World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Why are US mass shootings getting more deadly?
Well said, Papa, "Some places in the U.S. have exactly those laws and they do not stop people from getting guns any more than drug laws and underage drinking laws work. A motivated person will always get what they are after."As for the mental health angle, that takes a long time to change society. And mental health professionals aren't supposed to break confidentiality unless they have evidence of imminent danger. I'm not even sure if mental health records are available to law enforcement. Parenting is beyond any outsider's control. There's a lot of anger out there, and no one knows when a person will lose control.
If not armed teachers, how about issuing them devices that can communicate with law enforcement and give a real time picture of the situation inside the school? Better than going in blind. And it would inform armed school resource officers of what's going on.
Democrats Are Trying to Jam a Terrible Gun Control Law Through Congress | Opinionhttps://www.newsweek.com/democrats-ar...
Scout wrote: "I agree with you guys, who are making good sense. My neighbor and I were talking today, and she supports banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons. That makes no sense to me when that would leave ..."It makes no sense because most handguns people buy for self defense as well as many firearms used for hunting are semis. All "semi automatic" means is that you must pull each time you want to fire. If you pull and hold the trigger down, the weapon will still only fire once. This is opposed to an automatic, or fully automatic weapon that will continue to fire if you pull and hold down the trigger.
I don't know what people think they're talking about when they say "semi automatic" but a lot of small handguns used for home defense are technically semiautomatic.
Uvalde Mom Who Saved Kids From School Shooting Says Police Threatened Herhttps://www.newsweek.com/uvalde-mom-w...
Let's take a look at Uncle Joe's past gun control efforts. While Uncle Joe was VP to his buddy Barry, this was the largest ATF "sting operation"Operation Fast And Furious
https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/...
That's right, Joey's buddy Barry dropped 2,000 firearms into the hands of Mexican Cartels. They were sad about the American Border Control agent who was murdered, but they never seemed to care about the god only knows how many Mexicans who were killed.
But wait, it gets worse! They were supposedly trying to track those guns. But nobody has found evidence of any concerted effort by the ATF to track the guns in Mexico. Further, it appears that the ATF was preferential about to whom the guns were sold. The preference indicates that the alphabet agencies were trying to ignite a turf war against their chosen target in the hopes that said target cartel would be eradicated. They never cared about the thousands of innocent Mexican people who were caught in the cross-fire.
J. wrote: "Uvalde Mom Who Saved Kids From School Shooting Says Police Threatened Her
https://www.newsweek.com/uvalde-mom-w..."
Uvalde mass shooting: Wounded teacher condemns police as cowards
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-c...
https://www.newsweek.com/uvalde-mom-w..."
Uvalde mass shooting: Wounded teacher condemns police as cowards
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-c...
This is part of what the actor Matthew McConaughey said in a White House press briefing about the shootings:"So, we know what’s on the table. We need to invest in mental healthcare. We need safer schools. We need to restrain sensationalized media coverage. We need to restore our family values. We need to restore our American values. And we need responsible gun ownership — responsible gun ownership.
We need background checks. We need to raise the minimum age to purchase an AR-15 rifle to 21. We need a waiting period for those rifles. We need red-flag laws and consequences for those who abuse them.
These are reasonable, practical, tactical regulations to our nation, states, communities, schools, and homes.
Responsible gun owners are fed up with the Second Amendment being abused and hijacked by some deranged individuals.
These regulations are not a step back; they’re a step forward for a civil society and — and the Second Amendment.
Look, is this a cure-all? Hell no.
But people are hurting — families are, parents are. And look, as — as divided as our country is, this gun responsibility issue is one that we agree on more than we don’t. It really is. But this should be a nonpartisan issue. This should not be a partisan issue.
There is not a Democratic or Republican value in one single act of these shooters. It’s not.
But people in power have failed to act. So we’re asking you and I’m asking you, will you please ask yourselves: Can both sides rise above? Can both sides see beyond the political problem at hand and admit that we have a life preservation problem on our hands?
Because we got a chance right now to reach for and to grasp a higher ground above our political affiliations, a chance to make a choice that does more than protect your party, a chance to make a choice that protects our country now and for the next generation.
We got to take a sober, humble, and honest look in the mirror and re- — rebrand ourselves based on what we truly value. What we truly value.
We got to get some real courage and honor our immortal obligations instead of our party affiliations.
Enough with the counterpunching. Enough of the invalidation of the other side. Let’s come to the common table that represents the American people. Find a mil- — middle ground, the place where most of us Americans live anyway, especially on this issue.
Because I promise you, America — you and me, who — we are not as divided as we’re being told we are. No."
I agree with what he said about most of us living in the middle ground and that we're not as divided as we're being told we are. I think we're being played by politicians, divided for their own ends, but in truth there are a lot of decent people in the middle ground of both parties that can come together despite the politicians. At least I hope so. It's a nice thought.
Red Flag Laws written and administered by the same people who gave us the Patriot Act and a president who is spouting off about the "Great MAGA King", who do you think will be put on that list?There is already an FBI background check on gun purchases. You may recall that Uncle Joe's little crackhead perjured himself on the affidavit to illegally purchase a handgun. If you or I had committed perjury on a federal affidavit, we would be in prison. Hunter is lounging around a mansion in Malibu.
Never forget who they think the enemy is.
https://youtu.be/E_s8lOaIgaU
Yeah, like the politicians and actors here. They don't need guns; they're surrounded by people who have them.I talked with my dad about red flag laws. I didn't know what they were, but now that I do, I'm against them. Give Democrats and inch and they'll take a couple of miles.
I will criticize Republicans for talking about mental health for years in regards to this discussion and doing nothing about it in all that time. It needs to stop being a talking point and start becoming policy.
It's the culture. When good behavior is normalized and deviant destructive behavior is ostracized, shamed, and marginalized, you get more good behavior. We're living in a bizarro world where deviants are glorified and normal folks are demonized.
Scout wrote: "This is part of what the actor Matthew McConaughey said in a White House press briefing about the shootings:"So, we know what’s on the table. We need to invest in mental healthcare. We need safer..."
Everything he says sounds good. Reasonable regulation. Here is the problem, what is reasonable regulation? You may think you know what it is and that is good, but what happens when you and I are not close on the same page? Want to know why each side demonizes the other, because it works and hardens opinions.
Frank wrote: "It's the culture. When good behavior is normalized and deviant destructive behavior is ostracized, shamed, and marginalized, you get more good behavior. We're living in a bizarro world where devian..."Fair enough. What is "normal" behavior? What is deviant destructive behavior? Before you react and accuse me of something I am not, I want you to think about this very deeply. I am not trying to irritate you or trap you, but my questions is a trap of a sorts. I am not playing gotcha, but you are going to walk into one.
Papaphilly wrote: "Frank wrote: "It's the culture. When good behavior is normalized and deviant destructive behavior is ostracized, shamed, and marginalized, you get more good behavior. We're living in a bizarro worl..." Let's see. Educators and politicians proselytizing children to change their sex. Parents sending kids to their rooms to play violent video games where shooting and killing are the main objectives. Don't confront a bully (a punch in the nose always worked in the past). Take away guns (although rifle clubs were ubiquitous across the country and no one was shot). Don't salute the flag. Don't lock up criminals (NY and CA have these laws). Wear a mask unless you're a BLM or antifa rioter. These are a few of hundreds of deviant behaviors, or promotion of deviancy. Here is a prime example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO5mD...
Frank wrote: "Educators and politicians proselytizing children to change their sex.While your point is taken, I have yet to see a politician or educator proselytize that children should change their sex. For my edification, can you provide an example where this occurs?
Parents sending kids to their rooms to play violent video games where shooting and killing are the main objectives.
How is playing video games deviant behavior, even violent games?
Don't confront a bully (a punch in the nose always worked in the past).
Not using violence is deviant behavior? Violence Begets Violence means nothing to you? The most important peace makers of history used non-violence as methods of overcoming.
Take away guns (although rifle clubs were ubiquitous across the country and no one was shot).
Rifle clubs are still popular across the country and plenty of people in these cubs have been shot. In case you are wondering, they are called accidents and they happen frequently. BTW, who is coming to take away your guns? So if a law is created to "take away your guns", is the law if the majority agree to this law and those that want to keep their guns deviant? BTW, the Supreme Court handed NYS a massive loss today. Your guns are safe.
You do realize that the last couple of sets of school shooters had legally owned guns? Also, most Americans do not own guns nor want too own guns. Does that make the set of Americans in the minority deviant for owning or wanting to own guns deviant?
Don't salute the flag.
Why is that deviant behavior?
Don't lock up criminals (NY and CA have these laws).
I will ask again, if it is a law, is it deviant? BTW, if the law gets changed back or to something else, is that deviant?
Wear a mask unless you're a BLM or antifa rioter.
If you are not a BLM or Antifa rioter and do not wear a mask, is that deviant behavior? If you took a stand against masks because you plain do not think they work or un-American, is that deviant? Those that stormed the capital January 6 wearing masks, are they deviant?
You do understand the term deviant? I am not trying to jerk you around. I am trying to make a point. Deviant behavior is nothing more than not of the norm. It is understood to be actions or behaviors that go against social norms. You do understand that social norms are not written laws? It is what society expects. The problem is that society is going through its periodic spasm and trying to decide what is normal again. Just because you do not like something does not make it deviant.
One last question, is the Supreme Court deviant?
I would like to note that saying gun owners are a minority is a bit of a misnomer. When polled, around 36% of American adults report personally owning a firearm. But about 42% of adults report living in a household with a firearm. Effectively, the extra 6% are armed, they're just using their spouses' firearms.Further, there is a strong geographic variation. In rural areas, the percentage of gun owning households is closer to 90%, with urban areas self reporting firearms in much lower numbers. Of course, polled individuals in many urban areas have a legal incentive to falsely report in the negative due to restrictive gun laws in those areas.
Given these points, I feel safe asserting that the armed part of the citizenry is close to, if not half of the population.
J. wrote: "I would like to note that saying gun owners are a minority is a bit of a misnomer. When polled, around 36% of American adults report personally owning a firearm. But about 42% of adults report livi..."I think the numbers are a good bit less than half the population. Probably more than the 36%, but not much more. I am not surprise with the higher number of people living with a gun. I may own one, but not my wife. Now add a household with a third adult or college age children and that is the multiplier. Regardless of the actual number, the point is if over half do not own a gun, then does that smaller percentage of gun owners make them deviant?
They are a deviant minority to the libs. That's the problem.
This clip is of Jordan Peterson talking about the psychology of school shooters. His points are very general, but I think that he is getting close.https://youtu.be/kOXyFcGhrf0
Papa, here's what DeSantis did in Florida. The headline is "Controversial sex education bill signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis." https://www.kcra.com/article/dont-say...#What he did was this: "Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill on Monday that forbids instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, a policy that has drawn intense national scrutiny from critics who argue it marginalizes LGBTQ people."
I'm pretty sure that kindergarten through third grade is way too young to be teaching children in school anything about sexual orientation and gender identity. Why even bring this up with children who aren't able to understand the conversation? Maybe to indoctrinate them? Can you defend what the schools were doing? I'd like to hear your argument defending teaching such things to young children.
Frank wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Frank wrote: "It's the culture. When good behavior is normalized and deviant destructive behavior is ostracized, shamed, and marginalized, you get more good behavior. We're livin..." Wow! What a trap. Here's a site that shows how politicians are attempting to force kids to change their sex. https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and.... It's called the Equality Act It appears your mind is made up and doesn't warrant any other responses to your rebuttal. Interestingly you didn't mention anything about the video I sent. I suppose that's not deviant behavior either?
“Deviant” will always be subjective, however a broad consensus (shifting with time) is a backbone of laws and “normal”. Agree that “deviants” get more stage and coverage time, because mainstream is banal and thus - “boring”. Some/ many “deviations” look troubling to me and I’m aware I might turn deviant as a retrograde in the future
Scout wrote: "I'm pretty sure that kindergarten through third grade is way too young to be teaching children in school anything about sexual orientation and gender identity. Why even bring this up with children who aren't able to understand the conversation? Maybe to indoctrinate them? Can you defend what the schools were doing? I'd like to hear your argument defending teaching such things to young children...."Why would I defend something I do not believe in?
Yet, Since you ask, here is a thought for you. Regardless of what one thinks about these people, there is one reality. There are children that are families with these people. These are people that love their families and are loved by them, even the very young ones. They will not see them as weird, wrong, or broken. They will see them as they are, family and friends that love them. That is a very important lesson. I have had gay friends far longer than my adult son has been alive. He has known these people his entire life. He likes and loves many of them and thinks nothing about their life choices of who they love. This is something he learned early before he even started school. It just is.
Now, getting to your point. Should this be taught in school? At that age, probably not. But, it is already reality and ignoring it will not make it go away. I am not so sure this is indoctrination as is tossed around. I fully agree that these children may be too young at third grade. When does sex education start in school?
At my age, I am seeing the same argument again and again in different guises. It makes me second guess the entire argument. Funny thing, both sides play the same game. Yet, when one side turns to the other and say if you do not agree with me, you are (fill in the pejorative), it tends to make me dismiss them as wingnuts.
Frank wrote: "Frank wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Frank wrote: "It's the culture. When good behavior is normalized and deviant destructive behavior is ostracized, shamed, and marginalized, you get more good behavio..."My mind made up about what exactly? You not responding is fine; it is a cop out. If you cannot debate any longer than this, then I guess you lose.
You have yet to explain why any thing you mention is deviant. As for the video, I have no comment about it because the entire thing is stupid. Unless things have changed since I was in high school many moons ago, the Queen gets voted in by their high school peers. If the school students voted him the queen, what do I care? Of course if you do not believe in the vote, then I guess you can claim it is wrong because the wrong type person won, but that would make you anti-Democratic.
Now it is time to show how uneducated you are, The Equality Act of 2022 is nothing more than an update of Civil rights to include gender identity. Nowhere does it push anyone into getting sex changes. The article is a scare tactic and nothing more. Coulda woulda, shoulda. They said the same thing about the Communists, Gay, interracial dating and not being Christian and yet the world does not end. I do agree with one thing they state, parent needs to be integral.
Respond or do not, I do not care one way or the other. If one of us has a closed mind, it is not me.
Nik wrote: "“Deviant” will always be subjective, however a broad consensus (shifting with fine) is a backbone of laws and “normal”. Agree that “deviants” get more stage and coverage time, because mainstream is..."Which is my point entirely.
Papa, I don't know whom you were responding to, but I never implied that if you don't agree with me that you're a bad person. We actually agree on the age thing. It's probably better to wait until kids at least understand what sex is, what gender means, before teaching the subject in school. Even after my dad had "the talk" with me at 13, I was clueless. This is a touchy subject, maybe best addressed in high school?
Scout wrote: "Papa, I don't know whom you were responding to, but I never implied that if you don't agree with me that you're a bad person. We actually agree on the age thing. It's probably better to wait until ..."Scout,
You and I agree or disagree according to any given subject and sometimes it can get testy. That is as it goes and it will continue into the future for all of us. However, I hope I have never made it seem your opinion is any less valid than any other opinion. I may not agree with you, defend my position and attack your position on what I perceive as a weakness. But that is how it should be on a given subject. Comment and defend. Much of what this group does is debate and discuss and I never expect anyone to agree fully or disagree fully.
When this group was discussing the Trans in the Olympics last Summer, if you remember my opinion (which I will reiterate), I had no opinion on Trans in general, but did defend them in the games, (which drove Ian nuts at the time). My point was not about whether they are women or not, but they broke no rules at the time of their competing. It was driving pretty much everyone nuts at the time. My argument was not on the majority side, yet it was important to understand the real argument at the time. Those that were saying the Trans were either not women or it was unfair missed what I thought at the time was the bigger issue, they followed the rules laid down for them. As you may remember, it became a bit heated with a bunch of nasty comments. Yet, nobody tried to force or shutdown any other for their comments.
Now to your question. I reread what I wrote to make sure I was not being nasty. I was talking to the bigger issue of watching the same argument be applied to different subjects over and over. It was not aimed at you nor pretty much anyone else in this group. It was nothing more than a comment on the larger societal reaction of dismissing people they do not agree with accusations or moral stances. It is much like I am right and you are wrong because I am morally superior and I am morally superior because I am right and you are wrong. That kind of circular logic is a fail.
So we are clear, regardless of whether we agree or not, I do not nor have ever thought you were a bad buy. That pretty much goes for all on this group.
Papaphilly wrote: "Frank wrote: "Educators and politicians proselytizing children to change their sex.While your point is taken, I have yet to see a politician or educator proselytize that children should change th..."
Well said, then and the subsequent posts.
Part of the problem with people's percenptions of buying a gun is -I CAN GO ANYWHERE IN ARIZONA AND BUY A GUN WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK and WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF LICENSING REQUIREMENT, FROM ANY PRIVATE SELLER.
Private sellers are all over the place. There are private sellers at every gun show. Nor does Arizona require us to have a permit to carry concealed. I suspect there are loopholes like this in other states, too.
It is not uncommon to see people walking around stores and town with a gun on their hip. IMO that can easily lead to an angry confrontation beoming a shootout. While we are somewhere around 33 of the 50 states as to gun violence, you have to also consider that people who live outside of Arizona can come here and engage in those private sales without a background check; it's not limited to residents.
My ex-husband had guns and taught my children to shoot. I don't object. My daughter learned to hunt birds in AZ. She is a school teacher in Milwaukee and will not have anything to do with guns in her home. My son learned to shoot and hunt from his step-dad and shot his first deer at age 12 in IL. He is not allowed to own a gun by law due to his incarceration and the charge that was settled on, but there is nothing that stops him from purchasing one from a private seller. Since he has no desire to go back to prison, he won't violate that law. Not all convicted criminals have his point of view; they violate that law regularly and easily. LIke my son, many of those initial crimies are the result of mental health and addiction issues.
During both my marriages, we had a gun under the seat when we traveled. I don't shoot; never learned and in truth doubt I could shoot a person and by the time I reached the point of realizing how badly it was going the gun in the safe wouldn't help me.
Essentially, I am not against guns. I am against legal loopholes that allow the wrong people to buy them. I am against our system where those with mental health and addiction problems can't get help because of the cost involved.
(As a side note, I wonder how much less trauma for my son, our family, the victim and his family, along with the cost to society and the state if the state had just given him health insurance and treatment in 2012. 6 months later the ACA would have afforded him that help in AZ. Would it have worked? We will never know.)
Papaphilly wrote: "Scout wrote: "Papa, I don't know whom you were responding to, but I never implied that if you don't agree with me that you're a bad person. We actually agree on the age thing. It's probably better ..."Papa, I hope I wasn't driven nuts. Disagreeing is one thing but driven insane by it is too far :-)
The problem you outline is, as often happens in debates, we were not really debating the same thing. Nobody was disputing, as far as I know, that the trans were not following the then rules. I think the point was, and this may not have been made clearly enough, that the trans men should not be competing against the women and (what was not stated as clearly as it might have been) the rules should not permit it. A change of rules was needed.
That was my view, anyway.
Ian wrote: "Papa, I hope I wasn't driven nuts. Disagreeing is one thing but driven insane by it is too far :-)..."No you are already nuts.....8^)
The only reason I remember this was how agitated you were, so much so, that I dropped it because I realize it was not any fun.
Ian wrote: "The problem you outline is, as often happens in debates, we were not really debating the same thing. Nobody was disputing, as far as I know, that the trans were not following the then rules. I think the point was, and this may not have been made clearly enough, that the trans men should not be competing against the women and (what was not stated as clearly as it might have been) the rules should not permit it. A change of rules was needed.t..."I fully agree with your memory. If you remember, I had no opinion on whether it was proper or not. That was not my issue. That was other issues for other people. My point was the Trans were not breaking the rules.
As of right now, at least the international swimming group has determined Trans cannot compete against other women as women due to the unfair advantage of being men first. This is as I said it would be in the end. Decisions will be made to correct (as one sees what correct means) the advantage.
Not connected to anything, just in the context of "loopholes": Is it just an urban legend that one is not allowed to drink alcohol in public, but if s/he does from a brown bag then police isn't supposed to look inside to check what it is?
Lizzie wrote: "Essentially, I am not against guns. I am against legal loopholes that allow the wrong people to buy them. I am against our system where those with mental health and addiction problems can't get help because of the cost involved...."As in all of the larger societal discussions, this is as complicated as all others. Nothing is as simple as stated. Legal loopholes is a very complicated issue. On the surface is sounds simple, it does and it sounds reasonable. Now let us define legal loophole. Not so easy. On its surface it is nothing more than a crack in the law that the law does not cover giving a person(s) ability to engage in activity where otherwise they could not. Sometime it is over sight, but sometimes it is not.
Now, Lizzie's point is well taken, I think nobody wants criminals or crazy people to get guns. I certainly do not. Yet, at the same time how do we protect those accused, but not proven? How do we determine true threatening from those that are just talking? Our legal system is reactive and that is as it should be. Taking precautions is fine, but we have to make sure it is not putting the proverbial horse before the cart.
You're the man, Nik :-) Here's an article addressing brown bags, written in the same spirit in which you asked the question:https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/la....
Here's a quote: "Regardless of whether holding an open pint of rotgut vodka in a brown paper bag protects you from open container laws, no brown bag will save you from public intoxication charges.
If you appear drunk in public in any of the nation's 50 states, the only thing a brown bag might provide is a place to hide your vomit."
:-)
Scout wrote: "You're the man, Nik :-) Here's an article addressing brown bags, written in the same spirit in which you asked the question:https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/la......"
Thanks for that link! It also brought me to this one:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1... I see that you are lucky to be in one of only 7 states, allowing open containers in public :)
As for the title question, it seems to me there is also the issue of frequency. For some reason they seem to be becoming far more frequent. I susopeect if we answer that, we also answer the title question.
Ian wrote: "As for the title question, it seems to me there is also the issue of frequency. For some reason they seem to be becoming far more frequent. I susopeect if we answer that, we also answer the title q..."How would you characterize the last six (6) years? Now apply all of that BS to a society which has embraced victimhood, its related mental fragility, and fame as virtues.
I agree, but previously the perceived victimhood tended to end up with a suicide. (I had a nephew that did that, but we never found out what was troubling him until too late.) Now maybe it is the same thing, but take others with you?
Ian wrote: "I agree, but previously the perceived victimhood tended to end up with a suicide. (I had a nephew that did that, but we never found out what was troubling him until too late.) Now maybe it is the s..."That would be the fame part of it.
Ian wrote: "As for the title question, it seems to me there is also the issue of frequency. For some reason they seem to be becoming far more frequent. I susopeect if we answer that, we also answer the title q..."There is a bit of education due. You first have to ask what is a mass shooting? Before we go on, will my non-U.S. friend please give their idea of what is a mass shooting.
Ian wrote: "I agree, but previously the perceived victimhood tended to end up with a suicide. (I had a nephew that did that, but we never found out what was troubling him until too late.) Now maybe it is the s..."Sometimes it is exactly as you describe, we call it suicide by cop.
Papaphilly wrote: "....non-U.S. friend please give their idea of what is a mass shooting..."Mine would be - as opposed to a premeditated killing of a specific person or a group of persons, any shooting (and we can add here) - stabbing/ramming/blowing up, aimed at maximizing the number of unspecific human casualties...
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
A Republic, If You Can Keep It (other topics)The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956 (other topics)
The Diary of Anne Frank (other topics)
Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung: Mao’s Little Red Book Original Version (other topics)
My comment was about Visa issuing said credit line."
Maybe Grandmas?"
That would require an FFL to either run a straw purchase or credit card fraud.