Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[newtogolf]

18 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Nowhere did I say that gun owners are more susceptible to mental illness than the general population. Nowhere did I say that mentally ill people are dumb. Nowhere did I say we have to take away guns from 99 percent of gun owners. I did not even imply any of those opinions. You've put those words into my mouth, and I don't appreciate that.

What I said was, if gun violence is a mental health problem, then the CDC and the NIH should be allowed to study gun violence as a mental health problem, which they are currently not allowed to do. Furthermore, identifying every American with a mental health issue and making sure they get treatment is bound to be more intrusive and expensive than any gun control measure, so I can't just expect that conservatives will actually be willing to go along with that.

Why do they just need to study gun violence as a mental health problem, are we not concerned about the mentally ill that slash people with knives, blow people up, habitually drive drunk and poison others?   Very few serial killers use firearms, they prefer other more intimate methods of murder and clearly they are mentally ill.

It seems we can all agree that mental illness is the primary issue, the method one uses to hurt others is secondary, so why limit the analysis to one method of violence unless the goal of the study is already predetermined?    

[Chilli Dipper]

13 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Why do they just need to study gun violence as a mental health problem, are we not concerned about the mentally ill that slash people with knives, blow people up, habitually drive drunk and poison others?   Very few serial killers use firearms, they prefer other more intimate methods of murder and clearly they are mentally ill.

It seems we can all agree that mental illness is the primary issue, the method one uses to hurt others is secondary, so why limit the analysis to one method of violence unless the goal of the study is already predetermined?    

They do have studies on all of those things. None of those industries have successfully lobbied Washington to prohibit federal funding from going toward researching the pathological effects of their products.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Nowhere did I say that gun owners are more susceptible to mental illness than the general population. Nowhere did I say that mentally ill people are dumb. Nowhere did I say we have to take away guns from 99 percent of gun owners. I did not even imply any of those opinions. You've put those words into my mouth, and I don't appreciate that.

What I said was, if gun violence is a mental health problem, then the CDC and the NIH should be allowed to study gun violence as a mental health problem, which they are currently not allowed to do. Furthermore, identifying every American with a mental health issue and making sure they get treatment is bound to be more intrusive and expensive than any gun control measure, so I can't just expect that conservatives will actually be willing to go along with that.

I was countering your arguments, not putting words in your mouth.

As far as a solution, I didn't have one. Not sure where you got the idea that a limited government advocate like myself would want us to spend a huge amount of money addressing the problem of mental illness at a governmental level?

We just need to collectively work towards helping mentally ill people. There's no policy I know of that could do that? It would be ineffective.

What I'm saying is that liberal politicians want us to think there's a simple solution and they're solving it through simple control policies, then brushing mental illness under the proverbial rug.

BTW, I'm a political moderate, but somehow starting to sound like a far right conservative and I don't know why? I hope people realize this! 

[Dave2512]

Part of the problem is people lie. Akin to applying for a new health care policy and marking that you consume less than two alcoholic drinks a week when reality is it's twenty. People that drive drunk don't show up drunk to renew their license. It's tough to determine who is mentally unfit for anything because people are good at hiding it. Maybe we need to start submitting medical records with gun applications. After all suicides are a huge part of the gun deaths. But then the right would argue they'd use another means to get it done just like they do with homicides. The control starts when the application process is more than having a clean arrest record. It's not the guns it's who is buying them.

[drmevo]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

It seems we can all agree that mental illness is the primary issue, the method one uses to hurt others is secondary, so why limit the analysis to one method of violence unless the goal of the study is already predetermined?    

Of course, the counter argument would be, other countries have similar percentages of mentally ill people but they have far fewer mass killings per capita. They just don't have people making homemade bombs, driving through crowds, stabbing lots of people, etc., in the same numbers we have mass shootings.

I think we do need to analyze this fully and make sensible policy decisions.  We can't just shrug our shoulders and do nothing.  And it won't be simple to solve either.

However, I'm not at all for making arbitrary laws based solely on emotion.  For example, you hear people say, "If adding such and such gun law will save one person, it will have been worth it."  Well, that's just awful logic.  If we applied that to everything, we'd outlaw home swimming pools.  We'd make alcohol completely illegal (putting aside the fact that it was already a failed experiment). We don't need alcohol, at all, but people, innocent people, die because of it and the bad decisions other people make with it all the time.

Whatever we do, it needs to be based on evidence and reason.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, drmevo said:

Of course, the counter argument would be, other countries have similar percentages of mentally ill people but they have far fewer mass killings per capita. They just don't have people making homemade bombs, driving through crowds, stabbing lots of people, etc., in the same numbers we have mass shootings.

I think we do need to analyze this fully and make sensible policy decisions.  We can't just shrug our shoulders and do nothing.  And it won't be simple to solve either.

However, I'm not at all for making arbitrary laws based solely on emotion.  For example, you hear people say, "If adding such and such gun law will save one person, it will have been worth it."  Well, that's just awful logic.  If we applied that to everything, we'd outlaw home swimming pools.  We'd make alcohol completely illegal (putting aside the fact that it was already a failed experiment). We don't need alcohol, at all, but people, innocent people, die because of it and the bad decisions other people make with it all the time.

Whatever we do, it needs to be based on evidence and reason.

Korea. A disgruntled employee started a fire during a busy time that killed 4 times more people.

We should do more research to see what makes people violent at a fundamental level. Ground is being broken in this field, but there's a lot more to do.

Everyone's developed a hard line stance for or against guns borderlining irrational behavior, but the truth is that guns are just one means of killing. There are infinite methods of killing that are potentially more effective. For example, he could have made propane bombs and killed everyone in the club. 

If we blame anyone we should blame popular entertainment which think it's normal for people to shoot at each other with the "good" guys firing more bullets at the bad guys then "winning" an epic battle for "good principles".

I'm convinced that the shooter thought that he was doing "the greater good", which we, of course knew was horrific.

[drmevo]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Korea. A disgruntled employee started a fire during a busy time that killed 4 times more people.

We should do more research to see what makes people violent at a fundamental level. Ground is being broken in this field, but there's a lot more to do.

Everyone's developed a hard line stance for or against guns borderlining irrational behavior, but the truth is that guns are just one means of killing. There are infinite methods of killing that are potentially more effective. For example, he could have made propane bombs and killed everyone in the club. 

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I said "far fewer mass killings," not none.  Your last paragraph I quoted also ignores my point in saying that people don't carry out mass killings using those sorts of means anywhere else in the developed world in nearly the same numbers.  

 

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, drmevo said:

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I said "far fewer mass killings," not none.  Your last paragraph I quoted also ignores my point in saying that people don't carry out mass killings using those sorts of means anywhere else in the developed world in nearly the same numbers.  

 

Not far fewer. Guns are illegal in many parts of the world, and the mass murders are done with other means.

[14ledo81]

9 hours ago, boogielicious said:

No you're not. That's why you did it again. 

Back on topic. Thoughtful article by an AR-15 owner.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-hayes/2016/06/i-am-an-ar-15-owner-and-ive-had-enough/

I think Boston has the best drivers in the world.......

[Lihu]

13 hours ago, boogielicious said:

No you're not. That's why you did it again.

 

3 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

I think Boston has the best drivers in the world.......

Oops, sorry @boogielicious, I really didn't mean to insult you nor your home town.

Both of my kids are interested in Universities in Boston, so I'd better start getting used to driving there!

Thanks for bringing this to my attention @14ledo81.

[Chilli Dipper]

The president of the NRA appeared on the Sunday talk show circuit.

He is a paranoid, delusional lunatic. That is all.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The president of the NRA appeared on the Sunday talk show circuit.

He is a paranoid, delusional lunatic. That is all.

FWIW please don't think the NRA speaks for all or even most gun owners.

[Chilli Dipper]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

FWIW please don't think the NRA speaks for all or even most gun owners.

I know they don't.

Still, this is the man who dictates gun policy in this country: someone who opposes banning suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms because that would be tipping them off.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Still, this is the man who dictates gun policy in this country: someone who opposes banning suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms because that would be tipping them off.

He can't dictate policy. Politicians ultimately do. If they're being bought off, you still blame the NRA?

[Lihu]

6 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

I know they don't.

Still, this is the man who dictates gun policy in this country: someone who opposes banning suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms because that would be tipping them off.

He doesn't "dictate" anything. The "gun lobby" is not as strong as many seem to think.

In any case, Hilary is planning on a "response" to Islamic terrorism just as strongly as anyone else.

I disagree, that it is a problem with faith, and disagree with any targeted policies towards any faith for the very same reasons I disagree with gun control.

 

EDIT: Was posting the same thing as Erik.

[Chilli Dipper]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

He can't dictate policy. Politicians ultimately do. If they're being bought off, you still blame the NRA?

Senate Democrats successfully filibustered to bring a number of proposals to a vote tomorrow. Among them is an amendment endorsed by the NRA, which goes against the views expressed by its president today. Which way the votes fall will tell much of the story.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Senate Democrats successfully filibustered to bring a number of proposals to a vote tomorrow. Among them is an amendment endorsed by the NRA, which goes against the views expressed by its president today. Which way the votes fall will tell much of the story.

How? Politicians make the policy. Not the NRA president. Not Charlton Heston.

[Lihu]

24 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Senate Democrats successfully filibustered to bring a number of proposals to a vote tomorrow. Among them is an amendment endorsed by the NRA, which goes against the views expressed by its president today. Which way the votes fall will tell much of the story.

The old law just expired. Not enough people supported the ban, and there was no reason to reinstate it as it was found to be ineffective by hard data.

I hope these new proposals do not pass, but only because it will also prove to be ineffective.

Here's one of the biggest mass murders in recent history without guns.

 

Here is the worst killing with a gun in recent history, in a country with strict gun laws (possibly stricter than all those being proposed by the anti-gun lobby):

Quote

The 2011 Norway attacks, referred to in Norway as 22 July (Norwegian: 22. juli),^[14] the date of the events, were two sequential lone wolf terrorist attacks by Anders Behring Breivik against the government, the civilian population, and a Workers' Youth League (AUF)-run summer camp. The attacks claimed a total of 77 lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

It was with this rifle, not an assault style weapon:

This is how Anders Behring Breivik trained.

 

Quote

Weapons training

Beside visiting firing ranges and countries with relaxed gun laws to sharpen his skill, Breivik's manifesto says that he made use of the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as a training aid while using World of Warcraft as a cover for his extended period of isolation.^[56] He also said that he honed his shooting skills using an in-game holographic sight similar to the one he used during the attacks.^[57]