Trump: Fix 'Massive Problem' of Mentally Ill, Let Gun Owners Be

[Cygnus]

And how many of the mass shooters have already gotten "help"?

(were on psych drugs or just quit taking them)????

Maybe the help is worse than not helping.

Problem is cultural. People don't care about others, or themselves.........or what happens in an afterlife.

Everybody has a friggin' excuse.

IMHO the liberal media has pushed this crap, by pushing their agenda and sensationalizing such events (if just for ratings).
Poetic justice........??? Reporter shot by reporter on live TV ??

Sure looks like the media had a hell of a lot to do with the development of that monster.

Look at how another monster kills a bunch of church goers and the media goes after flags, people talk of digging up Civil War generals and taking down monuments..........but this monster kills folks on TV and all the media says is he needed help.

Saw one idiot on Fox tell the show's host that this wasn't a hate crime, was just workplace violence.

The world has gone insane.

Alot of good points here. The effect of the media coverage and sensationalism provides a powerful "model" for what happens when this evil/crazy/breathing all the good air a-holes do their killing.
They become famous, their greivences are aired, their ramblings are published at least in part. In short their behavior is rewarded. Fro some that is enough, even if they feel it will be posthumously.
So I agree we should not mention their names.
Additionally the killer's families do not deserve the same level of privacy that the victimes families do. Like this a-hole from Virginia. His family asked ofr provacy. Sure, just let us know that you realized he was effed long ago and you tried.

 

[jamil]

I see no problem with snuffing the openly guilty.
By all means have a trial first.
Bringing up Ferguson and mobs..........uh, even the initial evidence suggested a righteous shoot.
So I don't see how that even applies.

The SOB that blew up the Boston Marathon, the shooters at Charleston and Aurora............be done with them.

Indy Star reports the guy that turned witness on the Carmel home invasion says "he wasn't that kind of kid". Excuses.
Drugs...........excuses. He gets 70 yrs?

He should get 70 cents worth of CCI.

At most.

Even at today's prices, it's probably more than enough.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Also, people don't seem to be able to parse the truth, and it is not so much because they are immoral--it's partly that--but because they lack the skills. And they are attracted to shiny objects. For example, Trump is probably every bit as immoral as any candidate in the race. But he is a shiny object.

Another character flaw in people, which isn't really so much immoral, is that they want so much to be seen as being on the "good" side, that they take the side that they perceive everyone else is on. Makes them very vulnerable to Alinsky style, pile-on mob-shaming. I have watched our nation shift sharply to the left in just a few years.

Much with which to agree, with a caveat or two. Most people today are the product of an educational system that told them what to think rather than teaching them how to think. This coupled with an economic environment which does not afford time for most people to reflect on life leaves us with a population which generally does not get past the effort to fulfill its inclinations toward eating regularly, living indoors, and getting laid once in a while. Trump started out as a shiny thing. He may not be my idea of the just right candidate, but has shown much more substance than many others. His morals may not be too close to my own, but the same could be said for most in the arena with the significant difference that he sees no need to make a pretense to the contrary. Quite frankly, shortcomings and all, among those demonstrating a realistic chance, his answers seem more workable than anyone else's. At the end of the day, I would rather have a flawed man leading us in the right general direction than a domestic enemy purposefully leading us to the destruction of the republic.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The preamble to the constitution

Which does not grant any powers or authority to the Fed govt.

 

[BugI02]

Did this guy have a paper trail proving his psychosis? If we use this case to say the proposed restrictions on guns wouldn't have prevented this, we have to admit that the psychosis paper trail wouldn't have prevented it either. People fall through the cracks. Finding all of them, or even most of them would necessarily impose a lot of things on everyone else.

Plus, once a scale is on the books its too easy to move the underlying parameters. To use an example I've mentioned before, you could end up with something like the no fly list; where you're on it, no one will tell you why, but your 2A rights are curtailed or abrogated without recourse. If a soon to be ex-wife cherry picks a bunch of quotes on INGO and says 'see, he really is a crazed gun nut and I fear for my safety' should it be possible to restrict gun ownership? I know of cases where this already happens in divorce proceedings where the soon to be ex wishes to put pressure on the other half during settlement or when outright animosity overcomes any common sense.


ETA: Last sentence NOT referring specifically to the cherry-picking of INGO quotes, just to be clear.

 

[Twangbanger]

So, we've got the father of the Virginia reporter combining forces with the Gabby Giffords people - video interview with the girl's father & apparent would-be next Sarah Brady:

Father of slain journalist vows to fight for gun control

There's a number of notable things in the video. First, I'll go out on a limb from his comment in the beginning of the video, and assume he's a Fox News-hater. So there's that - he's probably liberal. And therefore, perfect for the position. Second, when invited to elaborate on which gun laws might have prevented his daughter's death, he locks up and redirects the conversation elsewhere. Then, he invokes the California law, presumably the one where they come looking for people adjudicated "non-proper," and take their existing guns away (which leads toward the question - where was the paper trail on Vester?).

Because he's still in the grieving state, he (the father - ed.) gets no tough questions - only free publicity. (And he won't be the last).

But anyway, my purpose was not to dissect the father's logical errors one by one. It's just to point out that this stuff is never going to stop, and much as we'd like to believe the do-nothing approach will hold, people are going to eventually get sick of this and demand something be done. My fear is that if we're not open to some mechanism for the singling-out of disturbed people, and restraining them and limiting their freedoms, then the next lower piece of fruit the Mob will try to pick off the tree will be to single out gun-purchasers a state-by-state basis, in ways we won't like.

When that day comes, I sure hope "the public" are amenable to INGO arguments about transforming society into some sort of hippie religious commune where everybody takes responsibility for policing themselves and their circle of acquaintances, impeccable standards of character are practiced, and the government is allowed to do nothing. We'd best get cracking on that.

 

[jamil]

So, we've got the father of the Virginia reporter combining forces with the Gabby Giffords people - video interview with the girl's father & apparent would-be next Sarah Brady:

Father of slain journalist vows to fight for gun control

There's a number of notable things in the video. First, I'll go out on a limb from his comment in the beginning of the video, and assume he's a Fox News-hater. So there's that - he's probably liberal. And therefore, perfect for the position. Second, when invited to elaborate on which gun laws might have prevented his daughter's death, he locks up and redirects the conversation elsewhere. Then, he invokes the California law, presumably the one where they come looking for people adjudicated "non-proper," and take their existing guns away (which leads toward the question - where was the paper trail on Vester?).

Because he's still in the grieving state, he gets no tough questions - only free publicity. (And he won't be the last).

But anyway, my purpose was not to dissect the father's logical errors one by one. It's just to point out that this stuff is never going to stop, and much as we'd like to believe the do-nothing approach will hold, people are going to eventually get sick of this and demand something be done. My fear is that if we're not open to some mechanism for the singling-out of disturbed people, and restraining them and limiting their freedoms, then the next lower piece of fruit the Mob will try to pick off the tree will be to single out gun-purchasers a state-by-state basis, in ways we won't like.

When that day comes, I sure hope "the public" are amenable to INGO arguments about transforming society into some sort of hippie religious commune where everybody takes responsibility for policing themselves and their circle of acquaintances, impeccable standards of character are practiced, and the government is allowed to do nothing. We'd best get cracking on that.

Is this one of those, "if we don't give them something they'll take something worse" arguments? Because it sounds an awful lot like that. Okayfine. So let's say we give them that. They get to say mental disorders, depression, anxiety, anorexia, post partum depression, PTSD, whatever, disqualifies a person from 2A rights. Not long after they spike the football, the very next shooting will happen. Oops, we didn't go far enough we need to enact more common sense gun control.

Will you be right back saying if we don't give them something, they'll take something worse? No, no. To the gun control lobby I'd rather stick with the tried and true, "**** YOU!"

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So, we've got the father of the Virginia reporter combining forces with the Gabby Giffords people - video interview with the girl's father & apparent would-be next Sarah Brady:

Father of slain journalist vows to fight for gun control

Here is her Mom.
Slain journalist's mom: 'We cannot be intimidated'

"What some people perceive as their Constitutional right". Some people such as SCOTUS and the founding fathers?

 

[jamil]

Here is her Mom.
Slain journalist's mom: 'We cannot be intimidated'

"What some people perceive as their Constitutional right". Some people such as SCOTUS and the founding fathers?

It was a crazy SJW nutter that killed her daughter. Why not be mad at crazy SJW nutters?

 

[Twangbanger]

Is this one of those, "if we don't give them something they'll take something worse" arguments? Because it sounds an awful lot like that. Okayfine. So let's say we give them that. They get to say mental disorders, depression, anxiety, anorexia, post partum depression, PTSD, whatever, disqualifies a person from 2A rights. Not long after they spike the football, the very next shooting will happen. Oops, we didn't go far enough we need to enact more common sense gun control.

Will you be right back saying if we don't give them something, they'll take something worse? No, no. To the gun control lobby I'd rather stick with the tried and true, "**** YOU!"

It's not a "Locking crazies up is the right thing to do, because tossing the antis a bone will keep them from coming after guns" argument.

It's a "Locking crazies up is the right thing to do" argument.

(Ed.) - And as an aside - it would be a non-sequitur, anyway, because I don't really think the antis want crazies locked up; they want a rubber-padded gun-free society so the wackjobs can be left to roam around at will. I want the opposite. I want the non-hackers locked up, so the rest of us can have all the guns we want.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's not a "Locking crazies up is the right thing to do because it will keep them from coming after guns" argument.

It's a "Locking crazies up is the right thing to do" argument.

Define "crazy".

Oh, and please, for the moment, let's leave this question specifically to Twangbanger. I want to know what he thinks is the definition.

 

[jamil]

It's not a "Locking crazies up is the right thing to do because it will keep them from coming after guns" argument.

It's a "Locking crazies up is the right thing to do" argument.

Hey, lock the crazies up. I'm all for it. Due process. Yep he's a danger to himself and others. Lock him up. You can do that now. There is a legal process to have someone committed.

 

[churchmouse]

Define "crazy".

Oh, and please, for the moment, let's leave this question specifically to Twangbanger. I want to know what he thinks is the definition.

OK....glad I read that part.

 

[Twangbanger]

Define "crazy".

Oh, and please, for the moment, let's leave this question specifically to Twangbanger. I want to know what he thinks is the definition.

Now Bill, you know better than that. I'm not a Psychiatrist, and even if you could prove to the whole world that that there Twangbanger doesn't know a whit about what makes people crazy, it still wouldn't invalidate my argument. Do you believe it is possible for there to be a definition? If the answer is no...if your position is that nobody is qualified to sit in judgement in that capacity...that it isn't for anybody to say...then there's nothing for us to talk about. (Is that your position?)

Simply put, I want people like the Aurora dweeb locked up. They were free because nobody seems to be paying attention.

 

[jamil]

Do you believe it is possible for there to be a definition? If the answer is no, there's nothing for us to talk about. I'm not a Psychiatrist. I want people like the Aurora dweeb locked up. They were free because nobody seems to pay attention.

As I said, there's already a process for doing that. Apparently people noticed enough to think he seemed a bit weird. Should every weird person be subject to locking up? There are a lot of harmless weird people out there. Should I not stick up for their rights just because I'm not weird? Stop that. No. I'm not weird. And aim that boner drone somewhere else.

 

[churchmouse]

There have been paper trails on several of the last crop of idiots. People knew. Nothing was done.

 

[jamil]

There have been paper trails on several of the last crop of idiots. People knew. Nothing was done.

What should have been done? The right wing theater shooter dude was pretty nutty. Not clinically insane but certainly a nutter paper trail.

So if you're going to lock these people up, what criteria would you use to lock him up and not lock up the masses of people might talk like him, but wouldn't hurt anyone? Just make sure INGO survives your criteria.

 

[Cygnus]

Did any of you see the husband of the woman who survived. I saw him on CNN a day or two after the attack and he said "I don't blame the gun. You can't blame an object. I blame the person behind the gun "
Or pretty close to what I just put in quotes.....
Where is all his press and backing?

 

[Twangbanger]

...Just make sure INGO survives your criteria.

Um......don't worry, Jamil. In my imperial magnanimity, I'll make a carve-out, just for you.

But Steve H. better start looking for a nice chess set, lol.

(There might be a couple new Moderator openings, too...make sure you check the "Who Got Committed" thread regularly).

 

[churchmouse]

What should have been done? The right wing theater shooter dude was pretty nutty. Not clinically insane but certainly a nutter paper trail.

So if you're going to lock these people up, what criteria would you use to lock him up and not lock up the masses of people might talk like him, but wouldn't hurt anyone? Just make sure INGO survives your criteria.

That is a serious question and the answers can carry some heavy ramifications.