Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, tonydead said:

 

Some simple googling and little reading tells me that number would be 13 to 18%.

i just looked at one classification of drug and the number was 5-10% of the population.   :shrug:

That's just one of the myriad of drugs that could have these effects.  Hell, what does he mean by "alter your personality"?  That's the goal of any psych med.   Also, I am guessing he would want to throw those doing any illegal drug in there too.   What about smokers and drinkers?  Do we include anything that alters our personalities? 

Maybe we say I could have exaggerated a little and we meet in the middle ground of 30%-35%.   

Either way, the number of law abiding citizens effected would be greater than if we implemented a ban like Connecticut did.  Instead of the 30% US population of gun owners who couldn't have a certain type of gun (but still could have guns for protection and hunting), under SC's plans we would have 30% of the US population denied access to any type of gun.    Odd stance to have for a pro-gun guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

experience with childhood trauma, a personal crisis or specific grievance, and a “script” or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap

Lets tackle that HEAD ON 

and having access to firearms, knives etc won't matter that much

but

to tackle the above problems, you'll have to give up a lot of freedoms -  let the village take over so to speak, let the Govt dictate many of the things parents and families do .... you willing to do that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

That's just one of the myriad of drugs that could have these effects. 

Hey, if you want to use your imagination, or what they say on tv commercials, I'm sure you can make the numbers say whatever you want.

I was specifically targeting anti-depression drugs and drugs with psychotic side effects, because you know, that's what Stealthy meant.  And those are the types of drugs a lot of these mass shooters have been found to have been on.

But ok, if you want to include birth control and viagra go ahead and make yourself look the fool.

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Stuttering isn’t just stumbling over a word, and it usually causes the sufferer to have to rearrange sentences to avoid any stutter risk, as well as substituting words for the same reason. 

is that how we're defining it now ?

Biden is senile - he's mentally declining and only an eternal optimist would see differently :(

but either way, its no excuse to lie to get his way on something ( but he's done that before, typical politician ) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

This might just be the worst example for an argument ever posted on a forum in the history of forums.  

why ?

what's good for the goose is good for the gander is the old saying ............ and make no mistake, the people calling border wall in humane and demand gun control go home to a house/community surrounded by walls and security and the rich ones have armed security details 24x-7x365

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this thread has gone from mass shootings, to gun control, to drug use in America, to stuttering, with a dash of POTUS bashing thrown in for good measure.  If there was ever an example of the PSF distilled down into one thread this would be the perfect example.  

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Oh I don’t know. Lots of competition for that prize in this thread.

That’s exactly my point.  That’s how bad it is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

why ?

what's good for the goose is good for the gander is the old saying ............ and make no mistake, the people calling border wall in humane and demand gun control go home to a house/community surrounded by walls and security and the rich ones have armed security details 24x-7x365

 

The fact that I would even have to attempt to explain crushes my faith in humanity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

The fact that I would even have to attempt to explain crushes my faith in humanity.  

so it doesn't bother you rich pay no taxes, middle class pays 35% 

doesn't both you police run stop lights and speed - but they write you tickets

 

I thought fair and equal was the liberal thing nowdays ? if Biden wants to guns protecting him i think I should have guns to protect me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

is that how we're defining it now ?

Biden is senile - he's mentally declining and only an eternal optimist would see differently :(

but either way, its no excuse to lie to get his way on something ( but he's done that before, typical politician ) 

And there’s the “Biden is senile” lie we’ve come to know and loathe. Yes, the guy is a thousand, and yes, he’s lied before, but he’s still in better overall shape than his predecessor ever was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Hey, if you want to use your imagination, or what they say on tv commercials, I'm sure you can make the numbers say whatever you want.

I was specifically targeting anti-depression drugs and drugs with psychotic side effects, because you know, that's what Stealthy meant.  And those are the types of drugs a lot of these mass shooters have been found to have been on.

But ok, if you want to include birth control and viagra go ahead and make yourself look the fool.

So even if we use this, and your low range of 13%.   That's 43M law abiding citizens that would have 0 access to guns under SC's plan. 

And no, I barely ever know what Stealthy means.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Lets tackle that HEAD ON 

and having access to firearms, knives etc won't matter that much

but

to tackle the above problems, you'll have to give up a lot of freedoms -  let the village take over so to speak, let the Govt dictate many of the things parents and families do .... you willing to do that ?

What freedoms would we have to give up to tackle those problems?  

I did get a laugh that you left out that 4th common trait.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kal El said:

And there’s the “Biden is senile” lie we’ve come to know and loathe. Yes, the guy is a thousand, and yes, he’s lied before, but he’s still in better overall shape than his predecessor ever was.

except Trump didn't lose track of thought and totally forget what he was saying ... and 4 years younger, but yeah, other than that ....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

What freedoms would we have to give up to tackle those problems?  

 

I can imagine a lot of intrusion that people would have to accept for the Govt to get involved in child raising, teaching kids to cope with things, anger managements etc etc .... talk about a massive massive undertaking and really, that's the parent's responsibility isn't it ?

that pesky personal responsibility thing again :(

 

 

 

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2021/04/08/ny-times-op-ed-a-lot-of-the-lefts-gun-control-proposals-dont-make-much-sense-n382022?fbclid=IwAR0hQbKNsjKDHrKCUwFYlkYFVxaSNMuL9tswB6Ign0vkFfqYz5RLAdB0Udo

As Ed noted earlier, Joe Biden announced plans for a big push on gun control today. Biden’s approach was full of holes and obvious whoppers. He also called for a revival of the assault weapon ban. But over at the NY Times, there’s an interesting op-ed by a former president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. What’s surprising about it is that author Dan Gross admits the usual left-wing rush toward things like the assault weapons ban after every high-profile mass shooting makes no sense if your real goal is to reduce the bulk of gun violence.

Of the nearly 40,000 deaths involving guns in 2019, well under 1 percent were caused by what the F.B.I. defines as “active shooter” incidents. In an average year, around 60 percent of deaths involving guns are suicides and upward of 30 percent are homicides that don’t meet the “active shooter” definition, like episodes of domestic and gang violence. Even unintentional shootings (about 1 percent of the total) outnumber mass shootings.
There are far more effective means to prevent these sadly routine tragedies than by focusing on assault weapons. And that means that it is both wrong and counterproductive for advocacy organizations and elected leaders to use the moments when the public is focused on gun control to push an assault weapons ban.


Don’t get me wrong. I don’t disagree with the intent of an assault weapons ban. I led the organization that before my tenure as president helped to pass the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004, and I believe there is no place in civilized society for guns that are made for the express purpose of killing people.


But the fact is that if one were to objectively list solutions based purely on how much they would lower the number of gun deaths in our country, an assault weapons ban would not be high on the list.

Invest in a large-scale education and awareness campaign on the dangers of owning and carrying guns, and what can be done to mitigate those dangers. It is crucial that these efforts be led in partnership with gun rights groups and public health experts and that they remain free from any judgment about gun ownership or connection with political advocacy. There are many initiatives already, such as public education about the warning signs of mental illness and suicide, which have proven effective and could be models.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

except Trump didn't lose track of thought and totally forget what he was saying ... and 4 years younger, but yeah, other than that ....

 

Trump lied as often as he spoke, and when he did speak, took 15 minutes to get to the point of what he was trying to say. The guy was a word salad buffet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

So even if we use this, and your low range of 13%.   That's 43M law abiding citizens that would have 0 access to guns under SC's plan. 

And no, I barely ever know what Stealthy means.  

Sounds about right.  And that would have kept the Atlanta and Denver shootings from happening.   Neither one of those guys should have been allowed to buy guns.  Want to bet whether the SC or Texas shooters had similar mental issues and treatment?

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I am failing to see how anger management, teaching kids to cope with things, focusing on suicide, etc..  would require giving up freedoms.  

Now, I guess if we are talking about targeting and reporting people because of anger, grievences, etc..  or the fact they were talking about how some are looking for the notoriety.    Then we are talking about what to/not to report, and what should be allowed to be covered on the news.   Then we start battling over the 1st, I'll give you that.    

Ie - do we have to require a specific post about how they are going to do X/Y/Z, or are we talking about general angry, paranoid posts.  (like talking online about lefties being the problem and how they are coming for guns?).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Sounds about right.  And that would have kept the Atlanta and Denver shootings from happening.   Neither one of those guys should have been allowed to buy guns.  Want to bet whether the SC or Texas shooters had similar mental issues and treatment?

I mean, I guess if that's what you guys would want and are advocating for.   If I remember right from the other thread, the majority of the shooters of this type weren't on meds, and if they did have a diagnoses is was for that list I gave above which are very common in the US.  

IMO that renders any rants about the left wanting to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens null and void, right?  Or at least hypocritical? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I mean, I guess if that's what you guys would want and are advocating for.   If I remember right from the other thread, the majority of the shooters of this type weren't on meds,

 

Wrong.

It's a good thing you didn't take my bet.  Here is what we know about Phillip Adams:

Quote

 

Adams’ father told a Charlotte television station that he blamed football for problems that may have led his son to commit Wednesday’s violence.

“I can say he’s a good kid,” Alonzo Adams told WCNC-TV. “I think the football messed him up.”

“His mental health degraded fast and terribly bad,’’ Lauren Adams told USA TODAY Sports. “There was usual behavior. I’m not going to get into all that (symptoms). We definitely did notice signs of mental illness that was extremely concerning, that was not like we had ever seen. …

"He wasn't a monster. He was struggling with his mental health.''

 

Any bets on the Texas guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Wrong.

It's a good thing you didn't take my bet.  Here is what we know about Phillip Adams:

Any bets on the Texas guy?

I didn't say those 2 specifically, I was talking about overall %s.   We did this a couple years ago in the gun thread and we looked at all this same stuff then.  I will be honest and say that I have not read up on anybody from the last year or so - hence my not commenting specifically about them.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I didn't say those 2 specifically, I was talking about overall %s.   We did this a couple years ago in the gun thread and we looked at all this same stuff then.  I will be honest and say that I have not read up on anybody from the last year or so - hence my not commenting specifically about them.   

 

How far do you want to go back when the problem is staring you in the face.

Atlanta - yes

Denver - yes

South Carolina - yes

Texas - ? (I'm betting yes)

It takes a special mentality to murder a bunch of people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tonydead said:

How far do you want to go back when the problem is staring you in the face.

Atlanta - yes

Denver - yes

South Carolina - yes

Texas - ? (I'm betting yes)

It takes a special mentality to murder a bunch of people.  

 What, specifically, were the mental illnesses that those 4 were dealing with or taking meds for?  Were they being treated?

I don't agree with that last statement, and I think that is a bit of overgeneralization against people with mental illnesses.   People kill people for hatred, religion, political reasons.  We have seen that in these cases, and those things have 0 to do with mental illness.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

Biden is senile - he's mentally declining and only an eternal optimist would see differently :(

Guess that is just a common characteristic of transformative presidents.   I guess the price we need to pay to stick a fork in the horrible failure that has been the Reagan era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tonydead said:

How far do you want to go back when the problem is staring you in the face.

Atlanta - yes

Denver - yes

South Carolina - yes

Texas - ? (I'm betting yes)

It takes a special mentality to murder a bunch of people.  

so why was those people allowed to roam in public if they were do dangerous ?

 

 

I'm out the next few days. Here is what we've determined in the thread

 

People want to ban AR15's .... which account for very few of guns used in murders and IIRC 60% of mass murders use handguns too. 

The way the laws are written, people will lose their hunting rifles and their self defense guns. Gun owners will have to give everything on these bills - non-gun owners will have to give nothing. 

I hope by now everyone can agree stopping murderers and violence isn't the goal - its banning guns from law abiding people.

I think now we now many anti-gun people don't know what a semi-automatic rifle is and they don't know what 'powerful means. In other words, most anti-gun people don't really know anything about guns other than what liberal media tells them.

We know violence has been steadily going down but tens of millions of legal gun owners have purchased tens of millions of guns even as well = meaning gun owners are not the problem. Today tens of millions of people carrying weapons did nothing wrong. WE are not the problem.

We know Biden will lie for agenda - well, we've known that since way back, but he proved it yesterday for sure. 

We know nothing Biden did yesterday will make any difference at all in violence/deaths by murderers. 

 

Ya'll have a good weekend 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

 What, specifically, were the mental illnesses that those 4 were dealing with or taking meds for?  Were they being treated?

I don't agree with that last statement, and I think that is a bit of overgeneralization against people with mental illnesses.   People kill people for hatred, religion, political reasons.  We have seen that in these cases, and those things have 0 to do with mental illness.  

Atlanta - Treated for sexual addiction.

Denver - Treaded for anger.

SC - all signs point to yes.

For hatred see Atlanta and Denver and likely SC.  For religion and political reasons it still takes a special mentality to murder a bunch of people, but I agree, they are a lot less likely to have been receiving treatment for it.  If that was your point.

Treatment isn't a requirement for a mass shooter, it's just one way we have to identify people with mental problems.  People seek treatment and get mood altering drugs because their moods aren't aren't regular in the first place. It's not the drugs that made them do it.

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Guess that is just a common characteristic of transformative presidents.   I guess the price we need to pay to stick a fork in the horrible failure that has been the Reagan era.

I can't wait until we get one.  :thumbup:

Just like Reagan.  

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, timschochet said:

It’s a false statement. But it’s a pretty minor one. 
 

Biden said.....

 

Direct Headline: Biden's Decency Is Being Greatly Exaggerated

A history of lies, flip-flops and outrageous statements would be a liability against any incumbent other than Trump. 

By Ramesh Ponnuru July 8, 2020, 7:00 AM PDT

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-07-08/biden-s-decency-is-being-greatly-exaggerated

 

The Joe Biden climate plan plagiarism “scandal,” explained

By Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesiasmatt@vox.com Jun 5, 2019, 10:40am EDT

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/5/18653079/joe-biden-climate-plan-plagiarism-neil-kinnock

 

******

Biden said his family was a legacy of coal miners and he was the first of his name to go to graduate from college. His father was car salesman. His mother had college graduates on her side of the family, one of which was a state senator. The coal miner story and college graduate story were stolen from Neil Kinnock of the UK Labor Party. Biden also stole Kinnock's speeches, which ended up ending his POTUS run decades ago.

This isn't to mention Biden has been accused recently of lifting material for his speeches on the environment and that he was sanctioned at his law school for plagiarism.

Biden also fabricated a story about getting arrested trying to get to the imprisoned Nelson Mandela to support him. He had to retract and change the story when confronted with the reality.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/28/biden-south-africa-arrest-118134

In 1972, Biden's wife and daughter were tragically killed in an automobile accident. Biden claimed the other driver was a drunk driver to score political points in the press. This was never found to be true. He had to lose this sympathy talking point when the daughter of the other driver, then deceased, told him to stop doing it and smearing her father's name

https://www.newarkpostonline.com/news/local/daughter-of-man-in-72-biden-crash-seeks-apology-from-widowed-senator/article_6c9a477e-63be-561b-b771-1330b4cda02d.html

Biden said he did not support the war in Iraq when all open evidence was to the contrary. Why he would lie like this and in this way is beyond comprehension. He did his part to send young Americans to die and this is how he honors their sacrifice - with more lies. So he can denounce the war and denounce what they did for a media talking point. How repugnant.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/05/joe-biden/oe-biden-falsely-claims-he-immediately-opposed-ira/

And didn't Biden promise transparency? How is that shaping up with an embattled Jen Psaki getting left out in the cold and "circling back" to every possible non answer in the book on the things Biden promised that are not coming to fruition?

Since when are lies held to degrees of damage done to one's integrity? Is that what you teach your kids? Is that what you want people here to teach their kids?

Biden weaponized the media optics of his wife and daughter's death to score some incremental approval ratings from suburban female voters and mothers. He sold them cheap so he could get a few more favorable responses in a limited number of polling results. Think about that.

Since I'm the most heavily sourced poster in the entire PSF, I guess you ringing the dinner bell for the "Source Police" won't help you here. Not that you could sell the idea that Bloomberg suddenly is a legacy right wing haven of deception to anyone.

Here is a true statement and a major one - Why should anyone believe a single word that comes out Joe Biden's mouth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tonydead said:

Atlanta - Treated for sexual addiction.

Denver - Treaded for anger.

SC - all signs point to yes.

For hatred see Atlanta and Denver and likely SC.  For religion and political reasons it still takes a special mentality to murder a bunch of people, but I agree, they are a lot less likely to have been receiving treatment for it.  If that was your point.

Treatment isn't a requirement for a mass shooter, it's just one way we have to identify people with mental problems.  People seek treatment and get mood altering drugs because their moods aren't aren't regular in the first place. It's not the drugs that made them do it.

My point is we go down the list, and we will list off damn near every mental illness there is, and your post proved more of that.  For 4 shooters here we have 4 different things.   I remember looking at the list in the other thread, and we would add on ADHD, anxiety, PTSD, depression, sociopath, etc.. or no mental illness.   

So saying that it takes a certain type of mentality to do that really doesn't mean much if we can't narrow down what that exactly is.  My point is that when people say deny access to the mentally ill - do they mean deny guns to anybody who is diagnosed with anything that we listed?  That's were I said we are including most of the country when we are talking about common things like depression, anxiety, ADHD, PTSD - at that point we might as well just ban guns.   Plus, you could make the problem worse - ie would somebody go to the doctor if they think they will lose their guns? Will more people go untreated as a result?

IMO, as important as I think mental health is in this country and we should focus more on it, because we can't narrow down the mental profile of these people I don't think that alone is going to do as much as we think it will for this issue.  I think we should do that in tandem with gun regulations.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

My point is we go down the list, and we will list off damn near every mental illness there is, and your post proved more of that.  For 4 shooters here we have 4 different things.   I remember looking at the list in the other thread, and we would add on ADHD, anxiety, PTSD, depression, sociopath, etc.. or no mental illness.   

So saying that it takes a certain type of mentality to do that really doesn't mean much if we can't narrow down what that exactly is.  My point is that when people say deny access to the mentally ill - do they mean deny guns to anybody who is diagnosed with anything that we listed?  That's were I said we are including most of the country when we are talking about common things like depression, anxiety, ADHD, PTSD - at that point we might as well just ban guns.   Plus, you could make the problem worse - ie would somebody go to the doctor if they think they will lose their guns? Will more people go untreated as a result?

IMO, as important as I think mental health is in this country and we should focus more on it, because we can't narrow down the mental profile of these people I don't think that alone is going to do as much as we think it will for this issue.  I think we should do that in tandem with gun regulations.    

We know what it is. Take a long look at these guys.  And it ain't guys like Stealthy that likes to shoot rabbits with his AR15.  Add a checkbox to the gun application: Do you have any history of depression, mental illness or are you on any psychotic or mood altering medications?  Boom, done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tonydead said:

We know what it is. Take a long look at these guys.  And it ain't guys like Stealthy that likes to shoot rabbits with his AR15.  Add a checkbox to the gun application: Do you have any history of depression, mental illness or are you on any psychotic or mood altering medications?  Boom, done.

:lol: we don't though.  you just listed 3-4 things for 4 recent shooters.  

I just find it odd you guys are so comfortable denying guns to so many people who would fall under that umbrella of what you list.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

:lol: we don't though.  you just listed 3-4 things for 4 recent shooters.  

I just find it odd you guys are so comfortable denying guns to so many people who would fall under that umbrella of what you list.  

We already have a question on the application about illegal drugs.  Stiff penalties if you lie, unless you're Hunter Biden.

I phrased the question for you, you don't have to act like it's any harder than it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, tonydead said:

We know what it is. Take a long look at these guys.  And it ain't guys like Stealthy that likes to shoot rabbits with his AR15.  Add a checkbox to the gun application: Do you have any history of depression, mental illness or are you on any psychotic or mood altering medications?  Boom, done.

Maybe you missed this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Maybe you missed this.

I saw that.  It goes back to what I was saying with SC.  I am actually surprised you guys would be willing to deny access to guns to so many people.   That question is a pretty big umbrella.  Like I said, that denies more law abiding citizens guns than any AR ban or whatever else regulation that is being heavily opposed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I saw that.  It goes back to what I was saying with SC.  I am actually surprised you guys would be willing to deny access to guns to so many people.   That question is a pretty big umbrella.  Like I said, that denies more law abiding citizens guns than any AR ban or whatever else regulation that is being heavily opposed.  

Who cares how big of an umbrella it is.  It gets at the root cause of the problem.  Lots of questions on the form are "pretty big umbrellas".  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Who cares how big of an umbrella it is.  It gets at the root cause of the problem.  Lots of questions on the form are "pretty big umbrellas".  

 

 

:shrug: 

Like I said, I am just surprised that people (talking SC here - I don't chat with you as much around here) who constantly say that law abiding gun owners are not the problem would be willing to deny access to guns to tens of millions of law abiding citizens.  Especially when you consider how many military vets struggle with mental illness.   Women escaping a trauma who might suffer from a mental illness and want protection, etc..  

If we take that article as accurate, mental illness and meds weren't one of the 4 common traits of the shooters, so is it really getting to the root cause of the problem? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

:shrug: 

Like I said, I am just surprised that people (talking SC here - I don't chat with you as much around here) who constantly say that law abiding gun owners are not the problem would be willing to deny access to guns to tens of millions of law abiding citizens.  Especially when you consider how many military vets struggle with mental illness.   Women escaping a trauma who might suffer from a mental illness and want protection, etc..  

If we take that article as accurate, mental illness and meds weren't one of the 4 common traits of the shooters, so is it really getting to the root cause of the problem? 

What article?

This just in - Phillip Adams attacked and killed his doctor and killed grandkids in a rage when the doctor stopped giving him so many prescriptions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dkp993 said:

So this thread has gone from mass shootings, to gun control, to drug use in America, to stuttering, with a dash of POTUS bashing thrown in for good measure.  If there was ever an example of the PSF distilled down into one thread this would be the perfect example.  

Actually it’s a refreshing change from everything going to Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

First article that popped up, take it for what it's worth.  I have seen these 4 traits listed multiple places though.  

LInk

 

A new Department of Justice-funded study of all mass shootings — killings of four or more people in a public place — since 1966 found that the shooters typically have an experience with childhood trauma, a personal crisis or specific grievance, and a “script” or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap. And then there’s the fourth thing: access to a firearm.

The study, compiled by the Violence Project, a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to reducing violence in society, was published Tuesday and is the most comprehensive and detailed database of mass shooters to date, coded to 100 different variables. 

The database delivers a number of arresting findings. Mass shootings are becoming much more frequent and deadly: Of the 167 incidents the researchers logged in that 53-year period, 20% have occurred in the last five years, and half since 2000.

 

1 hour ago, tonydead said:

What article?

This just in - Phillip Adams attacked and killed his doctor and killed grandkids in a rage when the doctor stopped giving him so many prescriptions.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Actually it’s a refreshing change from everything going to Trump.

It threatened to do that for a bit but luckily shifted away....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LINK

 

Available evidence suggests that people with mental health disorders are more likely than those without such conditions to commit acts of mass violence. But many mass shooters do not have mental illnesses, and having a mental illness isn’t predictive of who will perpetrate a mass shooting. The factors that drive someone to commit an act of mass violence are complex, and while they sometimes may include mental illness, it has not been shown that mental illness is the primary cause of mass murder.

Furthermore, while serious mental illness is associated with a somewhat higher risk of being violent, most people with those illnesses are not violent, and most violence is committed by people who do not have psychiatric conditions.

 

The study also calculated the attributable risk, or how much of all violence was due to having a mental condition, and found that just 3% to 5% of all violence was due to mental illness alone. Or, as the National Council For Behavioral Health explained in its August 2019 report, “This means that if we could eliminate the elevated risk of violence that is attributable directly to having schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression, the overall rate of violence in society would go down by only 4 percent; 96 percent of violent events would still occur, because they are caused by factors other than mental illness.”

Grant Duwe, a criminologist at Baylor University, calculated that of 185 public mass shootings in America between 1900 and 2017, at least 59% were carried out by people with symptoms of a serious mental illness or by those who had been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder. In contrast, using a stricter standard of psychosis, a database of U.S. mass murder events between 1913 and 2015 put together by Columbia University clinical psychiatrist Michael Stone revealed that only about 20% of perpetrators had a mental illness. 

 

 

Despite the evidence that indicates mental illness is not the primary driver of mass shootings, the notion that mental illness must have been at play in these types of events remains common. After all, how could someone who is mentally healthy have perpetrated such a horrific crime?

But experts say that kind of logic is flawed. “No one who commits a violent act is mentally well,” said McGinty. But that doesn’t mean that the person meets the criteria for a mental illness or that treatment would have eliminated that person’s violent act. “We have to draw a distinction between mental illness — diagnosable and treatable mental illness — and mental wellness,” she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2021 at 4:41 AM, KarmaPolice said:

I was just reading an article b/c I was curious what, if any, effect the Conn ban had.   LINK

“If you look the homicide rate, I think it worked out that there were 92 gun homicides per year in Connecticut on average,” Pinciaro said. “Last year -- 2016 -- there were 53.”

That’s the lowest homicide rate ever, according to state data, and Connecticut has one of the lowest gun death rates in the nation.

 

I don't know if that holds still since it was a 2017 article, but a 40%+ drop in gun homicides is a good result.  The article also goes on to say that gun sales were actually up.  :shrug: 

 

I’m too lazy to look it up atm, but there’s a least one study that looked at suicide and homicide numbers pre/post increased gun control legislation, in comparison to adjacent areas without such regulation. Wanna guess the results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2021 at 4:49 AM, KarmaPolice said:

No, I don't agree. 

Do you understand the % of the US population that this would cover?    So, not only did you just take away the right to a gun for probably 1/2 the US population, you also just denied them the right to vote and now they can't have a car to get a job (that you also think is very important).  These are law abiding citizens.  

As for the 2nd part, we've gone down that path before, and the answer depends on what types of shooting you are talking about.  The most common thing you are going to find is that the vast majority is male.  

By his criteria, alcohol would qualify as a “mind-bending” medication too.

ETA I see you’ve already covered it. But the SSRI link to violence is tenuous at best, and may only apply to teens IIRC.

Edited by Terminalxylem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2021 at 5:27 AM, KarmaPolice said:

Correct.  And the things we see when we look at the list of shooters - ADHD, anxiety, PTSD, etc.  are very common things that many people suffer from.  So my point to SC and others has always been that if you say to deny guns to all these people, you would basically be denying guns to a majority of the population  - including military vets.   Also, they are law abiding citizens.  

As far as mass shooters go, many probably have personality disorders, which respond poorly  to medications. And other countries with similar psychoactive medication use have far less mass shootings per capita. Wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2021 at 6:24 PM, tonydead said:

Do you have any history of depression, mental illness or are you on any psychotic or mood altering medications?  Boom, done.

people lie on the forms - and the Fed Govt that says we're all safer for these background checks does NOTHING to those caught lying on them

On 4/9/2021 at 6:48 PM, KarmaPolice said:

I saw that.  It goes back to what I was saying with SC.  I am actually surprised you guys would be willing to deny access to guns to so many people.   That question is a pretty big umbrella.  Like I said, that denies more law abiding citizens guns than any AR ban or whatever else regulation that is being heavily opposed.  

KarmaPolice - can we be honest ? What I suggested will NEVER happen because it would be everyone betting looked at hard with their medical histories and background checking for things like driving, voting etc - and they'll feel its a grand violation of their Constitutional Rights because you're right - its a huge umbrella and they'll not go for it because THEY will be impacted and affected

Same people don't own guns and so, don't have a problem with banning them.

why doesn't CNN talk about all the stabbing deaths ?  nobody cares much - its the price we pay in a society that has knives isn't it ?

https://abc7chicago.com/los-angeles-stabbing-california-reseda-children-stabbed/10506231/

https://www.google.com/search?q=police+stabbing+death&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS935US935&sxsrf=ALeKk00ZRcUp-jkbFN8zerNShmw3DYGahQ:1618239023373&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY6ZiR-vjvAhWSLs0KHZd0Ac4Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1863&bih=877

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...