Mass Shootings the last six months

[Gaspar]

Guys, some things are simply not legal issues.  In fact, laws do a very poor job in solving social, medical, and mental health issues.

Typical liberal response to nearly everything is to flee to government, "there should be a law," and when there is a law it is an "enforcement problem."  Wrong!

If a law cannot be enforced, then it either shouldn't be a law or should be replaced by something more reasonable that solves the problem.

In the case of Sandy Hook and the Dark Knight shooter, these were mentally disturbed people that wanted to kill people.  They were also both very intelligent.  Using hindsight, we need to ask the question, what would be the most effective means of avoiding these tragedies?   

A. We could have legislation restricting the style and color of weaponry available for sale to the public.  Of course this wouldn't prevent either of these tragedies.

B. We could have education, outreach, and mental health policies that promote identification and treatment of such individuals, and coordinate with law enforcement.  i.e. If you are prescribed psychotropic drugs or treatment for depression, psychosis, or other disorders, part of that prescription requirement is that the prescribing physician consult with local law enforcement, and perhaps have an officer remove any weapons or other items in your home that are no longer legal for you to have access to.  This takes advantage of existing laws and simply provides the tools necessary to enforce them.  Imagine all of the suicides that would also be averted.

Both individuals were under treatment for forms psychosis which means that a physician knew that dealing with reality was difficult for them.  Reason would dictate that it's a physician's responsibility as part of the care plan for a patient, to identify risks to that patient's health.  They do this anyway by asking the patient if they are taking any other medications that may complicate their condition or react with other prescriptions. The presence of environmental factors (weapons in the home) should naturally be of equal or greater concern for the physician. It should be within his/her duty to coordinate the removal of such items.

[TulsaRufnex]

Wow!  You obviously haven't been to a gun show.  

Yes.  I have.  Including the one this weekend.
Line had to be nearly a mile long.... no blacks in site.
The rest of your post is CONSERVATIVE FOLKLORE DOGMA & GUN ENTITLEMENT BLATHER.

We need Australian-style gun control laws.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of MANY responsible gun owners, hunters, policemen, etc. who don't approve of the bat-crap crazy NRA and their conservative guns-on-demand weapons industry agenda.

[TulsaRufnex]

Obviously "posting while clueless".  


As for this crock of carp that keeps coming around in the Brady Bunch Clown Circus about "letting" the mentally ill have guns... as I have stated before, it has been illegal since the 30's on a Federal basis for someone who has been found to be mentally ill to own, possess, or use a firearm of any sort.  And they are, by definition, criminals.

This in not new ground - there are a comprehensive set of prohibitions to gun ownership and use - it has been covered WAY before the latest Agenda-laden propaganda war started.  The lies, half-truths, distortions, and attempts at misdirection will continue forever, since they so obviously work on a knee-jerk basis on people too lazy to investigate and study the reality, or just willing to buy into something they think sounds like it "ought to be true"...you bought into it!

The lies and half-truths come from YOUR side.
I'm tired of YOUR agenda driven propaganda, insisting gun toting security guards in schools is some sort of solution....

I have more respect for this man (and Gabby Giffords) than I will ever have for HEAD-IN-THE-SAND gun nuts.



These tragedies don't have to happen, and it won't change overnight.... but we have to try... the threats and bullying coming from the gun counterculture have zero basis in the 2nd Amendment.
They have everything to do with TRAITORS to democracy.  How many KIDS have to die before you take one single firearm away from a wingnut survivalist?  You buy into conspiracy theories and bull mularkey... I've been living in this country (many parts of the country) for nearly 50 years... and I am sick and tired of Wayne LaPierre, et al and their line of jack booted, gun-entitled bull.

And yours.

Gabby Giffords launches group to counter gun lobby
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/08/16411165-gabby-giffords-launches-group-to-counter-gun-lobby?lite

[Gaspar]

Yes.  I have.  Including the one this weekend.
Line had to be nearly a mile long.... no blacks in site.
The rest of your post is CONSERVATIVE FOLKLORE DOGMA & GUN ENTITLEMENT BLATHER.

We need Australian-style gun control laws.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of MANY responsible gun owners, hunters, policemen, etc. who don't approve of the bat-crap crazy NRA and their conservative guns-on-demand weapons industry agenda.

I'm simply looking at the problem from a pragmatic standpoint.

There is no law that would prevent these folks, who wanted to kill lots of people, from killing lots of people.  You can change the tool, but that does little to change the motive of the technician. The solution lies in eliminating the motive, or at least recognizing it.

BTW, I noticed you posted one of the pics from the Tulsa Firearms Show in your race rant.  Here, I've helped you.

[Conan71]

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.  In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy.  Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

"Australian gun ban" seems to be the latest mindless chant for ill-informed liberals.

It's the new "Venture Capitalist", "Ermahgerd Werter Berding!", or "Haliburton!!!"

I don't know about you guys, but I'm glad Ruff doesn't exercise his 2A right 

[Conan71]

I'm simply looking at the problem from a pragmatic standpoint.

There is no law that would prevent these folks, who wanted to kill lots of people, from killing lots of people.  You can change the tool, but that does little to change the motive of the technician. The solution lies in eliminating the motive, or at least recognizing it.

BTW, I noticed you posted one of the pics from the Tulsa Firearms Show in your race rant.  Here, I've helped you.

You missed a few in your photo, Gas.  What's that?  Oh, I also seem to see Hispanics and or Asians and Middle Easterners.  I bet they even let Jewish people in these shows!

I've seen black people at every gun show I've been to.  Just not the gang-banging droopy pants type.  If libs think this is where the hood is getting it's arms, they are dead wrong.  People I know who sell privately always get a copy of a driver's license or SDA card in the event a weapon is ever traced back to them which has been connected to a crime.  No, it's not the same as calling in an NCIC but does show a certain level of responsibility which goes above and beyond what the law requires them to do.

[Gaspar]

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

"Australian gun ban" seems to be the latest mindless chant for ill-informed liberals.

It's the new "Venture Capitalist", "Ermahgerd Werter Berding!", or "Haliburton!!!"

I don't know about you guys, but I'm glad Ruff doesn't exercise his 2A right 

The right not to own a gun is just as important as the right to own a gun.  The underlying principal is CHOICE.  If indeed Ruff chooses not to own a gun, then that is his choice and I respect it.

[Gaspar]

You missed a few in your photo, Gas.  What's that?  Oh, I also seem to see Hispanics and or Asians and Middle Easterners.  I bet they even let Jewish people in these shows!
I'm simply looking at the problem from a pragmatic standpoint.

Yeah, but I didn't want to sit with my magnifying glass and play that game.  I'm not the best at identifying the race of other people.  It's something I prefer not to focus on.

[Teatownclown]

Yes, but can you spot the psychotics?

[Townsend]

You guys and that picture with red arrows are starting to look like the psychotics TTC's looking for.

[Gaspar]

Yes, but can you spot the psychotics?

Post of the day!

That is the point.  Can you spot them as they drive by your office window?  How about at the grocery store?

If they don't self identify can you discriminate?

However, if they are under treatment, they are known to someone who is responsible for management of their condition.

[Teatownclown]

Post of the day!

That is the point.  Can you spot them as they drive by your office window?  How about at the grocery store?

If they don't self identify can you discriminate?

However, if they are under treatment, they are known to someone who is responsible for management of their condition.

Yes. Absolutely. That goes for parents as well.

Now. There's no need for certain weapons to be available to the public.

And ammunition needs to be bought with a huge levy.

[Conan71]

And ammunition needs to be bought with a huge levy.

Just curious what that purports to accomplish?

Seems to me all that would do is add to the cost for people to legally defend themselves since criminals seldom get their guns or ammo via legal channels.

[Hoss]

Just curious what that purports to accomplish?

Seems to me all that would do is add to the cost for people to legally defend themselves since criminals seldom get their guns or ammo via legal channels.

Like I've said before, ammunition ALREADY has an 11 percent excise tax levied on it.

HR 5552 from back in 2010.

[Teatownclown]

Just curious what that purports to accomplish?

Seems to me all that would do is add to the cost for people to legally defend themselves since criminals seldom get their guns or ammo via legal channels.

Do you realize ammunition is unregulated? %11 s/b increased %110.

Also, since bullets kill more people every year than cigs, I do not care if only the rich can afford the bullets.

gun nutz