The lady is an Army vet, so you have to make allowances for the barracks-type language.
http://thelibertyzone.com/2015/10/05/what-do-they-have-in-common/
http://thelibertyzone.com/2015/10/05/what-do-they-have-in-common/
Good blog on mass shootings
- Thread starter Lone Clone
- Start date
Lone..you have convinced me!
In fact, I think that EVERY voter in the country ought to be required to produce a registered hand gun at the polling place of their choice in order to be given a ballot! to hell with a "voter ID"....what can better legitimize a citizen than his being able to produce a registered weapon and his permit to possess!
This will kill 2 birds with one stone, as it were. We need more handguns and firearms in this country to keep us safe from eachother!
In fact, I think that EVERY voter in the country ought to be required to produce a registered hand gun at the polling place of their choice in order to be given a ballot! to hell with a "voter ID"....what can better legitimize a citizen than his being able to produce a registered weapon and his permit to possess!
This will kill 2 birds with one stone, as it were. We need more handguns and firearms in this country to keep us safe from eachother!
I'd say it's a mediocre blog at best. So she points out that background checks have failed (which is true). So what's her alternative? Did she present any new ideas on how we can limit these events in the future or did she just do what everyone does and point fingers at the failures while providing nothing new of substance?
So I'll ask the OP what I would ask this obviously partisan author of the blog. Are we as a country to the point where we throw our hands up and say we can't prevent these type of events? Do we allow anyone to get a gun? If the background checks aren't effective, what is? I hear the Republicans talk all the time about how they want to prevent these things, so I'd love to hear some of their ideas because everything offered up seems to only amount to reasons why it wouldn't work.
So I'll ask the OP what I would ask this obviously partisan author of the blog. Are we as a country to the point where we throw our hands up and say we can't prevent these type of events? Do we allow anyone to get a gun? If the background checks aren't effective, what is? I hear the Republicans talk all the time about how they want to prevent these things, so I'd love to hear some of their ideas because everything offered up seems to only amount to reasons why it wouldn't work.
Her (implied) alternative is for bureaucrats to do their jobs properly instead of creating new jobs for them to fail at performing.
What the pro-Second Amendment people (the rational ones) are mostly doing is pointing out that the hysterical rantings of people like our president are useless. This has been the case for roughly ever. Back when JFK was killed by a war surplus rifle, the immediate reaction on the left was to ban handguns. Excuse me?
Speaking for myself -- and I suspect, also for the blogger -- is that before we try something new, let's try something old. In other words, enforce the laws currently on the books. That includes not only competent background checks, but also tough actions against perps and proper restrictions on nut cases.
Meh. I don't think any Democrats (the rational ones) ever said we were for an all out ban on guns. I know that is the boogey man talking point to get the crazies stirred up, but in reality Democrats love guns just as much as Republicans do. Nobody is coming for your guns and never will.
I would have maybe taken here a little more seriously if she didn't use terms such as maggot, dildo, etc in trying to make her point (lack there of in my opinion). She didn't point out why the process failed, only that it did. Has she determined where in the process it broke down and offered alternatives to ensure that doesn't happen again? Of course not. She did what everyone does with this topic. Point fingers at the failures but offer no alternatives on how to make those processes better or come up with something new. I guess you and I differ on what constitutes a good blog and what equates to the same old talking points that have always been there after these things happen.
I sincerely doubt that liberals want to face the truth on what the problem is. They would prefer to blame the gun.
What a classic LC post. Spend all day critical of solutions only to veer around and endorse the very solutions he's critical of.
Like what Fred said. . . if you don't think extended background checks etc will help prevent these sorts of things then what is your solution.
Because it seems like the right doesn't have a plan other then to tell us not to try anyone else's plans.
Their plan is for us to just sit and accept mass shootings as part of every day life in this country???
Because it seems like the right doesn't have a plan other then to tell us not to try anyone else's plans.
Their plan is for us to just sit and accept mass shootings as part of every day life in this country???
One of the bad things about allowing everyone back on OT, is that people like CeMar gets to come back.
But on the bright side, he proves my point. Nobody on the Republican side has any new ideas how to prevent these things from happening. They (like OP, blog author, and CeMar) all want play the blame game. Not that anyone was planning on taking them seriously in this discussion anyways.
Anyone else feel like acting like an adult and offering up some new ideas? HawkinSEC apparently was full of ideas in the past and everyone agreed with those ideas. I never got to see what they were so I hope he'll share them again
I find it interesting that you would blame the writer for not offering up solutions. What I have learned in my 55 years of life is that when it comes to human beings, most problems are never solvable. Sometimes you have to admit their is no solution, and then learn how to adjust accordingly. The only person you can control is yourself.
You actually make my point. Maybe the solution is to stop creating dysfunctional people. In every case it seems there are dysfunctional people at the root of the problem.
Yeah that makes total sense. . . something that happens in the United States quite commonly and almost never happens in any other industrialized nation is a problem that just can not be solved.
Background checks fail because they are retrospective, and none of the recent mass-killings (OR, CT, CO) have been committed by a known criminal.
If mental health records and/or medical records and/or family reporting were included in background check/registries, we actually might have the information to identify problems before they occur.
Heck, you many not even have to DENY gun rights to mentally ill/borderline people; just have the flags there, so if someone with any background (red flags) shows up on the radar buying >1 or 2 guns, you have the ability to intervene in advance. That doesn't mean you're tracking EVERYONE with guns, only the people with specific concerns.
So long as NRA and other entities will prevent background checks in general, and more specifically any 'forward looking' databases, we will just need to consider mass-killings part of our normal society. That's the society NRA wants us to live with.
"I also note the Times’ froth-flecked zeal to paint the Roanoke shooting of two reporters as a “mass shooting,” but hey… it advances the narrative, so why not, right?
Several of these malcontents should have been prohibited under current law. John Hauser, who opened fire in a Louisiana theater was ordered into a psychiatric hospital by a judge and had been denied a concealed carry permit. Bureaucracy FAIL.
The white supremacist maggot who killed nine people in a church in South Carolina should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from that incident. Bureaucracy FAIL.
The father of the kid who used his dad’s gun to shoot up his school in Washington state, should have been prohibited as well, since he was the subject of a permanent domestic violence protection order, which should have been entered into the federal criminal background database. But he bought the gun legally, a background check failed to come up with the protection order as it was never entered into the system. Bureaucracy FAIL.
The dildo who shot up disarmed victims at the Washington Navy Yard passed local and state background checks, even though he was nuttier than squirrel shit and twice sought treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for psychiatric issues. Bureaucracy FAIL.
And despite the fact that he communicated with a terrorist and advocated terrorist acts in his presentations, authorities were apparently too scared of being accused of cultural insensitivity or something to actually take action on Nidal Hasan. He wasn’t under the care of a psychiatrist. He was a psychiatrist and an Army Major with a clean criminal record. But apparently the exchanges with a radical cleric and attempts to contact al Q’aida, weren’t enough to give the feds a clue that maybe something wasn’t quite right in Hasanland. Bureaucracy FAIL."
The article definitely has its points.
Several of these malcontents should have been prohibited under current law. John Hauser, who opened fire in a Louisiana theater was ordered into a psychiatric hospital by a judge and had been denied a concealed carry permit. Bureaucracy FAIL.
The white supremacist maggot who killed nine people in a church in South Carolina should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from that incident. Bureaucracy FAIL.
The father of the kid who used his dad’s gun to shoot up his school in Washington state, should have been prohibited as well, since he was the subject of a permanent domestic violence protection order, which should have been entered into the federal criminal background database. But he bought the gun legally, a background check failed to come up with the protection order as it was never entered into the system. Bureaucracy FAIL.
The dildo who shot up disarmed victims at the Washington Navy Yard passed local and state background checks, even though he was nuttier than squirrel shit and twice sought treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for psychiatric issues. Bureaucracy FAIL.
And despite the fact that he communicated with a terrorist and advocated terrorist acts in his presentations, authorities were apparently too scared of being accused of cultural insensitivity or something to actually take action on Nidal Hasan. He wasn’t under the care of a psychiatrist. He was a psychiatrist and an Army Major with a clean criminal record. But apparently the exchanges with a radical cleric and attempts to contact al Q’aida, weren’t enough to give the feds a clue that maybe something wasn’t quite right in Hasanland. Bureaucracy FAIL."
The article definitely has its points.
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
Joey, if the shootings were committed by people with no known criminal behavior, than what good does a background check do? What does it do to stop those that would just get their guns off the record? When does the government ever work this efficiently? How can they possibly implement something like this, with their already failed strategies? Where do you get the money? Where do you get the data? What you're asking for is dangerous, and you most of you government advocates don't even get that. You're opening up the doors into your homes even further. Eh? Eh? Eh?
This problem goes way beyond guns. There are a lot of apathetic people out there right now. The job market is terrible unless you have a good college degree, and while I'm actually back in school now, people shouldn't HAVE to go back to school in order to feed their families or make their way through life.
Edit: There just aren't a whole lot of avenues to take besides going to school. Then they have all these kids BS'd into thinking that they HAVE to go to school, so they spend the money and either never get their degree, or get some bogus degree that really isn't going to help them much. Now you don't have a good job AND you're in debt. Guns are just the symptom of the problem, they aren't the disease.
Edit: There just aren't a whole lot of avenues to take besides going to school. Then they have all these kids BS'd into thinking that they HAVE to go to school, so they spend the money and either never get their degree, or get some bogus degree that really isn't going to help them much. Now you don't have a good job AND you're in debt. Guns are just the symptom of the problem, they aren't the disease.
...which I've already stated in this and other threads.
However, denoting a 'flag' on a gun-access/background check, which has been triggered by a parent, doctor or mental health professional, is not a 'mental health record'.
I did, and it stated that you go only after the people who are potential problems. Who though decides that, and how do you do that, without first intruding on everyone else. Just having a standard or policy, DOES NOT mean it will work. Look at the drug war for an example of that.
So again, explain how all of this happens Joe, eh?
Then what kind of record is it, and where do you keep it, and how do you keep it from being tampered with, and if it's needed in a type of official capacity, whom then handles the officially part of that?
We need details Joel. Not wishful tales.
I think he's saying that the system promising fortune and fame has a link to the depression suffered by these student psychopaths. I believe there is a link, that includes the false perception of the system.
I can see that. I might also link the notion that everyone need to be special or unique. Lots of entitled narcissism in the wild.
I thought you were an 'internet expert'? You don't know how to keep secured databases? Holy crap!
I'm linking despair to mass shootings, which includes massive debt which will be next to impossible for the person to ever dig out of.
Oh wow, you really missed the point on that didn't you? Who pays for those databases? Who fills them up? Who maintains their integrity? Where does the money come from? Who oversees it all, and makes sure there is no corruption of data? Who is allowed access to it.? Did you really just ask me that?I thought you were an 'internet expert'? You don't know how to keep secured databases? Holy crap!
That pic pretty much makes my point. Not everyone is college material. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the chance to provide for their families.People shouldn't have to be employable in order to be employed?
