I'd rather have freedom and take he risk that freedoms brings with having the occasional dirtbag asshole than have some faceless government entity determine my mental health.
Good point.
What would be the solution then?
The death penalty for everyone who uses a firearm in a commission of a crime.
Comprehensive Obamacare-style healthcare targeting mental health only.
I heard Obama say that this was the only country with mass shootings and no "sensible" gun control.
But we're also the only country with a 2nd Amendment. I'll say that it's going to be gone, eventually.
Sadly, Norway would be among a number of nations that have had quite sensible gun control. In fact, such effective gun control, that even their own cops have to resort to simply 'yelling stop again', when someone gets out of line too far. Mass shootings..indeed..a nut case on an island shot the place to pieces and killed plenty. One of many shootings in Europe. They aren't a gun society by any means, but to suggest gun control stops gun violence is silly. It may stop gun accidents 100%, and gun suicides close to 100%, since private ownership laws don't much allow for it. Knife stats tend to also make up for this, and I recall a couple threads I did pretty large layouts with stat comparisons between nations on just such things.
Overall, I recall guns would seem to be higher overall, and make the lethal outcome easier to achieve ...but not by so much over alternate means as to say it wasn't just lethality and not attack with lethal weapons of other kinds (not doing the job), that was the problem.
People snap sometimes. Without any real or effective mental health system in this nation, even ones who throw warning signs cannot and will not be stopped. Real care is a 6 figure proposition, with a good % being profit up the chain and giving owners a comfy living but a damned limited availability of any level to matter. That is just for who throw warning signs. So many don't anymore, and who could wonder why? Is it the chemicals in the air, or perhaps the trace pharmaceuticals in the open and natural surface water around our nation...which we then ingest in everything that takes water (everything that isn't specifically dry). Maybe its the chemicals in the food, and the place where something as seemingly safe as artificial dye for food is one I honestly DID think were complexes of petroleum and industrial chemical plants (South New Jersey).
People do snap tho...and yes, some grab guns. The ones who can't find a gun to 'commit suicide with lots of company', grab other things. Maybe society needs to ponder the question of what causes people to snap, and whether true and good faith treatment of mental distress and illness wouldn't be a better concept than controlling a tool made of iron and wood that has been a mainstay of American homes...for a couple centuries before killing innocent folk like a sport, damn near became one.
If we outlaw guns we're still going to be left with the problem of crazies wishing to harm to large numbers of people for a few moments in the spotlight.
There are a lot more ways to cause mass casualities than guns. Some would require nothing more than a few common household ingreditnets and a ventilation system.
We can't outlaw everything that crazy folks can use to harm people.
It sucks when someone goes on a shooting spree like that. I have wondered why someone they knew did not throw up a red flag and tell someone to check on the people doing these things. When someone starts talking about this sort of thing they should be investigated and their friends should be concerned enough to try to stop it.
Are medications a part of this? I study the meds a lot and know many of them take away inhibitions about doing these kinds of things. They do not effect everyone that way though, usually if a person cannot detox the medicine it can lead to toxins poisoning the organs and mind. This needs to be thoroughly investigated, they should not just consider the initial depression or anxiety causes these events. There is plenty of evidence of side effects that influence perception. This needs to be evaluated, the person may be depressed then the meds make him or her into a killer.
Even better, remove some of the possible bad chemistry out of the foods, there is plenty out there that can interfere with proper perception. They need to evaluate it. Some is put there to calm us but the problem is that these foods and additives can cause a person to get unbalanced. All food has some kind of effect on the mind. They need to stop looking the other way with side effects, just because it is considered safe does not mean it is safe for everyone.
I can't say whether this is the case in this shooting but I know many of the shooters have been on some kinds of meds that alter perception.
I feel sorry for the people who had their children killed, the whole event was uncalled for. The students are dead, they do not need to suffer anymore but their family and friends have to suffer with this. It is a shame. I also feel bad for the wounded, this should never have happened. They will be scarred for life from seeing what happened.
I've put some thought into this, and I really think states need pushed on the individual level (the only place this can really happen, under our system) to see gun rights bills that protect the right of full time staff and faculty to carry personal weapons to work, if they are permitted under whatever state procedures exist to permit a concealed weapons carrier.
I word that carefully too..because I DO NOT want to see students allowed that. I don't even suggest that part time staff like myself be allowed under policy. Frankly, the commitment in education and life effort to get to where I'm at is just a few credits short of an Associates, or....a Super-Sized High School Diploma, for what its worth by itself. I trust me..but I sure don't trust everyone else like me, and thats enough.
However, the instructors and professors who would choose to carry a weapon discreetly, and within all local laws (outside the one dealing with schools in most states, that needs to change in that specific instance) should be allowed to. A number of them are vets. Most are level headed..and the flaming liberals I'd most worry about with a gun, would never personally choose to go through the permitting and commitment to skills for carrying one anyway.
Why not? We trust these people with our kids, and ourselves..and that goes to overnight field trips. It carries to distant and often international field trips. Trust isn't an issue when an error of judgement FAR short of mishandling of a live weapon could have tragic results, and outside any controls of the campus. Why not allow those same people, and perhaps ONLY that level of people then, to just bring a means of defense to work?
Seems a fair thing to suggest to me, and trust shouldn't be conditional....when it sure IS total in every other area.
Post by Charles1952 on Oct 1, 2015 23:33:40 GMT -6
@wrabbit2000,
I just saw a story involving an active duty soldier, in uniform, who was not served at a Waffle House, because he had a side arm and did want to give it up.
I have no idea what his MOS is, but if we trust him with the weapons soldiers usually carry or operate, perhaps a pistol should be allowed under your analysis (Which I agree with, by the way.)
The solution is decentralized schooling where the student never leaves home and nor do the teachers ... some may call this home schooling but we have the tech to do this and run this at a state education levels for minimum standards to be assessed by independent experts in the community at large. This is safest for everybody!!!
Personal Disclosure: Speaking as a legally insane person everyone is in the DSM-IV/V and is therefor insane! They, the Drs, write the manual so that it automatically covers everyone including themselves so as to give the government the excuse to commit anybody for any god damned reason they want.
As life is dangerous one had best be armed with the best tools available and I personally use my body and my brain but surely commonsense dictates anybody over the age of 13 years old should know how to safely use and care for a gun (especially the women).
I don't need to buy a gun ... I can make one!
I don't need a gun ... I can make a bomb from common everyday off the shelf products!
I don't need a bomb ... same effort goes into constructing a good argument instead!
I don't need to argue ... safe clean wise education is all I really need!
I don't need education ... I need a good paying job with on the job training!
Ergo, I should train and employ myself to get the best outcomes!
May the dead RIP and may the wounded recover asap and may the scumbag rot in jail and then in hell!
Last Edit: Oct 2, 2015 5:32:05 GMT -6 by omegalogos
I just saw a story involving an active duty soldier, in uniform, who was not served at a Waffle House, because he had a side arm and did want to give it up.
I have no idea what his MOS is, but if we trust him with the weapons soldiers usually carry or operate, perhaps a pistol should be allowed under your analysis (Which I agree with, by the way.)
I don't think that soldiers should have any special status outside their own bases. If local law allows citizens to open carry, then soldiers should have that right as well. If CCW, then local military ought to have the option to go up for a permit.
The fact a soldier does it for a living isn't a great example IMO, though. What a soldier does for a living is follow training to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible, without such niceties as civil law that civilians and police have to follow. I'd trust military to have the discretion to leave that training at the gate of their base, if carrying outside it. However, I wouldn't see that job as adding to the case they should vs. anyone else.
I don't REALLY see faculty as that different either, since I'd still suggest they be required to independently, and 100% on their own time, pursue all required classes and training for their state's version of a carry permit. If they've done that, they can carry into any child's playground, birthday party or pizza place ..to give scary mental images for those people prone to fall for them.
I'd really ask only what changes the land over the property line of a school, and especially a college (based around and serving adults, not kids) that the legal right to carry a weapon be null and void? I'd even grant that only faculty and security carry ...and THAT is logical to control 1,000+ students on campus at once. If a trend for CCW got going (which I'd half expect) you could see a dozen or more armed 20 somethings in the halls, hunting a shooter like Call of Duty. Erm.... By policy, and not necessarily by law? I really would want that limit on campus to just the full timers and sec people.
Still.."Gun Free Zones" are 100% OSHA approved safe working environments for spree killers. The killers KNOW it, and make use of the generous working conditions often enough to be rude.
Lets make the last "Gun Free Zones" VERY unsafe work areas for those killers, and the killing MAY just stop. At least in those places.