Oregon's Mother Sounds Like Some Posters Here...

[Mattski]

1 in 5 is likely way high and regardless if we have to choose between restricting gun ownership of either all gun owners or just the crazy ones, I choose the crazy ones.

That was precisely my point. Of course you would, because you are choosing which category people fall in to.[/QUOTE]
How am I choosing anything? Have you not paid attention to what all these mass shooters have in common? They all have had diagnosed mental illnesses. If the goal is to prevent mass shootings, and restricting gun ownership is thought to be a method of doing so, why wouldn't we start with the subset of people actually at a greater risk of committing these acts?

 

[slieb85]

So who gets to decide who is too crazy to be allowed to own a gun? The Federal Government? A special task force?

Are they individually evaluated, and if so, who pays for this? When you get someone like the Oregon shooter's mother, who is a tax-paying, law-abiding, but Asperpger's suffer, how do you justify taking her guns, but not everyone else's? How does this law pass the muster of the 2nd amendment (let alone the ire of the NRA and Conservative Presidential Candidates), yet all other proposals get nearly immediately rebuffed with some dumb shit posting the text of the 2nd? Would you be proposed to amending the 2nd? What would the language look like?

My guess is you don't have the damn stomach for this. Because, like all gun enthusiasts, you prefer that people die needlessly to you having to give up your guns.

 

[slieb85]

But, if you want to take this woman's guns, with her apparent lack of violent history, I'm going to ask that your guns get taken away too.

And that is why nothing will ever get done effectively on this topic and why you don't really care to prevent mass shootings. This is what the anti gunners want.
To most it's obvious the people doing these all have 1 thing in common - they are mentally ill and almost all have had an official diagnosis of mentally instability and have been on prescribed meds. But for some reason you'd rather this be a one size fit all fix? Why is that? Is it bc you really don't think any of this would actually stop mass shootings and would just be personally more comfortable knowing less people owned guns?[/QUOTE]

This is pretty dumb, even by this thread's standards.

I am no "take all their guns" person. I just think the fact that gun nuts only want to talk about mental illness, instead of the possibility of limiting guns, is stupid and ridiculous. Refusing to examine all possible solutions shows that you don't care about the violence.

 

[slieb85]

Pro-accountability, marriage and parenting.

Again, not really linked. Didn't this mother seem like a really good parent?

Jesus won't fix these problems. Forcing people into your beliefs isn't going to fix these problems.

It's time to stop holding on to the notion that make-believe will fix our society and instead examine what the real issues are.

 

[slieb85]

Hell, I'm not in favor of the federal government doing anything usually. I do not think that mentally insane people should have guns because I'm not nuts. I also am in favor of criminals not having guns and don't care if they take those too.

Ok. So who picks who is "insane"? Do you really believe that this shooter would have been identified? If so (which I highly doubt), do you take away his mother's guns? She has the same disease, he lived in her home. Does our citizenry really want to limit her rights because of a condition her son has? Are you really willing to open that box? Who do you plan on allowing to make the determination of who isn't stable enough to own guns?

 

[Mattski]

So who gets to decide who is too crazy to be allowed to own a gun? The Federal Government? A special task force?

Are they individually evaluated, and if so, who pays for this? When you get someone like the Oregon shooter's mother, who is a tax-paying, law-abiding, but Asperpger's suffer, how do you justify taking her guns, but not everyone else's? How does this law pass the muster of the 2nd amendment (let alone the ire of the NRA and Conservative Presidential Candidates), yet all other proposals get nearly immediately rebuffed with some dumb shit posting the text of the 2nd? Would you be proposed to amending the 2nd? What would the language look like?

My guess is you don't have the damn stomach for this. Because, like all gun enthusiasts, you prefer that people die needlessly to you having to give up your guns.

I should give up my guns so people don't need to needlessly die? Please tell me you're trolling. No one is this effing dumb and capable of typing on a keyboard.

 

[slieb85]

I should give up my guns so people don't need to needlessly die? Please tell me you're trolling. No one is this effing dumb and capable of typing on a keyboard.

You're really terrible at reading. Where did I tell you that you need to give up all of your guns?

YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR HOUSE!

 

[naturalmwa]

Jesus won't fix these problems.

I don't know. I think Jesus had some things to say that might be very helpful to resolving gun violence. If religion concerned itself with this part of the Jesus message like they do his silance on abortion, I bet we solve this.

 

[HotelAlphaWilcoKilo]

Keeping a job would be almost impossible for someone who truly had Aspergers.

Not if they can code and want to work for Amazon.

 

[naturalmwa]

Not if they can code and want to work for Amazon.

GE is hiring all the socially inept coders. And they really want the credit.

 

[22*43*51]

Again, not really linked. Didn't this mother seem like a really good parent?

Jesus won't fix these problems. Forcing people into your beliefs isn't going to fix these problems.

It's time to stop holding on to the notion that make-believe will fix our society and instead examine what the real issues are.

When did I say anything about Jesus?

Shouldn't the Mother's judgement be questioned when she helps he clinically trouble son have access to an Arsenal?

Two parents in most cases provide a more stable, nurturing environment than one. Two parents are most often to be above the poverty line also.

 

[slieb85]

When did I say anything about Jesus?

Shouldn't the Mother's judgement be questioned when she helps he clinically trouble son have access to an Arsenal?

Two parents in most cases provide a more stable, nurturing environment than one. Two parents are most often to be above the poverty line also.

But how are they related to mass gun violence? Again, how do you fix the mother problem? Couldn't the shooter have purchased these guns on his own? So how does punishing the mother do a damn thing, except take away her rights? Are all parents of handicapped children now going to be stripped of their 2nd amendment rights?

Obviously 2-parent homes are more stable and economically viable. But I fail to see how that has anything more to do with this conversation than saying that homes with dogs have happier kids, or some other rather obvious and unrelated factoid.

 

[naturalmwa]

Why should we focus on trying to solve for mass shooters? Normal gun violence is the real killer right? We should simply use mass shooters for political cover to address the more common problem.

 

[theIowaHawk]

That was precisely my point. Of course you would, because you are choosing which category people fall in to.

How am I choosing anything? Have you not paid attention to what all these mass shooters have in common? They all have had diagnosed mental illnesses. If the goal is to prevent mass shootings, and restricting gun ownership is thought to be a method of doing so, why wouldn't we start with the subset of people actually at a greater risk of committing these acts?[/QUOTE]

Well when you start from an incorrect basis the rest will be incorrect.

 

[22*43*51]

But how are they related to mass gun violence? Again, how do you fix the mother problem? Couldn't the shooter have purchased these guns on his own? So how does punishing the mother do a damn thing, except take away her rights? Are all parents of handicapped children now going to be stripped of their 2nd amendment rights?

Obviously 2-parent homes are more stable and economically viable. But I fail to see how that has anything more to do with this conversation than saying that homes with dogs have happier kids, or some other rather obvious and unrelated factoid.

The mother is an enabler. Enablers should be held accountable when they have influence/control over children. That is striking at root cause.

The shooter could have bought these weapons on his own, but he didn't have to; he was enabled.

Do you not want to address root cause?

 

[22*43*51]

Are all parents of handicapped children now going to be stripped of their 2nd amendment rights.

No every parent of handicapped kids.

Just the ones who enable them to build arsenals and carry out murder.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The mother is an enabler. Enablers should be held accountable when they have influence/control over children. That is striking at root cause.

The shooter could have bought these weapons on his own, but he didn't have to; he was enabled.

Do you not want to address root cause?

Guns don't kill people, mothers apparently giving their kids guns do?

 

[slieb85]

The mother is an enabler. Enablers should be held accountable when they have influence/control over children. That is striking at root cause.

The shooter could have bought these weapons on his own, but he didn't have to; he was enabled.

Do you not want to address root cause?

Again. So you're trying to retroactively punish. I'm trying to find proactive solutions.

So now, anyone who doesn't immediately remove their guns from anyone else's reach is on notice that they too will go to jail if someone takes those guns and shoots people? Or is it just if they vocalize that said person might have problems? Wouldn't that lead to a chilling effect in people not seeking treatment for others, due to the fear that then they'd have the onus to prevent those people from reaching their guns, in case something should ever happen, whereas if the didn't say anything, they would be immune from punishment?

Again, you're dancing around the issues here, because you won't really address the problems. I'm bringing up potential issues with your solutions, and you just say things like "don't enable people." As if that platitude is going to fix these issues.

 

[Mattski]

You're really terrible at reading. Where did I tell you that you need to give up all of your guns?

YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR HOUSE!

Re read what you wrote. That is exactly what you're suggesting. I don't own guns to protect my house either dumbass. Quit being such a know it all arrogant prick and realize there are people with different likes and hobbies than you.
I own guns bc I enjoy hunting, enjoy shooting targets and shooting long range for fun, and appreciate quality craftsmanship in high quality firearms.
But by all means keep painting all gun owners with the same broad brush as some idiot mom who let her demented kid have a bunch of guns despite knowing he was unstable.

 

[slieb85]

Guns don't kill people, mothers apparently giving their kids guns do?

Also what is so hilarious about this idiotic rant, he doesn't understand that the mother and child had the same illness. Yet he's willing to criminalize the mother not keeping the guns from the child (because the child wound up shooting people) but won't address whether or not the mother should be allowed the guns (because it destroys his argument).

 

[slieb85]

Re read what you wrote. That is exactly what you're suggesting. I don't own guns to protect my house either dumbass. Quit being such a know it all arrogant prick and realize there are people with different likes and hobbies than you.
I own guns bc I enjoy hunting, enjoy shooting targets and shooting long range for fun, and appreciate quality craftsmanship in high quality firearms.
But by all means keep painting all gun owners with the same broad brush as some idiot mom who let her demented kid have a bunch of guns despite knowing he was unstable.

I used to own a shotgun for hunting. I support your rights to own those guns you mentioned (to a point, I'd have to know details on your long-range rifles).

I'm simply trying to point out how idiotic it is to say "take away guns from insane people" and pretend that's going to fix the problem. I'm pushing people to address how this would work. No one has answered the question even remotely satisfactorily. They've just acted like I want to take their guns, which, depending on which and how many guns they have, they may be right, but, more than likely are wrong.

This entire thread is me asking people to realize how difficult it would be to say "take away insane people's guns" for all the reasons we've identified. Try to keep up.

Actually, after thinking about our conversation, I think I'd like your guns to be taken too, because you don't seem to be much smarter than those "insane" people.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Re read what you wrote. That is exactly what you're suggesting. I don't own guns to protect my house either dumbass. Quit being such a know it all arrogant prick and realize there are people with different likes and hobbies than you.
I own guns bc I enjoy hunting, enjoy shooting targets and shooting long range for fun, and appreciate quality craftsmanship in high quality firearms.
But by all means keep painting all gun owners with the same broad brush as some idiot mom who let her demented kid have a bunch of guns despite knowing he was unstable.

Ironic.

 

[Mattski]

I used to own a shotgun for hunting. I support your rights to own those guns you mentioned (to a point, I'd have to know details on your long-range rifles).

I'm simply trying to point out how idiotic it is to say "take away guns from insane people" and pretend that's going to fix the problem. I'm pushing people to address how this would work. No one has answered the question even remotely satisfactorily. They've just acted like I want to take their guns, which, depending on which and how many guns they have, they may be right, but, more than likely are wrong.

This entire thread is me asking people to realize how difficult it would be to say "take away insane people's guns" for all the reasons we've identified. Try to keep up.

Actually, after thinking about our conversation, I think I'd like your guns to be taken too, because you don't seem to be much smarter than those "insane" people.

Thanks for the glimpse of how you truly view gun ownership. This is why gun owners know the whole "no one wants to take away your guns" argument is bull. Plenty of people clearly do... Just as long as we don't single out insane people or gang bangers. That wouldn't be fair.

 

[22*43*51]

Guns don't kill people, mothers apparently giving their kids guns do?

Parenting is relevant. Moreso than inanimate objects.

It's time to elevate our expectations of one another.

 

[22*43*51]

Also what is so hilarious about this idiotic rant, he doesn't understand that the mother and child had the same illness. Yet he's willing to criminalize the mother not keeping the guns from the child (because the child wound up shooting people) but won't address whether or not the mother should be allowed the guns (because it destroys his argument).

Slieb. You're one to point the finger at idiocy. You're having one hell of a week around here.

Yes, parenting(or lack there of) needs to be attacked by the brave.

The "if it feels good, do it" crowd is complicit.

 

[22*43*51]

I used to own a shotgun for hunting. I support your rights to own those guns you mentioned (to a point, I'd have to know details on your long-range rifles).

I'm simply trying to point out how idiotic it is to say "take away guns from insane people" and pretend that's going to fix the problem. I'm pushing people to address how this would work. No one has answered the question even remotely satisfactorily. They've just acted like I want to take their guns, which, depending on which and how many guns they have, they may be right, but, more than likely are wrong.

This entire thread is me asking people to realize how difficult it would be to say "take away insane people's guns" for all the reasons we've identified. Try to keep up.

Actually, after thinking about our conversation, I think I'd like your guns to be taken too, because you don't seem to be much smarter than those "insane" people.

Margaret Sanger just wanted to sterilize and abort the children of the insane.

Is that your position?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Parenting is relevant. Moreso than inanimate objects.

It's time to elevate our expectations of one another.

No, you are missing it. You are blaming parenting for the result, but based on what?

 

[22*43*51]

No, you are missing it. You are blaming parenting for the result, but based on what?

Based on the results.

Crazy child + guns = bad things

If this is happening under your own roof, should you not own some responsibility?

 

[Bernard P. Fife MD]

Pro-accountability, marriage and parenting.

Do you think that these illnesses that are being talked about can be prevented with marriage, and/or parenting skills, alone? Do you deny any biological, genetic, etc., cause for these? An honest question, for everyone.

I, also, object to the crude names of people that suffer from diseases such as these, that are being tossed around. In these instances, they have done horrible things, which is obvious to everyone. These people should not have access to guns. I am in favor of restricting access to guns, to anyone with violent tendencies, or the potential. But, how many of these "nuts", suffer in silence in a world that ignores them? And, I'm talking about all sufferers, not just the ones that end up violent. I wonder if the people using such names, have ever had someone they cared about, live their life with a mental illness.

And by the way, for people who use the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people. While this is true to an extent, it would be difficult to shoot someone without a gun.

I realize I didn't offer any solutions, here, but don't we need to try something? What are the rates of gun violence in countries that have different gun laws? Can't we look at evidence around the world where things are better than here, and at least make an effort to emulate that? Wouldn't that be a rational option?

It seems we talk about mental illness for a handful of days, after terrible things happen, and then forget about it. There are many innocent people suffering every day from these afflictions, too. There needs to be a SERIOUS dialogue about this in this country, now. Along with serious dialogues about poverty, education, access to affordable health care, and other factors that exacerbate these problems. There needs to be nuance, and less all or nothing thinking.

I welcome any serious rebuttal.

 

[22*43*51]

Do you think that these illnesses that are being talked about can be prevented with marriage, and/or parenting skills, alone? Do you deny any biological, genetic, etc., cause for these? An honest question, for everyone.

Good lord. Where did I say parenting cures mental Illness?

There is another thread on this board where an 11 year old murdered an 8 year old over the name of a dog.

If people are going to allow children in a home access to guns, or their mentally ill, live at home children to build arsenals and kill dozens, then they should be held accountable as well. That is where parenting can become part of the solution right now.

Uninventing guns and making them disappear is a fantasy.

If you are serious about stopping gun violence, the most effective and realistic place to start is in the home.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Based on the results.

Crazy child + guns = bad things

If this is happening under your own roof, should you not own some responsibility?

Civilly? Sure, sue away.

Criminally? No.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

paint the picture why don't you: evil gun toting republican, even mentioned Donald trump in article

 

[22*43*51]

Civilly? Sure, sue away.

Criminally? No.

Civilly doesn't work when there is no money to be had.

I thought we were supposed to be looking for solutions?

Criminal accountability for apathetic parenting will get results real quick I would bet.

It is a better idea than wishing guns out of existence. Or, hoping that we create a law that the lawless will be compelled to adhere to.

 

[Titanhawk2]

And his mom taught him how to "be safe" with guns and how they bonded at the firing range...idiots.

It's time to take Australia's example. Create well-regulated and armed state militias, don't buy the "for protection" BS gun nuts hide behind.

I'm not a nut, don't have a gun, don't want one. But if I got one it would be for protection. I want the right to do so.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Titanhawk, this is for you. Why "protection" is a bogus argument...

 

[theIowaHawk]

Civilly doesn't work when there is no money to be had.

I thought we were supposed to be looking for solutions?

Criminal accountability for apathetic parenting will get results real quick I would bet.

It is a better idea than wishing guns out of existence. Or, hoping that we create a law that the lawless will be compelled to adhere to.

Except that you don't actually have an "idea" for a solution.

You are pushing for legislation that criminalizes parents AFTER the fact. I suppose you think this will deter parents BEFORE the fact? Right, now that is "wishful". Hell, use THIS exact case for example, where she would NOT have been deterred, because she didn't think this would happen.

Did I capitalize enough words to make that point?

 

[22*43*51]

You are pushing for legislation that criminalizes parents AFTER the fact. I suppose you think this will deter parents BEFORE the fact? Right, now that is "wishful". Hell, use THIS exact case for example, where she would NOT have been deterred, because she didn't think this would happen.

Maybe I am way off base here.....

but aren't 100% of crimes prosecuted AFTER the fact?

Further, doesn't penalty of law tend to deter crimes BEFORE the fact?.......(scratches head)

If you don't think laws deter crimes then what the HELL are we talking about!

 

[theIowaHawk]

Maybe I am way off base here.....

but aren't 100% of crimes prosecuted AFTER the fact?

Further, doesn't penalty of law tend to deter crimes BEFORE the fact?.......(scratches head)

If you don't think laws deter crimes then what the HELL are we talking about!

I understand where you went, but I disagree. It is all about knowledge/intent.

If you criminalize possession of cocaine, those who are thinking about possessing cocaine know it will be illegal. They know, prior to doing it, that they will break the law. The deterrent is making a penalty high enough they won't act.

In your scenario, you are criminalizing something vague and subjective. Basically: Will her son shoot up a community college? If yes = illegal to enable. If no = same as everyone else.

So you are criminalizing her conduct AFTER the incident takes place (which proves her crime in the first place). It isn't that you are prosecuting it after, you are criminalizing it AFTER.

I think this analogy works: CEO of large toy manufacture is charged with an assortment of crimes BECAUSE his product filled with lead killed children. The question is whether he knew about it, had some part in it. The deterrent is telling him, don't put lead in your toys. But if it is only found out AFTER, then there could not have been any deterrent.

The best you can hope for is making parents more aware...which you are trying to do through fear, but even with that I think it ridiculous to think parents will, suddenly, believe their child capable of mass murder.

 

[slieb85]

Civilly doesn't work when there is no money to be had.

I thought we were supposed to be looking for solutions?

Criminal accountability for apathetic parenting will get results real quick I would bet.

It is a better idea than wishing guns out of existence. Or, hoping that we create a law that the lawless will be compelled to adhere to.

Except we have this thing in our criminal system, which is kind of a bedrock principal, called culpability.

Question. How do you differentiate between those who are culpable and those who aren't, under your scenario? Based off "warning signs" that their kid (or anyone else who may have access to their guns) may be crazy? Clinical diagnosis of certain diseases? Self-reporting of people who you want to be accountable for their actions?

What, pray tell, do you think would happen if we help people culpable for the actions of those who are diagnosed/reported/etc? Well, people would be less likely to seek treatment, or push others to seek treatment, because, voila, suddenly they're on the hook for someone else's behavior.

As I said, you're looking at retroactive solutions. The rest of us are looking at proactive ones. There's a reason why no one would seriously say we should do this, because it's full of fatal flaws and the rest of us are hoping to discuss ideas that might actually do some good.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Go on. Tell us more about what mental health provisions we should expand. Are you a supporter of the ACA which did just this?

And sees even less people coming in now?

A flood of patients who have become newly insured under the Affordable Care Act are visiting doctor's offices and hospitals, causing some health workers to worry about how they can provide care to everyone in need. One group, however, isn't lining up for care: People with mental health issues or substance use disorders.

Though Obamacare extends coverage to this group – collectively referred to as behavioral health – various loopholes in the health care law at this time have kept people from requesting mental health care. Some states haven't expanded Medicaid, the government health insurance program for poor or disabled Americans, leaving about 5 million in a coverage gap, the majority of whom, experts believe, need mental health care. In other cases, patients aren't even aware of the benefits they can get with their new health insurance.

The Congressional Budget Office projected that 13 million uninsured Americans would have access to health coverage by 2014, whether through Medicaid, online exchanges or the private market. But so far the demand for mental health services hasn't budged, even though provisions in the health law make it more affordable.