and it's implied assumption that "Americans" were the culprits. That was clear. Again, context matters.


I asked a question. You made it about where I was born not about the question. You still are.

How someone answers the question has nothing to do with where I was born.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *I asked a question.* You made it about where I was born not about the question. You still are.
> 
> How someone answers the question has nothing to do with where I was born.


"How someone answers" is irrelevant to my comment about your question.
I already explained that, and you quoted it but still repeated yourself.

I asked a couple myself.
You didn't answer my second one.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "How someone answers" is irrelevant to my comment about your question.
> I already explained that, and you quoted it but still repeated yourself.
> 
> I asked a couple myself.
> You didn't answer my second one.


I do not imply Americans were culprits. I posted a scenario and asked a question and you made it about my place of birth. 

Answering the question has nothing to do with my place of birth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I do not imply Americans were culprits.


I disagree, since no one but you said what was stated.



painterswife said:


> Answering the question has nothing to do with my place of birth.


That's the third time you've repeated that.
It remains just as irrelevant as the first time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> What is Einstein's definition of insanity?


Thinking gun control laws will stop mass killings.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I disagree, since no one but you said what was stated.
> 
> 
> That's the third time you've repeated that.
> It remains just as irrelevant as the first time.


Yet you brought up my place of birth as if it mattered to anyone who answeerd my question. Yes my place of birth is irrelavant but still you brought it up for some reason.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Shouldn't a non mentally ill adult be responsible for their actions?


Like the 65+ million gun owners who *didn't* shoot anyone yesterday?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yet you brought up my place of birth *as if it mattered* to anyone who answeerd my question.


People are free to decide for themselves what "matters".
I just stated the facts.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The only change that "We the People" can invoke is in a voting booth.


 No, no politician will ever fix this.



Irish Pixie said:


> Haven't they (we) all been trying to play a societal role? How has that worked out? I could be snarky, but I really don't have to due to recent events.
> 
> "We the People" will invoke change in the voting booth.


 Best hope is to vote in another weasel who will do nothing,...same story, both parties,...lots and lots of years, no new one with more promises will change this.



Irish Pixie said:


> No. Nothing so magical, but I only expect something different than is being done now. What is Einstein's definition of insanity?


 To vote again and again and think it will magically fix the world this time ?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Why expect a politician to be able to impact social decline? Why expect a politician to impact the personal lives of mentally ill people?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Drunk Driving | NHTSA*
> https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
> *Every day*, almost 30 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes


Why don't we start by banning alcohol?
Guns really aren't a problem.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

This one has extended beyond GC limits.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Bow down to the great gas propelled lead pellet. For it has been ordained mere puny mortals cannot change destiny. Nor prevent the great pellet's mighty ejaculation. Weekly and daily killings are mere collateral damage for the greater good. Think to the promised future afterlife of the great shining lead pellet city on the hill.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HermitJohn said:


> Funny they were spouting exact opposite as to why they should be allowed open carry in several states. Apparently whichever argument is most beneficial at the time without taking any responsibiilities. With privilege comes responsibility unless you are the NRA?


Owning a gun, carrying a gun, either concealed, open or otherwise, is not a privilege in this country, regardless of how the media and idealogues try to convince people, and making organizations such as the NRA the crux of an argument in this thread would be the definition of the term "straw man."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Why expect a politician to be able to impact social decline? Why expect a politician to impact the personal lives of mentally ill people?


I'm glad you asked. And this is my opinion, but I will do all I can to elect politicians that will enact legislation. 

Politicians write new law, and set precedent on social order. 

The first should be sensible gun laws that restrict access for those with any type of instability issue. That includes some medical conditions and most mental health diseases/disorders. There will need to be further law regarding gun ownership, perhaps based on car ownership or something similar with licenses, insurance, etc. 

Another is better healthcare over all, and mental healthcare in particular. Not just medication and dump them, actual follow up treatment. 

Third, a comprehensive program set up in the schools to help struggling kids that could become mass killers. They are identified now, but little is done beyond punishment. 

All of this, and I'm sure I'm leaving important bits out as I'm working on a half a cup of coffee, should have been implemented 20+ years ago. If they had been perhaps we wouldn't have the problems we do today.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm glad you asked. And this is my opinion, but I will do all I can to elect politicians that will enact legislation.
> 
> Politicians write new law, and set precedent on social order.
> 
> ...


Have another cup


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

My Dad went to school carrying a gun about every day. Everybody did. They propped them up in the coat closet. Shot squirrels and rabbits on the way to and from school. Sure they didn't have video games, they had far more barbaric forms of entertainment. They fought bare knuckles. They bent over trees with ropes and catapulted the scrawny kids through the sky. Disfigurement was common. One game was to stand against a wall without moving while the other kids threw rocks at you. Whoever was able to stand and get a rock mark on the wall the closest to their head was the winner. Very bad for teeth. One kid got his big toe chopped off on the chopping block with the school axe. The violence was there, the guns were there, why no killings? Has it got something to do with people believing in the sanctity of human life? They could chop off a toe, or knock out some teeth, but they didn't kill anyone, because killing is wrong. 

Love it or hate it, Roe V. Wade changed the way we look at the sanctity of innocent human life. Video games and violent TV don't help either. Neither do wars that teach generations to overlook the whole sanctity of human life thing and get past our aversion to killing. Would the wild west have been so wild if it wasn't chock full of young veterans of the killing fields of Manassas and Antietam? 

Human life is sacred, most folks are wired to accept that, it's part of our genetic code of species preservation. It takes influences to change that. You have to see people die and other people not care, you have to be trained to kill, or you have to have people trying to kill you. Most people can't just walk up to another human being and pull the trigger, without one or more of these predisposing factors. Except for a few homicidal maniacs, which there really aren't that many of.

Who was talking to these guys through their headphones? Both appear to have differing political views, but their political views are totally irrelevant. They were unhinged enough to go do harm to others. Who picked up on that fact? Who was in their head? Maybe the FBI knows, but maybe it was the FBI. The FBI could be a really powerful agency if it weren't for those cruddy 65 million gun owners standing in the way of them choosing presidents and cramming laws down our throats. If not the FBI, wonder if anyone has checked for Russians?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I don't care to know their names. I would like to hear what meds they were on though?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Roe V Wade


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. How do we do that?


That's for people a lot smarter than me to figure out


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Like the 65+ million gun owners who *didn't* shoot anyone yesterday?


I'm one of those and I watched John Wick chapter 3 yesterday!


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Mental illness is one of the biggest problems in our country. The shootings are a by-product of that IMO


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

I am sorry, we are not children ,...just because some glue licking dolt in 65 stuck a piece of gum under the desk,....now all gum is banned.


100 out of 100 million cant handle their selves properly and the plan is to punish and restrict the other 99 million because of a 100. 


Sorry, I am a adult and that child like punishment will not fly.


Just because you raise up morally bankrupt children that run wild and they do just that , do not believe in the sanctity of life and the only skills they have been taught are violence, you want to restrict and punish me,...…..sounds like some sort of feudal monarchy kings and queens stuff to me.


This a moral problem...…...a parental problem...…….a media problem,...….. what your child uses as a tool to act out with is not related to the issue,....the issue is the person, quit advocating taking everyone`s gum because you did not teach your children correctly.



Using mentally defective people and children who should have been taken behind the woodshed as precedent to make laws for the other 200 million is beyond absurd, its foolish, irresponsible and dangerous.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

shawnlee said:


> I am sorry, we are not children ,...just because some glue licking dolt in 65 stuck a piece of gum under the desk,....now all gum is banned.
> 
> 
> 100 out of 100 million cant handle their selves properly and the plan is to punish and restrict the other 99 million because of a 100.
> ...


Last night I read that the shooter in Ohio had compiled lists years ago, in HS, of 2 groups. One he wanted to kill and 1 group he wanted to rape. The article stated he was out of school after a period of time, but eventually returned. 

Was he incarcerated?

Was he forced to undergo psychiatric treatment?

Were his parents mandated/forced to undergo counseling?

Were the children and their parents on those lists formally notified by LEO, school district of the threat of harm?

And now because I still have the freedom to post what some here think are nonsensical points...

Did he attend a church regularly in his childhood?

Was he a video game player from early youth & what were those games content?

And lastly, were his parents, specifically his Mom, honestly trying to raise a boy into a young man with ideals and discipline or did they dote on him and say "anything my boy does is A-ok and let him start wrecking havoc on society way before this current transgression?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> This situation isn't going to be fixed by arguing on an internet forum, it will be fixed in the voting booth. Every mass killing impacts more and more registered voters. Just sayin'.


I agree.
We have politicians pushing division, using race as a divider, income as a divider, nationality as a divider.
Masked protesters rioting in the streets blaming the president for imagined slights while doing their best to further the divide.
We need term limits, and we need to vote out all those who push hatred, division, slander and lies.
All those who have been fueling the fires with their fake charges against the president, the false accusations of racism and all the rest.
Let's go to the voting booth and get rid of those who divide us.
As one deplorable to another.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Cornhusker said:


> That's for people a lot smarter than me to figure out


No, not really, and intelligence isn't the same as wisdom.
I'm thinking you've had the right answers for a long time, you have just wearied of being told it can't be that simple.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Cornhusker said:


> I agree.
> Let's go to the voting booth and get rid of those who divide us.
> As one deplorable to another.


You will never, ever fix America or it's problems thru an elected official or a nation wide program. Never.
Get rid of the ones who you dislike but believing the next one is the cure of all is the first step down the path of fools.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Haven't they (we) all been trying to play a societal role? How has that worked out? I could be snarky, but I really don't have to due to recent events.
> 
> "We the People" will invoke change in the voting booth.


Yes we will


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

HDRider said:


> How will this help?
> 
> What miracle is this newly elected person going to perform?
> 
> ...


The guns are not the problem
It's the hate being pushed by our politicians, the division and bigotry.
Remember, Nazi George Soros owns one political party.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

This is a unique problem to this country. What is it about the US that this happens here at such a greater percentage then any where else in the world?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> This is a unique problem to this country. What is it about the US that this happens here at such a greater percentage then any where else in the world?


Not enough reporting of these people needing to be put in places that will don't have enough of...


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> This is a unique problem to this country. What is it about the US that this happens here at such a greater percentage then any where else in the world?


If you can find the answer to that question, you're on the way to figuring out what the problem is. 

Could it be culture? We tend to let kids do whatever they want, parental supervision seems to be either over the top or negligent, but a lot of kids seem to think they're God's gift and are entitled to act any way they want. I don't know if that holds true in other countries, but from people I know in/from other places, it doesn't. We also have a lot of single parents/absentee fathers, what affect does that have? How common is that in other cultures?

Could it be medications? We medicate our kids like giving them Adderall or Prozac or Ambien isn't any more serious than giving them an aspirin. How is that different across the globe?

We are a HUGE country, population wise, compared to most. We have an extremely diverse population with values and cultures from across the globe that most countries don't have (the "safest" countries that keep being brought up are also some of the most homogeneous, culturally and racially - not saying that's good or bad, just pointing out differences). Our legal system is different than other countries, what is a slap on the wrist here might get that wrist cut off somewhere else. I mean we could just go on and on. 

That's why I keep saying we need to stop focusing so much on guns and start demanding information about these people so that we could actually make an attempt at slowing/stopping the problem. Banning guns solves nothing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> If you can find the answer to that question, you're on the way to figuring out what the problem is.
> 
> Could it be culture? We tend to let kids do whatever they want, parental supervision seems to be either over the top or negligent, but a lot of kids seem to think they're God's gift and are entitled to act any way they want. I don't know if that holds true in other countries, but from people I know in/from other places, it doesn't. We also have a lot of single parents/absentee fathers, what affect does that have? How common is that in other cultures?
> 
> ...


Others countries have most of those same problems.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm glad you asked. And this is my opinion, but I will do all I can to elect politicians that will enact legislation.
> 
> Politicians write new law, and set precedent on social order.
> 
> ...


Should we restrict all our Constitutional rights?
I believe people should have to go through a background check to vote, and maybe a blood screen before marking their ballots.
Also, free speech should be licensed right?
I mean restricting rights is just common sense right?
Let's continue to blame millions who didn't do it, ban their personal possessions, their family heirlooms and make them criminals if they don't turn all those possessions in to the politicians.
Then guess what?
Hate groups like ANTIFA and others can just send 10 doped up, hate filled people into your house and there's not one thing you can do about it.
Pretty hard to control a population with 300 million guns.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Others countries have most of those same problems.


Which countries are we talking about? Not being nitpicky, I'd just like to have something to compare.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Any other Western Country, you choose.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> This is a unique problem to this country. What is it about the US that this happens here at such a greater percentage then any where else in the world?


Our politicians who pit us against each other


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Our politicians who pit us against each other


I agree, that is one of the differences.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Our politicians who pit us against each other


It always has been and always will be unless about 50 million march...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Others countries have most of those same problems.


They also have violent crime


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> They also have violent crime


They don't have these mass shooting in the same frequency though do they?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I agree, that is one of the differences.


Imagine if our politicians worked together instead of wasting all their time on politics?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> They don't have these mass shooting in the same frequency though do they?


No, but they do have mass murder, just not with guns,
They use trucks, bombs, arson, knives, gang beatings, etc.
Guns do not attack people. People use guns to attack.
Guns don't cause people to attack and kill, they are the tools.
If you wanted to kill someone, and you couldn't find a gun, you could still kill them, just grab a knife or a screwdriver.
A guy near here killed his wife many years ago with a crescent wrench. Should we run around the country confiscating crescent wrenches?
I know so many people who have been killed in vehicles, usually involving drugs or booze, but nobody is banning cars.
That tells me the gun grabbers don't really care about the lives, it's the guns they are after.
If you can convince me differently, I'll listen.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Any other Western Country, you choose.


I wouldn't know where to start. I think we need to be specific if we're going to try to figure out what differentiates Americans from other countries. 

Do we start with population? 

1. China 1,380,914,176 2019 (Est.)
2. India 1,311,559,168 2019 (Est.)
3. United States of America 333,928,672 2019 (Est.)
4. Indonesia 265,253,184 2019 (Est.)
5. Brazil 220,632,960 2019 (Est.)
6. Pakistan 210,797,840 2019 (Est.)
7. Nigeria 202,670,592 2019 (Est.)
8. Bangladesh 180,203,952 2019 (Est.)
9. Russia 133,026,408 2019 (Est.)
10. Japan 125,853,032 2019 (Est.)
11. Mexico 123,491,272 2019 (Est.)
12. Philippines 117,394,520 2019 (Est.)
13. Ethiopia 116,776,352 2019 (Est.)
14. Vietnam 97,894,736 2019 (Est.)
15. Egypt 94,731,960 2019 (Est.)
16. Democratic Republic of the Congo 87,265,520 2019 (Est.)
17. Turkey 85,948,784 2019 (Est.)
18. Iran 85,644,896 2019 (Est.)
19. Germany 80,313,272 2019 (Est.) 

I had to go through 19 countries before I found a European country on the list, since I'm assuming that's what we're talking about. 80 million for Germany, combine the populations of California and Texas and you're almost to Germany's population. We still have to deal with the populations of the other 48 states. 

Germany does demographics by culture/country of origin - German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Polish, Italian, Romanian, Syrian, and Greek). We do it by race which tells us nothing, because we're stupid. I don't need to pull in the demographics charts because we all know over 90% of our population isn't "white American" with the rest of the "non-whites" coming from specific areas. Ours are from all over the globe, with vastly different cultural approaches to life.

There are plenty of countries that have permissive gun laws (Austria and Switzerland being a couple), and other countries have stricter gun laws (UK and Australia being a couple), and if we're saying we're outstanding in the amount of mass killings, the difference doesn't seem to hinge on that factor, either.

Legal systems, don't even have the time or energy to get into comparables that are are/are not comparable in the other measures.

Sorry, getting too long and involved, I could go on and on but I can't (I'm sure you really don't want me to, either lol), I have to do some stuff this morning. My argument is that you can't really compare because there is no country that we can compare to (absolutely not meant like, 'Murica) in any meaningful way. We're our own beast and we're going to have to figure it out in a way that works for us, not some other incomparable country, or it's going to keep happening.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> I wouldn't know where to start. I think we need to be specific if we're going to try to figure out what differentiates Americans from other countries.
> 
> Do we start with population?
> 
> ...



I thought we were discussing mass shootings and why it seems to be a unique event statistically to this country.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Nobody just wakes up and says, " I think I will go shoot a bunch of random people today". But if your toaster, a bunch of "random" people on social media platforms that you frequent, or whatever platform an alphabet agency wishes to use, spends six months to a year building you up to it, it's totally doable. 

We've already seen the FBI do some shady things, how could one not consider the possibility that they are doing it, or maybe have been doing it for a very long time (maybe since JFK). Does no-one else see the timing of these things being almost made to order? No doubt these agents have refined techniques a good bit since they convinced Randy Weaver to saw his shotgun barrel down and the days of MK Ultra. With social media being what it is in most people's lives now, I don't think it would be very hard to find ripe candidates for a little mind bending. There are probably high tech ways to do it now that would boggle the mind. 

While we go down that rat hole of thought, why do you suppose Islamic countries, who seemed to be becoming more socially tolerant (allowing women to wear mini-skirts in the 60's) descended back into 6th century stuff? Do you think it would be possible to attack an entire religion, and bring out the most militant facets of it, if you capitalized on some of it's inherent flaws and sufficiently riled up it's practitioners? A good PR campaign can work wonders with the right propaganda. You can make people bludgeon each other to oblivion, and step in and reap the spoils without eve breaking a nail. Don't tell me the technology is not in place, and that we haven't been developing it for a very long time.

I can't tell you to go bludgeon a kitten and expect you to do it, but if I could access your complete medical history, and read all of your innermost thoughts, I could pick out which of you might be viable candidates for advanced suggestion techniques.

The folks responsible are usually the folks that have something to gain.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Children have always learned from adults. It doesn't have to be a parent either. It should start right here on this forum. If you want children to grow up and be better people then we need to be better people. 

I think the solution is pretty simple myself.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I thought we were discussing mass shootings and why it seems to be a unique event statistically to this country.


Yeah, but unless you believe only one thing influences people to become mass killers, all of the other stuff I mentioned plays a part. The fact that we're a huge country, with a lot of people, from a lot of different backgrounds, cultures, experiences, beliefs in how we do things like follow the law, raise our children, teach/not teach our children to become productive members of society, heck, how we define productive members of society, matters.

You can't understand why it is a unique event statistically unless you have a comparison, and things to compare. You can't just compare mass shootings and nothing else.


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

We (Humankind) were always pretty good in killing each other...in some countries is it more difficult to get a bunch before you get caught and in some its easier...
In the US it is pretty easy to make a good dent into the population around you cause you have free access to efficient tools to do so...
So by the amount of wingnuts in the normal human society and the people that dont make it to the middle class, we find a good potential killers in every society...i think there is no state or country different to the other.
But with a Swiss knife or AR25 makes a good difference...
So let them kill...it will not stop...it will be just more efficient...
And the mor eof us are out there, the more issues will arise...diseases, conflicts, exodus, genocides, mass killings, shootings...and thx to the news, we give those people even a stage to find others to hail them and like to follow...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> Yeah, but unless you believe only one thing influences people to become mass killers, all of the other stuff I mentioned plays a part. The fact that we're a huge country, with a lot of people, from a lot of different backgrounds, cultures, experiences, beliefs in how we do things like follow the law, raise our children, teach/not teach our children to become productive members of society, heck, how we define productive members of society, matters.
> 
> You can't understand why it is a unique event statistically unless you have a comparison, and things to compare. You can't just compare mass shootings and nothing else.


You can run down the list and figure out what is different between the counties or the same.

Other countries are large and have diverse populations.
Other countries medicate their youth
Other countries have violent video games and TV show.
Other countries raise their children in different ways among the population.

Maybe you want to go from there.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> You can run down the list and figure out what is different between the counties or the same.
> 
> Other countries are large and have diverse populations.
> Other countries medicate their youth
> ...


What other countries?

Some people's houses are cleaner than mine, you tell me. What houses, I ask? Other people's houses. Well, which ones specifically so I can look and see how I should clean my house better? Just random other people's houses that are similar to yours. That helps me to figure out how clean/not clean my house is, or how I can change it not at all.

Specifics matter when you're trying to solve problems. A hypothetical doesn't really help much to narrow down what's actually different.

*edit - maybe this is a better what to go about it, what do you think is different?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> What other countries?
> 
> Some people's houses are cleaner than mine, you tell me. What houses, I ask? Other people's houses. Well, which ones specifically so I can look and see how I should clean my house better? Just random other people's houses that are similar to yours. That helps me to figure out how clean/not clean my house is, or how I can change it not at all.
> 
> ...


That was the question I asked.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> That was the question I asked.


I can't find the answer unless the field is narrowed down a bit. How are we different than the rest of the world? About a million ways, depending on which area of the world you're talking about. The question is too vague for me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

This is the question I asked. Feel free to narrow it down in any way you want to. Feel free to not answer it as well. I asked the question I wanted an answer to.



painterswife said:


> This is a unique problem to this country. What is it about the US that this happens here at such a greater percentage then any where else in the world?





Mish said:


> I can't find the answer unless the field is narrowed down a bit. How are we different than the rest of the world? About a million ways, depending on which area of the world you're talking about. The question is too vague for me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

As most of you, I have really been thinking about why the USA has these mass shootings, and so many killings by guns.

Here is what I came up with.

It is because we have so many people with guns. 

Sometimes some of those that have guns do bad things.

That divides us.

Some (me included) put high a value of an unrestrained 2nd. High value has a high cost.

Others, think extreme limits (you can define in your own mind what extreme means) should be put of the private citizens right to own guns.

That divides us. There is no happy medium, no acceptable compromise.

That is the way it is,,,, until it changes.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> This is the question I asked. Feel free to narrow it down in any way you want to. Feel free to not answer it as well. I asked the question I wanted an answer to.


There are mass killings going on all over the world. Most of them are state-led.
https://earlywarningproject.ushmm.org/ongoing-mass-killing


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> There are mass killings going on all over the world. Most of them are state-led.
> https://earlywarningproject.ushmm.org/ongoing-mass-killing


Those killings are not really what we are discussing, are we? This is really about how one lone person decides that killing as many people as they can before being stopped. People that are not involved in a war or government insurrection. The US leads in this statistic.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

The US probably leads the world in having more spoiled, bullied, over-privileged, parent-ignored, emasculated, irresponsible, goalless, young white males compared to other countries.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I think the US leads the world in white supremacist groups who espouse killing others just because of their race.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) said violence is an instrument most likely to be used by those who lack power and feel powerless.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I think the US leads the world in white supremacist groups who espouse killing others just because of their race.


By your reasoning, the cities with the most white people should spawn the most mass shooters. NYC, LA, Chicago should be leading the nation in mass shootings with your line of thought.

As was suggested, and you may not even realize it, but seeing what you post, and your consistent pattern of thought, you do not like living in the USA.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> By your reasoning, the cities with the most white people should spawn the most mass shooters. NYC, LA, Chicago should be leading the nation in mass shootings with your line of thought.
> 
> As was suggested, and you may not even realize it, but seeing what you post, and your consistent pattern of thought, you do not like living in the USA.


No, you extrapolated the assumptions in your post all on your own. There are just as many US born that have the same thoughts as I do. Wishing better for the country I live in is what most would call being a good American.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm glad you asked. And this is my opinion, but I will do all I can to elect politicians that will enact legislation.


What "legislation" will stop crazy people from killing?

If you're truly concerned with needless deaths, why aren't you calling for a ban on alcohol, since it causes more deaths than firearms?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> No, you extrapolated the assumptions in your post all on your own. There are just as many US born that have the same thoughts as I do. Wishing better for the country I live in is what most would call being a good American.


My extrapolation was based on your postulation.

It is amazing how you know how everyone thinks. That is quite extraordinary.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Mish said:


> I can't find the answer unless the field is narrowed down a bit. How are we different than the rest of the world? About a million ways, depending on which area of the world you're talking about. The question is too vague for me.


I think the intersection of gun availability and a violence-based culture is what makes America unique. Other nations have hate crazed white supremacists as well. They also have alienated, mentally ill, loners without ideological compass. Those are the two main types of mass killers.

We have had a few of these incidents in Canada, despite our more cautious approach to gun control. I think gun control reduces general gun violence, but I’m not sure it is as effective against mass murder (Timothy McVeigh as a case in point). The occasional incident we have are usually using legally acquired guns.

But Canada and America have some key cultural differences which may yield clues. America was born out of an armed revolution and a fundamental mistrust of government as a concept. The notion of violent solutions to problems is hardwired into the body politic. The Civil War and the glorification of the Wild West are examples. I think it’s why the rate of incarceration is so high, and I think it’s why so many citizens feel the need to go around armed. When that’s the cultural context, it’s a much shorter leap to mass homicide when a domestic terrorist or mentally unbalanced loner unhinges.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The first should be sensible gun laws that restrict access for those with any type of instability issue.


That's current law.



Irish Pixie said:


> There will need to be further law regarding gun ownership, perhaps based on car ownership or something similar with licenses, insurance, etc.


You don't need a license to exercise a right.
It would also be defacto gun registration, which is illegal under federal law.

Have those laws stopped drunk drivers?
If not, they won't stop killers either.
They will only affect those who have done nothing wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> painterswife said: ↑
> I think the US leads the world in white supremacist groups who espouse killing others just because of their race.


More America bashing?
Context matters still.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More America bashing?
> Context matters still.


I see posts by you bashing other Americans all the time. My birthplace does not matter as your seems not to either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> This is a unique problem to this country. What is it about the US that this happens here at such a greater percentage then any where else in the world?


It doesn't.
That's the propaganda being spread.
Feel free to prove your claim though.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I see posts by you bashing other Americans all the time. My birthplace does not matter as your seems not to either.


So you say.
Others can decide for themselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> Which countries are we talking about? Not being nitpicky, I'd just like to have something to compare.


You won't get any real data.
You'll only get vague allegations and repeated rhetoric.
Patterns never change.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I think the US leads the world in white supremacist groups who espouse killing others just because of their race.


Just found this.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you say.
> Others can decide for themselves.


Yes and they can decide for themselves what your point is in constantly making a point about my place of birth instead of my citizenship. It is done quite a bit by Trump these days and maybe you are doing the same thing. I don't know but others can decide for themselves.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Well now, what do we have here.
Hmmmm, why these figures seem to contradict the general perception that them cowboys over the USA are a bunch of shoot em ups compared to oh,,,,the first ten.
Google foo is everyone's friend.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> This is the question I asked. Feel free to narrow it down in any way you want to. Feel free to not answer it as well. I asked the question I wanted an answer to.


You want us to accept your claim even though you haven't shown it's true.
I've heard "If you can't prove it, it isn't true".
Let's see your data.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said: ↑
I think the US leads the world in white supremacist groups who espouse killing others just because of their race.
QUOTE="Bearfootfarm, post: 8415574, member: 22693"]More America bashing?
Context matters still.[/QUOTE]

I think the middle east leads the world in muslim supremacist groups who espouse killing others because of their race/faith/locale.

Just plug in a different word and it works about the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yes and *they can decide for themselves* what your point is in constantly making a point about my place of birth instead of my citizenship.


That's what I said.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://news.sky.com/story/why-are-white-men-more-likely-to-carry-out-mass-shootings-11252808

"Of 114 mass shootings - using the Congress definition - between 1982 and May 2019, 110 were carried out by men.

The final four are made up of three women, and one case of one man and a woman working together in the San Bernardino attack in December 2015.

According to Statista analysis, in the same time-frame 64 of the perpetrators were white, while 19 were black, 10 Latino and eight Asian."


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

FBI studies have found that only 25 percent of active shooters had ever been diagnosed with mental illness, and that shooters aren't typically loners. 

When asked what the motivating factors are for shooters, FBI Agent Andre Simons said, "Usually it's a desire for some omnipotent control, even if it's just momentary. There is also a degree of desire for infamy and notoriety."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Why are white men carrying out more mass shootings?*
> *Between 1982 and August 2019, 110 of the 114 mass shootings in the US were carried out by men, and four involved a woman.*


The media is constantly claiming there have been over 200 "mass shootings" this year alone.
Something is wrong with the numbers being touted. 

Someone seems to be cherry picking the events to only come up with 114 over 3 decades.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You could provide your proof that the media is saying that number. Let's see your data.


I'm still waiting to see yours proving your original claim.
The data shown so far refutes it, but you didn't acknowledge that.

Here's my proof:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2019-m...been-more-mass-shootings-than-days-this-year/

"As of Sunday, which was the 216th day of the year, there have been 251 mass shootings in the U.S., according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive, which tracks every mass shooting in the country. The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as any incident in which at least four people were shot, excluding the shooter."

Your turn.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I think the US leads the world in white supremacist groups who espouse killing others just because of their race.


By that token, apparently only one of the last three mass killings was racially motivated. The FBI is still working on the Gilroy Garlic Festival forensics but specifically came out and told the media to stop reporting him as a white supremacist because they were finding no evidence of it. The Ohio shooter also killed his sister in the attack, and didn't seem to espouse white supremacy beliefs, in fact he seems to be leaning far to to the opposite direction as far as those ideologies usually go - his story is all sorts of confused.

I don't have answers, but again I feel like everyone is looking at the pretty colors and flashing lights and not paying attention to the real issues. Anyone can take any ideology and turn it into something murderous. What causes these specific people to do that? That's the important bit, not whether they supported white supremacy and hated Hispanics or supported gun control and Elizabeth Warren. All that is just rationalization fodder for their irrational acts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> painterswife said: ↑
> You could provide your proof that the media is saying that number. Let's see your data.


I see what you did there. 
You can't rewrite history.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)




----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> Well now, what do we have here.
> Hmmmm, why these figures seem to contradict the general perception that them cowboys over the USA are a bunch of shoot em ups compared to oh,,,,the first ten.
> Google foo is everyone's friend.


I guess that's what I was trying to say with the population rant. Per capita, who do we compare to? 

We have a lot more people than any single European country, yes, we're bound to have more shootings (and more everything else), simply because we have many, many more people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> Per capita, who do we compare to?


The US remains one of the safest countries in the world, which is why so many from other countries will go to extremes to get here. 

Then, sadly, they seem to want to change it into what they left behind.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm still waiting to see yours proving your original claim.
> The data shown so far refutes it, but you didn't acknowledge that.
> 
> Here's my proof:
> ...


According to that link, there were more mass shootings in 2016. Trumps fault!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Mish said:


> All that is just rationalization fodder for their irrational acts.


Yes, and causes the next one to rationalize that it's ok to do it again.

People watch the social media justice warriors to see what kind of reaction they will get. Then they pick what gets them the best ratings. Be that Trump, Warren or unicorns. They don't care if you mention their names or not online. They know you know who they are. 

This kind of retoric gives the next one strength to go ahead and do what they will do. And the circle goes on.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I am surprised no one commented on my post on page 8.

The OHIO shooter had a history of violent threats. Going back 10 years.

Mom and Dad apparently didn't address it.
The LEO didn't address it. 
The School system didn't address it.

And it seems while everyone here is lamenting there are no answers I beg to differ.
There are questions and answers but it's more media appropiate to dance around vague issues and epouse rhetoric than just look at the facts...


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

light rain said:


> I am surprised no one commented on my post on page 8.
> 
> The OHIO shooter had a history of violent threats. Going back 10 years.
> 
> ...


I didn't even see it, just went back and it's on page 7 for me (if anyone else is looking and can't find it).

Do you happen to have a link to the article you read that in?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

light rain said:


> Mom and Dad apparently didn't address it.
> The LEO didn't address it.
> The School system didn't address it.


They "addressed it", but he was a "juvenile" so they were limited in what they could do, and since he didn't act, there was no criminal record.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They "addressed it", but he was a "juvenile" so they were limited in what they could do, and since he didn't act, there was no criminal record.


The laws that apply to juveniles and people who threaten harm to individuals have to change...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

light rain said:


> The laws that apply to juveniles and people who threaten harm to individuals have to change...


People will whine about that and say "They are just children...they don't know any better".
(Of course, many of those same people would like to allow 16 year olds to vote.)


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Just read about a young man in Texas (Williams) that told his grandmother that he was take his AK 47 and shoot up the hotel he was living in. Instead of rolling her eyes and saying a prayer she convinced him to go to the hospital with her. Apparently admitted. Then arressted.

If anyone is interested, the stash he had at the hotel in his room could have done a lot of damage...

They did not arrest him for making threats but because of misinformation on the application to purchase the gun.

God bless her and protect her.

Laws have to change regarding threats of violence.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Mish said:


> I didn't even see it, just went back and it's on page 7 for me (if anyone else is looking and can't find it).
> 
> Do you happen to have a link to the article you read that in?


I think I saw it on Yahoo but I bet it's in several areas.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More actual data:
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-t...ckny6AiOhEuL0JVeBu1MGQIrLbkM4IZ868IqcBycID7vo



> As Lawrence Reed has observed, the road to authoritarianism is paved with a “careless, cavalier, and subjective attitude toward truth.” Yet that is precisely what we see with increasing frequency in mass media. (Need I reference the Covington debacle and the Smollet hoax?)
> 
> More than a hundred years ago Mark Twain noted, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People will whine about that and say "They are just children...they don't know any better".
> 
> 
> Bearfootfarm said:
> ...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

It doesn’t seem like Irish American families are that way...at least not mine. Though looking back I can kind of see that as a pattern a few generations ago.
What part of Ireland are you from?


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> It doesn’t seem like Irish American families are that way...at least not mine. Though looking back I can kind of see that as a pattern a few generations ago.
> What part of Ireland are you from?


My grandmother was from Ireland, Black water area. So I'm 25% Irish.

The man I referred to was from a family from Dublin a couple of generations ago.
(I use to be very happy to be invited to their parties because there was always singing and good food)!

My own family on my mother's side sort of went in this direction too. Made for some interesting stories but not a comfortable old age...

Father's side was Welch, English, Irish and a very small % Native American. I think I do have a higher % than Warren though...

Not a pc post, oh well...


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> It doesn’t seem like Irish American families are that way...at least not mine. Though looking back I can kind of see that as a pattern a few generations ago.
> What part of Ireland are you from?



Isn't Moira an Irish name?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

All this fussing and arguing will do absolutely nothing except stir the pot. We don't need thoughts and prayers, we need policy and change. The voting booth will start that change.

This was post 50, nothing was accomplished this entire thread. It is just fodder for those that only post to argue, belittle, and bicker.


Irish Pixie said:


> This situation isn't going to be fixed by arguing on an internet forum, it will be fixed in the voting booth. Every mass killing impacts more and more registered voters. Just sayin'.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> All this fussing and arguing, will do absolutely nothing except stir the pot. We don't need thoughts and prayers, we need policy and change. The voting booth will start that change.
> 
> This was post 50, nothing was accomplished this entire thread. It is just fodder for those that only post to argue, belittle, and bicker.


 Sorry, politicians are not the answer,...……..they are the problem.


PS, nothing was accomplished in this thread, like nothing was accomplished on TV, in the senate etc etc etc,......its all fodder , always has been.....televised debates are televised threads just like this,...fodder for persuasion as they did nothing but type or run mouth on TV

The same nothing that will be accomplished in the voting booth,...….you can`t vote in morality , you can`t vote in motivation,...…….the same as you can`t vote out gluttony, you can vote out greed,.....you can`t vote out immorality.


You can`t vote in compassion, you can`t vote in safety,...etc etc etc


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I thought we were discussing mass shootings and why it seems to be a unique event statistically to this country.


Maybe we need to be comparing mass murder to mass murder and leave the tools out of it?
We get high centered on the method that we fail to look at the cause.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Haven't they (we) all been trying to play a societal role? How has that worked out? I could be snarky, but I really don't have to due to recent events.
> 
> "We the People" will invoke change in the voting booth.


Who are we going to elect to perform this miracle?
The Republicans aren't going to ban guns, that would be illegal, and wouldn't do any good.
The Democrats stand on the bodies of the dead and crow and flap their wings and threaten millions with the theft of their property, but don't do a thing to help anybody.
Who are you going to vote for that will make a lick of difference?
Certainly nobody in office at this time.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe we need to be comparing mass murder to mass murder and leave the tools out of it?
> We get high centered on the method that we fail to look at the cause.


I am fine with comparing mass shootings to mass shootings.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I am fine with comparing mass shootings to mass shootings.


So mass killings only bother you when they are shootings?
The bombs, trucks on sidewalks, planes into buildings, those are all cool as long as there's no guns involved?
You can't actually believe banning guns will save lives?


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe we need to be comparing mass murder to mass murder and leave the tools out of it?
> We get high centered on the method that we fail to look at the cause.


I think this is an excellent point, and I might even take it one step further. Not all mass murders belong in the same discussion. 

For instance, a bomber like Timothy McVeigh probably belongs in the same discussion as the El Paso shooter. But the perpetrators of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre (to use an historical example) are probably part of a different discussion. Which is not to say that one is acceptable while one is not. Just that in mass killings related to criminal enterprises, one can get a clear handle on the motivation and causes. But that doesn't help us explain why these isolated individuals suddenly go off and start shooting up their neighbourhood.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> *So mass killings only bother you when they are shootings?*
> The bombs, trucks on sidewalks, planes into buildings, those are all cool as long as there's no guns involved?
> *You can't actually believe banning guns will save lives*?


Going from point a to Z with no logic in between does not make for a good conversation. I have never said we should ban guns, so there is another point you are going to with no facts to back it up.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Killers aren't going anywhere. They have been around since the beginning of time. We just get fed the news 24 hours a day.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Going from point a to Z with no logic in between does not make for a good conversation. I have never said we should ban guns, so there is another point you are going to with no facts to back it up.


True, I've never heard you say that we should ban guns, but I've heard others say it. Some of them in positions of power. It's a pretty scary thought to me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> True, I've never heard you say that we should ban guns, but I've heard others say it. Some of them in positions of power. It's a pretty scary thought to me.


So? The question was to me and I have never said that so the basis for discussion is flawed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> So? The question was to me and I have never said that so the basis for discussion is flawed.


So I was agreeing with you that we should observe our highest law of the land and not ban guns.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So I was agreeing with you that we should observe our highest law of the land and not ban guns.


There maybe some type of trying a gun ban in the future. I have yet to find a current or former LEO or military who would come to collect them! I know a lot of them. Registrations won't work either because people won't pay attention ....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There will not be a ban on guns in your or my lifetime in the US. I do expect there will be an increase in restrictions on the type of guns and who may own them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Look at the numbers, not the emotion of it. If one put equal fear on death of others, we would have marches in the street and Political debates on how we are going to ban Doctors. In the past 24 hours more than 600 people have died from preventable medical mistakes. Why do we not shake with fear of dying in our doctor's office? Why do we not avoid hospitals with all of our being? There are 1.1 million doctors in the US and some 300 million guns. Should we ban all doctors because some are careless/incompetent? If we find that most of those mistakes are made in surgery, should we just ban surgery? In 2019 there have been less than 200 killed in mass shootings. Doctors will kill more than that by Noon just today!!! Stop being played. Stop letting evil people restrict your natural rights because of the sick acts of a very small number of people.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Look at the numbers, not the emotion of it. If one put equal fear on death of others, we would have marches in the street and Political debates on how we are going to ban Doctors. In the past 24 hours more than 600 people have died from preventable medical mistakes. Why do we not shake with fear of dying in our doctor's office? Why do we not avoid hospitals with all of our being? There are 1.1 million doctors in the US and some 300 million guns. Should we ban all doctors because some are careless/incompetent? If we find that most of those mistakes are made in surgery, should we just ban surgery? In 2019 there have been less than 200 killed in mass shootings. Doctors will kill more than that by Noon just today!!! Stop being played. Stop letting evil people restrict your natural rights because of the sick acts of a very small number of people.


We put restrictions and rules on doctors and that is not the same as someone purposely committing mass murder.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> There will not be a ban on guns in your or my lifetime in the US. I do expect there will be an increase in restrictions on the type of guns and who may own them.


Total bans won't be a one and done thing. Each step we stupidly allow the evil government to take in restricting our rights is one more step to serfdom and authoritarianism.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TripleD said:


> There maybe some type of trying a gun ban in the future. I have yet to find a current or former LEO or military who would come to collect them! I know a lot of them. Registrations won't work either because people won't pay attention ....


I'd really rather not put it to the test. We should just stick to the constitution and not ever infringe on the people's right to bear arms.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> There will not be a ban on guns in your or my lifetime in the US. I do expect there will be an increase in restrictions on the type of guns and who may own them.


Very debatable that the earlier ban had any effect.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> We put restrictions and rules on doctors and that is not the same as someone purposely committing mass murder.


Last I checked, I was restricted from committing mass murder, or, even not so mass murder. Some say that these euphemistically named "common sense gun laws" are like not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowed theater. Well, I am not allowed to shoot up a crowed theater as well. The restrictions are there, written in our volumes of law books. All any more infringement on the 2nd will do is punish the lawful for the acts of the lawless.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> We put restrictions and rules on doctors and that is not the same as someone purposely committing mass murder.


We don't execute doctors for their "mistakes" either. We probably should those who purposely commit mass murders though. In a timely basis and in public.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Total bans won't be a one and done thing. Each step we stupidly allow the evil government to take in restricting our rights is one more step to serfdom and authoritarianism.


It won't really matter. In the end a gun will be of no consequence to future weapons.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> There will not be a ban on guns in your or my lifetime in the US. I do expect there will be an increase in restrictions on the type of guns and who may own them.


That is a ban.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> That is a ban.


As well as another infringement.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> Look at the numbers, not the emotion of it. If one put equal fear on death of others, we would have marches in the street and Political debates on how we are going to ban Doctors. In the past 24 hours more than 600 people have died from preventable medical mistakes. Why do we not shake with fear of dying in our doctor's office? Why do we not avoid hospitals with all of our being? There are 1.1 million doctors in the US and some 300 million guns. Should we ban all doctors because some are careless/incompetent? If we find that most of those mistakes are made in surgery, should we just ban surgery? In 2019 there have been less than 200 killed in mass shootings. Doctors will kill more than that by Noon just today!!! Stop being played. Stop letting evil people restrict your natural rights because of the sick acts of a very small number of people.


Where do I sign up for these marches?! ::grumble grumble:: doctors...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> It won't really matter. In the end a gun will be of no consequence to future weapons.


Which is exactly why our right to keep and bear arms should never be infringed, without the ability to fight back citizens become subjects.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which is exactly why our right to keep and bear arms should never be infringed, without the ability to fight back citizens be come subjects.


It already is. You are not allowed to have all forms of arms.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> It won't really matter. In the end a gun will be of no consequence to future weapons.


And we will have a "right" to those, unless people like you have your way..

You see gun mentioned here? _"*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."*









_


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> It already is. You are not allowed to have all forms of arms.


Exactly! And I am not happy!


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> It already is. You are not allowed to have all forms of arms.


That's interesting what forms is a US citizen not allowed to have?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> That's interesting what forms is a US citizen not allowed to have?


Nuclear Weapon.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> It won't really matter. In the end a gun will be of no consequence to future weapons.


Future weapons? Have you been watching too many movies? Just a fairly common bolt gun can do head shots at 500 yards in the right hands!!!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cabin Fever said:


> That's interesting what forms is a US citizen not allowed to have?


Fully automatic firearms, for starters. Pretty sure you will find tanks and nukes on the list as well. Restrictions are infringements.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

It seems like the left is more interested in lowering mass shooting numbers, but ignores or rarely discusses the total number of murders (of all kinds) in the US. While lowering the mass shooting numbers would be commendable, lowering the total murder numbers would achieve a lot more. If all the mass shootings during the past couple of decades never happened, it would have a very insignificant effect on lowering the total murder rate in the US. The left focuses on the "trees" and doesn't see the "forest."


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fully automatic firearms, for starters. Pretty sure you will find tanks and nukes on the list as well.


US citizens are allowed to have machine guns and tanks.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TripleD said:


> Future weapons? Have you been watching too many movies? Just a fairly common bolt gun can do head shots at 500 yards in the right hands!!!


If you can't get within 500 yards of them and they can still get you, it really won't do you any good.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cabin Fever said:


> US citizens are allowed to have machine guns and tanks.


Without special permits?


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

painterswife said:


> It won't really matter. In the end a gun will be of no consequence to future weapons.


I'm afraid I agree with you. I wonder how long...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

light rain said:


> I'm afraid I agree with you. I wonder how long...


It will become all too obvious, look for complete loss of freedom.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Seems not. We can have discussions about both and they can be separate as well. Trying to shame the left with made-up scenarios does not elevate the conversation. It is a tactic employed to blame instead of work to a solution for both.


There was nothing made up about Hitlers disarming his country, pretty sure the slaughter of millions happened under Stalin too. Look to history, that's what the founders did when they wrote the bill of rights. They understood the need for free citizens to be able to fight back!


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Without special permits?


Yes, you need a permit, but the gubbermint has to have a good reason why not to issue it, consequently when you apply for it you usually get one....unless your a felon, mentally challenged, or have a non-compliant history. I know several individuals who own machine guns, one that owns a tank, and another that owns a howitzer.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There was nothing made up about Hitlers disarming his country, pretty sure the slaughter of millions happened under Stalin too. Look to history, that's what the founders did when they wrote the bill of rights. They understood the need for free citizens to be able to fight back!


Do you personally believe that any citizen should be able to own a nuclear weapon or even a hand grenade?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> Yes, you need a permit, but the gubbermint has to have a good reason why not to issue it, consequently when you apply for it you usually get one....unless your a felon, mentally challenged, or have a non-compliant history. I know several individuals who own machine guns, one that owns a tank, and another that owns a howitzer.


Those are restrictions as I mentioned before.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

My copy of the constitution doesn't mention anything about permits, it does mention "shall not be infringed".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Do you personally believe that any citizen should be able to own a nuclear weapon or even a hand grenade?


Absolutely. Or any other weapon we may need to preserve our freedom from an out of control government. Do you beleive the founding fathers were only concerned about our ability to go duck hunting?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I have heard that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to today's weapons. You know what? That is true. The 2nd amendment never did apply to any weapon, it always has applied to the government. Any government restriction of the right is unconstitutional. That is simply a fact.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

If other rights in the constitution can be restricted then this one can as well.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Cabin Fever said:


> It seems like the left is more interested in lowering mass shooting numbers, but ignores or rarely discusses the total number of murders (of all kinds) in the US. While lowering the mass shooting numbers would be commendable, lowering the total murder numbers would achieve a lot more. If all the mass shootings during the past couple of decades never happened, it would have a very insignificant effect on lowering the total murder rate in the US. The left focuses on the "trees" and doesn't see the "forest."


But with pre-meditated murder within family or friends circle or robbery I think that a lot folks (me inc) feel that those situations did not come out of the blue as opposed to someone is out at a festival or a night club. For instance a woman stays with a violent boyfriend, husband or girlfriend. One murders the other. Usually the were prior instances of violence that motivated the victim to leave or stay and get harmed or killed. Sort of a heads up and the victims could make choices in self defense.

These people out at entertainment venues or shopping for groceries had no option of making choices.
All types of murders should be reduced. They'll never be eliminated. 

Arguing about which murder trumps another one, NO political aspersions cast, is a dog chasing their tail scenerio. 

Parents are failing their children in many ways. Not all, but many. 
Media has become the replacement for God and cultural norms.
Respect of anything has become an abandoned, outmoded philosophy.
It appears the quest for power/control is the prime directive in a lot of the young male lives in the USA. Maybe females too...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> If other rights in the constitution can be restricted then this one can as well.


Agreed... None of our rights should be restricted!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Agreed... None of our rights should be restricted!


Certain religions believe in killing others. Does that mean that their right to follow their religion should not be restricted by our laws against murder?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> If other rights in the constitution can be restricted then this one can as well.


They can't, or, at least they aren't supposed to be. I mean beyond using said right to infringe on the rights of others. (Libel, murder, etc..) My having the weapon(s) of my choice does nothing to infringe on the rights of another.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> They can't, or, at least they aren't supposed to be. I mean beyond using said right to infringe on the rights of others. (Libel, murder, etc..) My having the weapon(s) of my choice does nothing to infringe on the rights of another.


That way of thinking could lead to the incarcerated having the right to have guns in prison or anyone in a school allowed to have a gun with no restriction. Are you still for no restrictions?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Certain religions believe in killing others. Does that mean that their right to follow their religion should not be restricted by our laws against murder?


Should (can) the religion be banned because they hold to that dogma, or, does their rights end where the other persons begin?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Certain religions believe in killing others. Does that mean that their right to follow their religion should not be restricted by our laws against murder?


Nope, anyone can practice their religion as they see fit.... Until it infringes upon the next fellers rights.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That way of thinking could lead to the incarcerated having the right to have guns in prison or anyone in a school allowed to have a gun with no restriction. Are you still for no restrictions?


Prisoners have gone through due process. I carried a gun to school, legally, why should that not be the case for others?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Should (can) the religion be banned because they hold to that dogma,* or, does their rights end where the other persons begin?*


That is a restriction, a good one in my opinion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> That way of thinking could lead to the incarcerated having the right to have guns in prison or anyone in a school allowed to have a gun with no restriction. Are you still for no restrictions?


The incarcerated have forfeited their rights, but you knew that. We are discussing the rights of law abiding, normal citizens, not criminals or the insane. I have no issue with having guns in a school. I carried guns to school regularly, so did many of my classmates.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Prisoners have gone through due process. I carried a gun to school, legally, why should that not be the case for others?


So you believe that anyone in school should have the right to carry a gun? No restrictions? So due process is a restriction you agree with.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That is a restriction, a good one in my opinion.


That is not a restriction on the right to keep an bear arms, or, freedom of religion. I am all for it being illegal to kill my neighbor for no good reason. That has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The incarcerate have forfeited their rights, but you knew that. We are discussing the rights of law abiding, normal citizens, not criminals or the insane.


Do you believe that anyone entering a school should be able to bring in arms? How about a hand grenade?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> So you believe that anyone in school should have the right to carry a gun? No restrictions? So due process is a restriction you agree with.


Due process is a constitutional requirement. Sure, unless and until they demonstrate that they can't handle it and are afforded due process to remove said weapon from them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I am asking these questions because I am trying to understand if those that profess no infringement have any limits they would agree with on that. It seems that you just might, we are just getting to what those limits are.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe that anyone entering a school should be able to bring in arms? How about a hand grenade?


Yep. It should be required as a matter of fact. What better place can they learn about gun safety?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep. It should be required as a matter of fact. How else can they learn about gun safety?


Does that mean you trust the government to teach children about gun safety? Is there a restriction on arms up until they take the course?


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

painterswife said:


> That is a restriction, a good one in my opinion.


That is not a restriction it is a condition You are granted these rights with the CONDITION you recognize and respect the rights granted to others and realize your rights dont supercede theirs .


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I am asking these questions because I am trying to understand if those that profess no infringement have any limits they would agree with on that. It seems that you just might, we are just getting to what those limits are.


Limits within the Constitution. Here is the low down. There should be no restriction on the type/size/number of arms one may possess as long as they are a lawful citizen. They can be restricted on private property from bearing said arms if that is what the property owner wishes. Schools? hard to say. A school is government owned, but, not what one would call "public property" as entry can be and is restricted. When in question, my answer always goes towards more freedom until a compelling, constitutional reason can be given for said restriction.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Does that mean you trust the government to teach children about gun safety? Is there a restriction on arms up until they take the course?


I trust reasonable people to teach gun safety, be that teachers, preachers or parents. No restrictions required.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

D-BOONE said:


> That is not a restriction it is a condition You are granted these rights with the CONDITION you recognize and respect the rights granted to others and realize your rights dont supercede theirs .


Condition, restriction. Same thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Limits within the Constitution. Here is the low down. There should be no restriction on the type/size/number of arms one may possess as long as they are a lawful citizen. They can be restricted on private property from bearing said arms if that is what the property owner wishes. Schools? hard to say. A school is government owned, but, not what one would call "public property" as entry can be and is restricted. When in question, my answer always goes towards more freedom until a compelling, constitutional reason can be given for said restriction.


Thanks. I knew you agree with restrictions. I believe most gun owners do. It is just the level of those restrictions that we are quibbling about.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

light rain said:


> But with pre-meditated murder within family or friends circle or robbery I think that a lot folks (me inc) feel that those situations did not come out of the blue as opposed to someone is out at a festival or a night club. For instance a woman stays with a violent boyfriend, husband or girlfriend. One murders the other. Usually the were prior instances of violence that motivated the victim to leave or stay and get harmed or killed. Sort of a heads up and the victims could make choices in self defense.
> 
> These people out at entertainment venues or shopping for groceries had no option of making choices.
> All types of murders should be reduced. They'll never be eliminated.
> ...


I agree with you. But, the left has a political agenda to restrict and even rescind our 2nd Amendment rights. They are using mass shooting atrocities to support their agenda to restrict firearms. Restricting firearm styles, magazine size, the amount of ammo one can have, etc. will have little effect on the total number of people murdered in the US.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cabin Fever said:


> I agree with you. But, the left has a political agenda to restrict and even rescind our 2nd Amendment rights. They are using mass shooting atrocities to support their agenda to restrict firearms. *Restricting firearm styles, magazine size, the amount of ammo one can have, etc. will have little effect on the total number of people murdered in the US.*[/B]


*i agree.... Until it's the government that decides to do the killing.*


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I just want to say that I am enjoying this conversation and the respect that everyone is giving their fellow HT posters.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Condition, restriction. Same thing.


CONDITION: something you agree to
RESTRICTION: something imposed upon you 
big difference in my opinion


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Thanks. I knew you agree with restrictions. I believe most gun owners do. It is just the level of those restrictions that we are quibbling about.


Like I said, all of our rights end where our neighbors nose begins. There is absolutely no skin of anyone's nose if I own a tank, grenade, rocket launcher, 100 guns of various sizes and uses, and 10,000 rounds of ammo. What I own should never be restricted. Where I take them can only be restricted by those who's rights I would violate by having them on my person. It is a simple, constitutional concept. (Not liking guns alone is not sufficient reason to restrict my rights, owning property, where you wish to keep guns out, is.)


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Going from point a to Z with no logic in between does not make for a good conversation. I have never said we should ban guns, so there is another point you are going to with no facts to back it up.


Then why blame guns for mass killings?
Isn't dead just as dead no matter what the bad guy used?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> So? The question was to me and I have never said that so the basis for discussion is flawed.


Have you ever had a discussion and not spent 3/4 of the time explaining the rules for discussion?
We don't all have to agree with you right?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Nuclear Weapon.


Talk about going zero to a million.
Let's compromise, you can stop us from buying nukes and we'll keep everything else ok?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Talk about going zero to a million.
> Let's compromise, you can stop us from buying nukes and we'll keep everything else ok?


So you are fine with restrictions and like I said it is just the level of restrictions that you have a problem with.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> So you are fine with restrictions and like I said it is just the level of restrictions that you have a problem with.


If it is between outlawing any type of fire arms and letting my neighbor have a nuke. I would go for letting him have a nuke. Freedom is that important.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Not long ago, there was a call for greater gun control in Canada and one of the most realistic solutions came from a teenager. 

He challenged the government to spend the same amount of money on greater gun control to enforce the laws in place and actually keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, rather than further impacting legal and ethical gun owners.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If it is between outlawing any type of fire arms and letting my neighbor have a nuke. I would go for letting him have a nuke. Freedom is that important.


I expect then it would not matter. We would no longer have a place to be free.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wr said:


> Not long ago, there was a call for greater gun control in Canada and one of the most realistic solutions came from a teenager.
> 
> He challenged the government to spend the same amount of money on greater gun control to enforce the laws in place and actually keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, rather than further impacting legal and ethical gun owners.


That is what I don't get about this debate. The knee jerk reaction to the rare events, and they are rare, is to punish lawful citizens. I mean people are killed by drunk drivers all of the time and you almost never hear the cry to take my Bud or my Chevy away.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> Not long ago, there was a call for greater gun control in Canada and one of the most realistic solutions came from a teenager.
> 
> He challenged the government to spend the same amount of money on greater gun control to enforce the laws in place and actually keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, rather than further impacting legal and ethical gun owners.


Canada already has stricter laws and bans purchasing AK weapons.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I expect then it would not matter. We would no longer have a place to be free.


That is what happens when one backs others in a corner and tries to limit their freedom. They leave absolutely no room for actual compromise. In reality, few, if any would have the money and desire to arm themselves with a nuke, but, authoritarians are always about taking a bite here and a bite there into the freedom of others, this makes the more libertarian among us take the opposite extreme.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> That is what happens when one backs others in a corner and tries to limit their freedom. They leave absolutely no room for actual compromise. In reality, few, if any would have the money and desire to arm themselves with a nuke, but, authoritarians are always about taking a bite here and a bite there into the freedom of others, this makes the more libertarian among us take the opposite extreme.


I agree extremes on either side of the argument are not workable. It is the same with the abortion situation. Neither side wants to agree to limits or compromise because they are afraid of losing all their rights. I get it, I agree. I personally believe there should be restrictions of some kind in both situations. I don't mean to take the conversation there, it is just an example used to show that I understand your stance.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I agree extremes on either side of the argument are not workable. It is the same with the abortion situation. Neither side wants to agree to limits or compromise because they are afraid of losing all their rights. I get it, I agree. I personally believe there should be restrictions of some kind in both situations. I don't mean to take the conversation there, it is just an example used to show that I understand your stance.


Now, we must decide on the definition of "extreme".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Now, we must decide on the definition of "extreme".


 Is that possible?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Is that possible?


Probably not.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Do you personally believe that any citizen should be able to own a nuclear weapon or even a hand grenade?


Do you personally think we shouldn't have Modern Sporting Rifles such as the MSR-15? (aka AR-15)
How about an AR-10?
AK-M?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> If other rights in the constitution can be restricted then this one can as well.


Which rights are restricted besides the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe that anyone entering a school should be able to bring in arms? How about a hand grenade?


We used to have guns on school property
What changed?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe that anyone entering a school should be able to bring in arms? How about a hand grenade?


Seems like the bad guys would think twice about attacking a school if it wasn't an easy pickings gun free zone.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I wish politicians and the voters would look at the situation, apply the laws they want passed to the person who committed the crime, and then determine if the perp could still have purchased firearms. In many cases they still would have had legal access to those guns. Those laws would not have made one speck of difference. Why enact laws that would not have made any difference? 

Nuclear weapons are different. If not properly stored they can leak radiation and sicken or kill the neighbors. 100 guns laying in a safe or 200,000 rounds of ammo setting on a shelf have no leaking radiation and cannot harm the neighbors. Even the proverbial gun in the nightstand isn't harming anyone.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> We used to have guns on school property
> What changed?


We did too. I don't remember people specifically bringing them into the school (not sure I would have noticed, honestly), but at least 50-60% of the cars in the parking lot had hunting rifles in them at any given time. I'm talking late '80's, so not that long ago, either.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Thanks. I knew you agree with restrictions. I believe most gun owners do. It is just the level of those restrictions that we are quibbling about.


You are talking infringement.
Why are you all hyped up for the government to violate our rights?
You do know the 2nd was put in place to protect our ability to defend ourselves from the government right?
Do you think women should have to get a background check and a license to vote, then be told they can only vote for certain candidates??
Seems like the same type of violation.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Mish said:


> We did too. I don't remember people specifically bringing them into the school (not sure I would have noticed, honestly), but at least 50-60% of the cars in the parking lot had hunting rifles in them at any given time. I'm talking late '80's, so not that long ago, either.


And we didn't have to worry about some gang banger breaking in and stealing it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> You are talking infringement.
> Why are you all hyped up for the government to violate our rights?
> You do know the 2nd was put in place to protect our ability to defend ourselves from the government right?
> Do you think women should have to get a background check and a license to vote, then be told they can only vote for certain candidates??
> Seems like the same type of violation.


Like I have already said. It is the level of restriction that we are discussing. We already restrict voting by age and at one time women and people of color were restricted from voting.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> We used to have guns on school property
> What changed?


My kids high school in Idaho does, or did up to when my youngest graduated in 2013, anyway. Hunting rifles in racks in pickups and anyone lucky enough to take a moose or bull elk stopped by the school to show it off on the way back from hunting camp with guns in their racks.
The junior high still hosts a gun show every year.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Current gun possession laws for schools.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/guns-in-schools-state-by-state/


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Current gun possession laws for schools.
> 
> https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/guns-in-schools-state-by-state/


I’ll bet there are plenty of student’s guns that wander onto your local high school campus during hunting season too. Rural west and all.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Micheal said:


> he/she is mentally unstable and in need of help!


Careful,


Careful.... someone might misconstrue this to mean that if people are "helped" the shootings stop. That would require everyone to want to be helped and there is some version of help that stops evil.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> I’ll bet there are plenty of student’s guns that wander onto your local high school campus during hunting season too. Rural west and all.


It is in the school handbook not to do that. They speak directly to the idea that recreational activities may involve weapons but that is no excuse for breaking the rules and students can not bring weapons onto the grounds. Violation of this rule can result in up to a year of expulsion.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Violation of this rule can result in up to a year of expulsion.


I simply wonder if one, bent on killing as many of his classmates as possible, would care? In the early 90's we had the same "bring your rifle to school, but, leave it in your truck" rule as well. We had no shootings, but several fist fights.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I simply wonder if one, bent on killing as many of his classmates as possible, would care? In the early 90's we had the same "bring your rifle to school, but, leave it in your truck" rule as well. We had no shootings, but several fist fights.


Times do change. My high school did not allow guns but then a broken bottle or a knife was the weapon of choice if you wanted to really wound someone. It was about the individual not about a group of people you might or might not know.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Farmerga said:


> I simply wonder if one, bent on killing as many of his classmates as possible, would care? In the early 90's we had the same "bring your rifle to school, but, leave it in your truck" rule as well. We had no shootings, but several fist fights.


Yeah, that's the issue. It's not the kids who have weapons used to hunt and follow all the rules that are the problem. 

Husband was just telling me they were debating the whole "making mass shootings a capital crime" thing at work. He couldn't believe that people thought that would be a deterrent, seeing as most of these guys go into it expecting to not come out alive, anyway. 

More laws for the sake of "doing something" that do nothing practical or useful.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I expect then it would not matter. We would no longer have a place to be free.


Our government has nukes, some of our allies have nukes, some other not so friendly governments have nukes, and yet we still have a place. Could it be that the nukes are not the problem?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Our government has nukes, some of our allies have nukes, some other not so friendly governments have nukes, and yet we still have a place. Could t be that the nukes are not the problem?


A big difference between the number of people in the government needed to detonate a nuke and have the person down the street in control of one.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Times do change. My high school did not allow guns but then a broken bottle or a knife was the weapon of choice if you wanted to really wound someone. It was about the individual not about a group of people you might or might not know.


I remember several knock down drag out fights but, no one ever pulled any type of weapon and we all carried knives.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> It is in the school handbook not to do that. They speak directly to the idea that recreational activities may involve weapons but that is no excuse for breaking the rules and students can not bring weapons onto the grounds. Violation of this rule can result in up to a year of expulsion.


What’s in the school handbook may not be what’s in practice here in the mountain west. Maybe you’d better start patrolling the parking lot during hunting season.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> A big difference between the number of people in the government needed to detonate a nuke and have the person down the street in control of one.


All it takes is one. At least that's what I've heard about Trump.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you were *truly* concerned about needless deaths you'd push for a ban on alcohol.


The 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919, and it was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. Banning alcohol didn't work then, and it's unlikely to work now.

It did, however, prove conclusively that a Constitutional Amendment can be repealed.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Mish said:


> We did too. I don't remember people specifically bringing them into the school (not sure I would have noticed, honestly), but at least 50-60% of the cars in the parking lot had hunting rifles in them at any given time. I'm talking late '80's, so not that long ago, either.


We did also in the middle 80's. We would shoot ducks before school. The assistant principal made it a point to stop by and look in the cooler to see how we did. He would even look at and handle a new shotgun if one of us had one to see if he liked it. Shotguns and duck loads were left in the vehicles all day.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919, and it was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. *Banning alcohol didn't work* then, and it's unlikely to work now.


Gun control has never worked either.
That changes nothing about what I said though.
The little civics and history lesson is a diversion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The GunFree School Zones Act of 1990 made it a federal crime to have guns on school property.

"The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.[4]

Although the amended GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several federal Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v. Dorsey,[5] the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In Dorsey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised version of the law. A 2000 ruling made by the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Tait overturned a conviction for firearm possession in a school zone because the defendant was licensed to do so by the state in which the school zone is located.

Convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zones Act include:"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> We put restrictions and rules on doctors and that is not the same as someone purposely committing mass murder.


*What law* would have prevented these shootings?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I am not sure this thread is still pondering the "whys" of the shooting. I will act like it is.

I had posted a quote from a 20th century philosopher saying that violence is sometimes a symptom of the powerless striking out. I still think there is something to that.

To add to that, I just came across a 2014 WaPo article talking about the growing nihilism in the US. I think there is something to that too, and mass shooting, and violence may be a manifestation of that. I still contend this is an unsolvable problem in our current culture shift.

_Loss of Confidence
Confidence is also at a historic low when it comes to organized religion (45 percent), the Supreme Court (30 percent), public schools (26 percent), newspapers (22 percent) and TV news (18 percent). And it's within a few points of an all-time low when it comes to banks (26 percent), organized labor (22 percent), the presidency (29 percent), the police (53 percent), the medical system (34 percent) and big business (21 percent).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...merican-people-are-slowly-becoming-nihilists/_​


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Very debatable that the earlier ban had any effect.


It had no effect at all.
At the time it was implemented, "assault weapons" were only used in 0.004% of crimes.
It was all about the agenda, just as it is today.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> The GunFree School Zones Act of 1990 made it a federal crime to have guns on school property.
> 
> "The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.[4]
> 
> ...


Like I said, it was happening at our school as late as 2013. People in these areas have been showing off their trophies since forever, and usually the staff and school board doesn’t mind. You can always start patrolling. 
Should go over well with the locals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The GunFree School Zones Act of 1990 made it a federal crime to have guns on school property.


It was repealed.
It also did nothing to stop criminals.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I am not sure this thread is still pondering the "whys" of the shooting. I will act like it is.
> 
> I had posted a quote from a 20th century philosopher saying that violence is sometimes a symptom of the powerless striking out. I still think there is something to that.
> 
> ...


I can agree to that premise. The problem is that powerlessness is most often in their mind and not a reality.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I can agree to that premise. The problem is that powerlessness is most often in their mind and not a reality.


I think the point is they overcome their feelings of powerlessness by violence. 

How could one have power if they feel they have no power?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fully automatic firearms, for starters.


Full auto is legal with the proper paperwork and taxes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I think the point is they overcome their feelings of powerlessness by violence.
> 
> How could one have power if they feel they have no power?


Everyone has some level of power. They have the power to walk away for one.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Everyone has some level of power. They have the power to walk away for one.


Not the choice they made


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

painterswife said:


> The GunFree School Zones Act of 1990 made it a federal crime to have guns on school property.
> 
> "The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.[4]
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> It was repealed.
> It also did nothing to stop criminals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Canada already has stricter laws and bans purchasing AK weapons.


And they still have mass shootings.
Imagine that...


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Cabin Fever said:


> I agree with you. But, the left has a political agenda to restrict and even rescind our 2nd Amendment rights. They are using mass shooting atrocities to support their agenda to restrict firearms. Restricting firearm styles, magazine size, the amount of ammo one can have, etc. will have little effect on the total number of people murdered in the US.


I agree with what you say too. Chicago is an example of this...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Cabin Fever said: ↑
> I agree with you. But, t*he left has a political agenda* to restrict and even rescind our 2nd Amendment rights. They are using mass shooting atrocities to support their agenda to restrict firearms. Restricting firearm styles, magazine size, the amount of ammo one can have, etc. will have little effect on the total number of people murdered in the US.


Exactly.
They don't really care about "deaths".
If they did they'd be wanting more restrictions on alcohol and more *armed* security everywhere else.

It's well documented a rapid armed response is the best solution to mass murderers.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I am not sure this thread is still pondering the "whys" of the shooting. I will act like it is.
> 
> I had posted a quote from a 20th century philosopher saying that violence is sometimes a symptom of the powerless striking out. I still think there is something to that.
> 
> ...



I hope you are wrong... 
I wonder why the thread shifted away from "why" to "my way or the highway"...
*had to look up nihilism to make sure I grasped the concept. Not a rosy picture if accurate.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

light rain said:


> I hope you are wrong...
> I wonder why the thread shifted away from "why" to "my way or the highway"...
> *had to look up nihilism to make sure I grasped the concept. Not a rosy picture if accurate.


I hope and pray I am wrong too.

We, as a country, have strayed from the path, to the point we don't know where it is any longer.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Discussion has by far exceeded GC limits and members may want to review the rule on hot button subjects. Gun control certainly falls under that category.


----------

