Kindergarten Cops?

[dogs4thewin]

I remember this, or stories from relatives/ neighbors... farmers... etc etc etc ....
Cover up ? all of the school shootings I looked into a few years ago, every one of them for a few years when they were first in the news,
were admittedly associated with bigfarma drugs... they were on or had come off of drugs.

and in most cases such people are not supposed to have guns anyway. I will admit that until the last 20ish years social media was not big that meant that in general ( unless it was a huge deal people did not hear about things unless it was fairly local.

 

[probinson]

So parents do make a difference.

Agreed.

However, what you quoted was not referring to parents. It was talking about "responsible gun owners", which Fantine said were to blame for school shootings because they are selfish and value guns more than children. This is a highly incendiary and offensive statement which is not at all conducive to a productive conversation about guns.

 

[Fantine]

Interesting that politicians who want no gun laws are also opposed to universal health care which would give mentally ill people the treatment and meds they need.
If they are good people (I'm not sure that's possible) they either need to treat the mentally ill or restrict the guns.
No way do they care, no matter how many insincere prayers they say.
And guns were far from universal in the twentieth century. In the NYC suburbs, no one owned guns. Yes, in rural red states there was "gun culture." In metro NY we got our culture from museums, live theater, symphonies and ballets.

 

[Aaron112]

However, what you quoted was not referring to parents. It was talking about "responsible gun owners", which Fantine said were to blame for school shootings because they are selfish and value guns more than children. This is a highly incendiary and offensive statement which is not at all conducive to a productive conversation about guns.

I don't think the parents even if gun owners were knowing the effects the drug/medicine their sons were on - it was universally covered up as much as possible except for small print warnings that taking the medicine could cause disasters in the brain/ health/ lives ....

 

[dogs4thewin]

Interesting that politicians who want no gun laws are also opposed to universal health care which would give mentally ill people the treatment and meds they need.
If they are good people (I'm not sure that's possible) they either need to treat the mentally ill or restrict the guns.
No way do they care, no matter how many insincere prayers they say.
And guns were far from universal in the twentieth century. In the NYC suburbs, no one owned guns. Yes, in rural red states there was "gun culture." In metro NY we got our culture from museums, live theater, symphonies and ballets.

There ARE gun laws and in fact if they were ACTUALLY enforced we might be in a better position. Here I am talking mainly about the enhanincments that come with using a gun to commit a crime in most states that are often plea bargained down to avoid the resources it would take to take such a serious case to trial.

 

[Pommer]

Agreed.

However, what you quoted was not referring to parents. It was talking about "responsible gun owners", which Fantine said were to blame for school shootings because they are selfish and value guns more than children. This is a highly incendiary and offensive statement which is not at all conducive to a productive conversation about guns.

How many “responsible gun owners” go on shoot-em-up-rampage?
Zero, that’s right.
The problem, then, as it sets itself before us is,
“How can we better identify ‘irresponsible gun-owners’ before they pull the trigger, without trampling on ‘responsible gun-owners’ rights!?”

Any legislation proposed is likely to be rejected in a knee-jerk fashion, (not that that is a “bad thing”, necessarily); and that’s going to get in the way of finding the answer to our query above.

 

[Pommer]

Our rights will never be truly secure as long as rogue prosecutors are more interested in coddling criminals than in protecting the public.

Four Reasons for the Crime Increase

The entirety of the American system of government rests on two very simple yet profound premises—that every human being is endowed by our Creator with natural and unalienable rights, and that the only just end of government is to secure these rights for its citizens. Unfortunately, far too...

www.heritage.org

Maybe we need a “Gun court” to deal with all manner of gun-related charges?
I’d watch the TV show that this would spawn.

 

[Pommer]

It is a very interesting read and describes a lot of the wrong thinking some people have.

Pithy, could you maybe take the time to tell me what pushed this out of your fingers?
Just saying whelp, there’s another wrong opinion, doesn’t convey what the “wrong thinking” is.
I’m left to guess, but I tend to get “talked-to” by the constabulary when I do, so I’m laying off of guessing for a while.

 

[probinson]

“How can we better identify ‘irresponsible gun-owners’ before they pull the trigger, without trampling on ‘responsible gun-owners’ rights!?”

This acknowledges that there are two different types of gun owners, which is critical to having any kind of productive discussion on this topic. There are, unfortunately, people that think that there is only one type of gun owner, and that simply owning a gun is "probably a sign of some severe mental deviation".

 

[Pommer]

This acknowledges that there are two different types of gun owners, which is critical to having any kind of productive discussion on this topic. There are, unfortunately, people that think that there is only one type of gun owner, and that simply owning a gun is "probably a sign of some severe mental deviation".

Way to move the thread forward.
How do we keep guns out of the hands of kooks while letting Uncle Andy hold onto his 300 Ar-15’s?

 

[RDKirk]

When there is an overabundance of weapons in this country (more than one per person), open gun sales, no need for licensing, etc. guns are far too easy to obtain.

And now people can make their own on 3-D printers and that, too, has failed to be regulated.

And so yes. It is the selfishness of what you term 'responsible' gun owners, especially if you are dues-paying members of the NRA, who opposes (with lots of money) every single proposal to make our country and our children safer.

They think everyone--the crazy, the impaired, the alcoholics and addicted, the paranoiacs--should have guns. Their thoughts and prayers are basically "God, give us enough money to overwhelm the voices of common sense in the U.S."

It's debatable whether those measures would actually be practicable and effective.

But guns have always been as accessible in America as now, and were even more accessible when I was a kid.

So, it's not access to guns that is different now from, say, 50 years ago. What is different? Why not explore that question?

 

[RDKirk]

We have evidence from hundreds of other countries showing that the sheer quantities and types of assault weapons that are available and 110% unregulated on American soil are the principal reason for the danger our children are in.

There are only two possible reasons why Americans live in greater peril and danger than people in other developed nations--either because of the numbers, dangerous styles, and lack of regulation of guns in America--or because Americans are by nature more violent, more criminal, more aggressive, and less caring than those in other countries.

So which is it?

I think it's the availability and lack of regulation. I do believe that Americans are also more individualistic and selfish than residents of other nations, due to our shredded (or non-existent) social safety net and the resultant desperation and isolation.

I think it's because Americans today are more violent, more crimnal, more aggressive, and less caring than other countries.

Look, for instance, at the resistance to national health care. Look at the level of crime and violence even absent of gun violence. Look at the level of road rage even absent of gun violence.

When I was a kid, the main point of discussion any adult had with a kid was: "What are you going to be when you grow up?" I got that constantly. If a random adult on the street spoke to me at all, it was to ask, "What are you going to be when you grow up?"

That question makes two points: A. We expect you to grow up and be something. B. The choice is yours to make...so make it. Even if you change your mind numerous times, at least have a goal.

Most of these school shooters are young men (or in one case, a young woman who considered herself a man). Eighteen years old, particularly in a young man's life, is a point of extreme emotional stress in the US. It's the point that someone who has been treated as a child all his life is suddenly treated as an adult.

We can get more into the myriad details, but it's a psychological live-or-die point for many young men if they hadn't already been tracked into a lifetime goal by careful parental and social management of expectations and capabilities.

Eighteen is a point of zero stability for--I'd say now--the majority of young men. Remember most young men in the US are not headed for college and have not been trained for anything else, nor have they been guided into a path toward any particular useful life. It's the point that many young men get gobsmacked by the fact that they are not prepared to live.

If we create an America that gets 18-year-old young men safely past this point, we will have substantially improved the situation. But in actually, America cares nothing about 18-year-old men today.

That's where we have a major problem right now. There was never any real plan or place or expectation for young men like Salvador Ramos. In this case, it was Orlando Harris who wrote of himsel: "I don't have any friends, I don't have any family, I've never had a girlfriend, I've never had a social life." Harris called himself an "isolated loner," and a "perfect storm for a mass shooter."

America is a tough country to live in. There is opportunity for great success, but the chances of terrible failure are far, far greater. The definition of "success" is far more narrow in America, and the definition of "failure" in America is far more broad.

America is more dog-eat-dog than any Western industrialized nation, a social Darwinism of "only the most fit will survive." A whole lot of people are a paycheck away from homelessness, or one doctor visit away from bankruptcy. Many--if not most--Americans are at some level of constant despair that what they have is perishable and what they want is unattainable.

We have few social safety nets, and half the population wants to snatch even those away.

We eschew connectedness and pursue separateness. We sneer at "it takes a village" and praise "you're on your own."

There is a grimness, a hardness, a callousness, a despair to life in America unlike other Western countries...unlike almost any other countries.

And that's going to lead to more mental health problems, more rage, more addiction, more suicides, and more homicides. American life makes people crazy. We've built the country to be this way.

 

[RDKirk]

Interesting that politicians who want no gun laws are also opposed to universal health care which would give mentally ill people the treatment and meds they need.
If they are good people (I'm not sure that's possible) they either need to treat the mentally ill or restrict the guns.
No way do they care, no matter how many insincere prayers they say.
And guns were far from universal in the twentieth century. In the NYC suburbs, no one owned guns. Yes, in rural red states there was "gun culture." In metro NY we got our culture from museums, live theater, symphonies and ballets.

NYC is a very small and arguably secluded part of larger America. And you talk as though Vermont didn't exist.

 

[probinson]

How do we keep guns out of the hands of kooks while letting Uncle Andy hold onto his 300 Ar-15’s?

Oh hyperbole. Always exposing the truth.

This is the million dollar question, isn't it? There is always a tradeoff between security and liberty. The real question is, how much of your liberty are you willing to surrender in the name of "security"?

As 9/11 and COVID showed us, many people are willing, nay, EAGER to surrender their liberties if it provides them with a greater feeling of security. But that "security" is mostly an illusion. Taking off your shoes in the security line at the airport doesn't make your flight any more secure. It's just theater that makes people feel better. And that's the problem with most gun regulation proposals. They would not actually do anything to improve the security of people. All it would do is give the government another stage in which to perform theater to infringe upon people's liberties to enable people to pretend that they're somehow "safer".

I've learned, particularly these last 3 years, that most people just want to DO SOMETHING!, and they aren't really all that interested in understanding if the something they're doing is actually beneficial. Just the act of "doing something" makes them "feel" better and that's what most people are looking for; a feeling of "security". But as Benjamin Franklin said in 1755 and repeated again in 1775;

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."​

Sadly, few people seem to understand the gravity of this statement. When you allow the government to step in to make you "safer" at the cost of your liberty, you deserve neither and you are effectively surrendering both. You can be sure that the government is nothing if not opportunistic, and they will happily take your request to infringe upon your liberty and run with it.

This is why I am leery of regulations in general. Almost all regulations sound good on the surface, but you can bet your bottom dollar that some corrupt, opportunistic politician is going to take advantage of your desire to feel "safer". They'll do things that create an illusion of safety. And people in their fears will breathe a sigh of relief, even though they're no safer than they were before the regulation and have lost just a bit more of their liberty in the process.

 

[Fantine]

NYC is a very small and arguably secluded part of larger America. And you talk as though Vermont didn't exist.

Vermont is a very Democratic state. Democratic gun ownership is at 15%.
Maine maybe.
But unlike the South, gun owners in the east aren't saying they keep guns "in case the government oversteps its bounds." The 1/6 insurrectionists have many sympathizers who believe government overstepped its bounds when Biden won a fair election by 8 million votes. These gun owners are dangerous and unhinged and need to he told again and again that is not how democracy works.

 

[High Fidelity]

universal background checks, waiting periods, and mental health screening in order for someone get a gun

These aren’t mandatory?!

 

[RDKirk]

Vermont is a very Democratic state. Democratic gun ownership is at 15%.
Maine maybe.
But unlike the South, gun owners in the east aren't saying they keep guns "in case the government oversteps its bounds." The 1/6 insurrectionists have many sympathizers who believe government overstepped its bounds when Biden won a fair election by 8 million votes. These gun owners are dangerous and unhinged and need to he told again and again that is not how democracy works.

Most people in the south, and most gun owners, didn't go to Washington that day.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Vermont is a very Democratic state. Democratic gun ownership is at 15%.
Maine maybe.
But unlike the South, gun owners in the east aren't saying they keep guns "in case the government oversteps its bounds." The 1/6 insurrectionists have many sympathizers who believe government overstepped its bounds when Biden won a fair election by 8 million votes. These gun owners are dangerous and unhinged and need to he told again and again that is not how democracy works.

Well yes you are going to have dangerous people, but if someone is dangerous enough they will find a way to either get a gun or some other tool. There are millions of gun owners in this country if they were the problem you sure as heck would know it. There would be a LOT more shootings if even a 5% of the people with guns were violent with them.


I think probably the best tool is the old see something say something

I cannot help, but notice that in many seemingly "random" shootings that is those that do not involve other crimes or gangs oftentimes the people connected with the suspects will say after the fact basically we are not at all shocked or we saw this coming. I have also read several storied where a planned shooting was stopped because someone had the nerve to speak up

 

[dogs4thewin]

These aren’t mandatory?!

no, not on the federal level now several states have the background checks (which sometimes includes mental health screening but that is on the state

 

[ThatRobGuy]

These aren’t mandatory?!

The first 2 are in some states...I'm not aware of any states that have mandated mental health screening.

The only mental health requirements on the background checks are
"you can't have been adjudicated mentally defective/incompetent by a judges"
"you can't have been involuntarily institutionalized"

But that's pretty weak since there's a very large middle ground on the mental health spectrum between sane and competent, and "so unstable that a judge had to order you to a facility against your will"