Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 17, 2018, 08:44:49 PM
Let's keep this civil. This is to develop ideas, not so others can start a flame war. Present ideas and discuss them.
I think the first step though is to examine the way the two sides are communicating because right now most people aren't communicating, they are yelling back and forth. We can't be painting everyone as either one extreme or the other. They want to say we are all gun nuts thinking all crazy people should own guns and our side is painting them as someone who doesn't want us to be allowed to own a butter knife. We need to stop falling for and continuing this false dichotomy. Now we cannot force the fart left liberals to communicate nicely but we can avoid contributing to the degradation of the conversation. Sometimes when we meet their hostility with calm politeness then we can break down their defensive wall and actually communicate. This isn't a solution to the problem of course but it is opening the door to start.
Now I don't have very specific ideas yet but here would be the general themes I would suggest that pro gun people propose.
-Develop a system whereby someone with a serious mental health condition that is correlated with violence be evaluated. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
-Develop a system whereby someone who exhibits serious behavior issues that are correlated with violence to have their firearms taken away. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
-The firearm revocation must have a limit, say a hearing involving the individual must be held within 4 days to decide whether there is cause to keep the guns from that individual. If no cause or no hearing, they get their guns back.
-Develop a system where someone selling a gun, whether private or by a business, can make a simple check to see if that person can legally own a firearm. Doesn't need to be registration or tracking of the sale, just a way to check with authorities that the individual is legally allowed to purchase the gun. (I have been thinking about this one for a while to propose to a legislator here. I have more specifics but am just giving the basics here)
-Develop a system where information is shared quickly and efficiently across jurisdictions. We have something like that for people convicted of a crime but there are holes in the system. Consider ways to expand it to have people who are dangerously mentally ill.
-Implement a check and balance to the whole proposal where people can appeal decisions and get review after time has passed since some mental health issues go away.
-Consider more funding for mental health overall.
-Consider having more individuals who are dangerous kept in secure facilities. As part of this we may need to look at re-evaluating which ones go to prison and which ones go to a mental hospital.
These are just general directions to head, Of course the devil is in the details but we can brainstorm first.
Post by: ren on February 17, 2018, 08:53:29 PM
This stemmed from another conversation but I think it deserves its own thread. Here is some of what I think the pro-gun rights groups can suggest for solutions to mass murder and gun violence in general. I say this because I think we have stonewalled too much and we look like we don't care and don't have any ideas. If we don't come up with something they will eventually overrun us and claim we never offered any input.
Let's keep this civil. This is to develop ideas, not so others can start a flame war. Present ideas and discuss them.
I think the first step though is to examine the way the two sides are communicating because right now most people aren't communicating, they are yelling back and forth. We can't be painting everyone as either one extreme or the other. They want to say we are all gun nuts thinking all crazy people should own guns and our side is painting them as someone who doesn't want us to be allowed to own a butter knife. We need to stop falling for and continuing this false dichotomy. Now we cannot force the fart left liberals to communicate nicely but we can avoid contributing to the degradation of the conversation. Sometimes when we meet their hostility with calm politeness then we can break down their defensive wall and actually communicate. This isn't a solution to the problem of course but it is opening the door to start.
Now I don't have very specific ideas yet but here would be the general themes I would suggest that pro gun people propose.
-Develop a system whereby someone with a serious mental health condition that is correlated with violence be evaluated. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
-Develop a system whereby someone who exhibits serious behavior issues that are correlated with violence to have their firearms taken away. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
-The firearm revocation must have a limit, say a hearing involving the individual must be held within 4 days to decide whether there is cause to keep the guns from that individual. If no cause or no hearing, they get their guns back.
-Develop a system where someone selling a gun, whether private or by a business, can make a simple check to see if that person can legally own a firearm. Doesn't need to be registration or tracking of the sale, just a way to check with authorities that the individual is legally allowed to purchase the gun. (I have been thinking about this one for a while to propose to a legislator here. I have more specifics but am just giving the basics here)
-Develop a system where information is shared quickly and efficiently across jurisdictions. We have something like that for people convicted of a crime but there are holes in the system. Consider ways to expand it to have people who are dangerously mentally ill.
-Implement a check and balance to the whole proposal where people can appeal decisions and get review after time has passed since some mental health issues go away.
-Consider more funding for mental health overall.
-Consider having more individuals who are dangerous kept in secure facilities. As part of this we may need to look at re-evaluating which ones go to prison and which ones go to a mental hospital.
These are just general directions to head, Of course the devil is in the details but we can brainstorm first.
We have those mechanisms in place. Are they being enforced or used???
One recent example of failure of a mechanism or process is the embarrassing escape of Mr. Saito.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 17, 2018, 09:11:49 PM
Oh, wait! ....
FBI AGENT: BUREAU 'DROPPED THE BALL' WITH FLORIDA SHOOTER
'I would have sent officers to the house'
Quote
The FBI receives countless tips and doesn’t have the resources it would need to follow every lead,
but the bureau appears to have “dropped the ball” after it was alerted that someone with the user name
Nikolas Cruz posted on social media that he aspired to be “a professional school shooter,” according to a
former member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces.
You can develop as many "systems" as you think are needed. In the end, the government is incompetent. They can not keep you safe from evil and mental illness, because it's impossible to identify and incarcerate these people if they are not already in the system.
How many times have you written the antigun argument here, "Everyone is law-abiding until they aren't?" That's a true statement. The impossibility lies in detecting violent people BEFORE they commit violence. No "mental health professional" can predict that without specific threats being made, like "I'm going to be a professional shoot shooter."
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 17, 2018, 09:23:18 PM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 17, 2018, 09:28:21 PM
How about people who notice behavioral problems, threats of violence and an obsession with firearms report that person to the local and federal authorities.
Oh, wait! ....
FBI AGENT: BUREAU 'DROPPED THE BALL' WITH FLORIDA SHOOTER
'I would have sent officers to the house'
You can develop as many "systems" as you think are needed. In the end, the government is incompetent. They can not keep you safe from evil and mental illness, because it's impossible to identify and incarcerate these people if they are not already in the system.
How many times have you written the antigun argument here, "Everyone is law-abiding until they aren't?" That's a true statement. The impossibility lies in detecting violent people BEFORE they commit violence. No "mental health professional" can predict that without specific threats being made, like "I'm going to be a professional shoot shooter."
So on the one hand you blame them for dropping the ball but on the other you suggest they aren't able to do anything. Which is it?
So say the FBI had gone to the house and done their due diligence. Would you be then OK with them taking away this kids guns or locking him in a mental institution?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 17, 2018, 09:29:31 PM
We have those mechanisms in place. Are they being enforced or used???
One recent example of failure of a mechanism or process is the embarrassing escape of Mr. Saito.
We have some of them in some form but I think they can be made more effective and at the same time putting in appeals measures to give due process to citizens.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 17, 2018, 09:52:08 PM
So on the one hand you blame them for dropping the ball but on the other you suggest they aren't able to do anything. Which is it?
So say the FBI had gone to the house and done their due diligence. Would you be then OK with them taking away this kids guns or locking him in a mental institution?
We'll never know, since they never made an attempt to investigate, will we?
I know you love hypotheticals. What if the FBI had been to his house and done nothing? Same result? Maybe not. Maybe his parents would have gotten a clue and taken action.
Hypotheticals don't work on complex situations unless you actually think.
Post by: Heavies on February 17, 2018, 10:07:40 PM
Coming up with "gun violence solutions" is also a loaded suggestion. It suggests there is, in fact, a gun violence problem, the fact of the matter is there is not a "gun" problem at all. It is a violence problem, that some times involves a gun, and in MOST cases does NOT. Of course people don't know this because it is NEVER reported in any major media outlet...
That is one of the MAJOR reasons we can never have a sane and useful discussion about the whole situation, because the gun grabbers refuse to admit the root of the problems, refuse to see our view point and logic, and refuse to look at real world alternatives that will have a real world affects on the problems.
All they are interested in is GUNS BAD, BAN GUNS.......
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 17, 2018, 10:30:14 PM
Quote
Florida Sheriff for Polk County Grady Judd suggests it would be a “game changer” if teachers and administrative
staff were trained and equipped with a firearm to prevent further school shootings.
The suggestion follows the tragic incident out of Parkland, where 17 people were killed in one of the nation’s
deadliest school shootings.
According to reports, Judd is currently working with at least one school and is looking to train others following the
Parkland incident.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
https://www.sarahpalin-blog.com/2018/02/17/game-changer-florida-sheriff-working-schools-train-arm-teachers/
Post by: Heavies on February 17, 2018, 10:37:37 PM
‘Game Changer’: Florida Sheriff Working With Schools To Train And Arm TeachersI agree with these ideas for defending against these threats, however, I think the intention of this thread is to come up with valid ideas on preventing the threats to being with.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
https://www.sarahpalin-blog.com/2018/02/17/game-changer-florida-sheriff-working-schools-train-arm-teachers/
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 18, 2018, 02:35:10 AM
I agree with these ideas for defending against these threats, however, I think the intention of this thread is to come up with valid ideas on preventing the threats to being with.
The thread says "solutions." That doesn't limit the solution set to only prevention. Just like medicine, you can do all the preventative measures you can, but eventually you will wind up sick. Once preventions fails, the solution is to fight -- the infection, or the shooter.
Everyone wants to believe we can prevent shootings. That's largely wishful thinking. We can prevent some, but a "system" isn't the way we do it. Systems fail, because PEOPLE don't take responsibility, just like this last episode.
Our legal system is set up to catch people AFTER they commit a crime. This last shooter was adopted, and his parents both recently died. He was diagnosed with autism. He was prone to outbursts and breaking things. He had issues controlling his temper. I read the Cops were called on him some 36 times. He posted threats, lots of pictures posed with guns, and photos of animals he killed. The FBI weas alerted 5 months prior. How many "systems" does it take to have prevented this shooting?
Prevention is not impossible, but the systems we need already existed once. Just like everything else in life, it's only effective if you actually participate and contribute to the process. Cops, mental health workers, school teachers, friends, family, neighbors, schoolmates, and even the guy who mows the lawn have to take responsibility for getting involved, or prevention will never happen. The shooter in Isla Vista, the South Carolina church shooter, and the Sandy Hook shooter are all additional examples where we can see in hindsight where the people who knew them failed. No system is going to prevent the next one without summarily stripping large groups of people of their Constitutional rights. We used to do that long ago until the 50s and 60s by involuntarily committing patients to mental hospitals. If you want a new-old solution that would actually help, that's a "rough idea" that is already a proven success. It'll solve much of the homelessness, drug addiction, crime and welfare cases in many areas by taking the mentally ill off the streets and out of homes to where they can be medicated, monitored and isolated from the public at large. Since we already know this is not really going to happen, the result is more of the existing problems while we search for new "systems" to prevent them.
This is the very definition of shooting yourself in the foot. We created these messes ourselves, and the solutions that worked before are now forbidden. :wacko:
Post by: zippz on February 18, 2018, 06:13:54 AM
This could be expanded to include non-immediate threats with the immediate confiscation of firearms with a 30 day court order with evidence showing mental health conditions with the likelyhood of violence. Police can investigate their case further and request an extension by the court with further evidence.
There is a problem if another person in the household owns guns. Would have to ensure the person affected by the 30 day order isn't able to access them.
Another thing is to have CCW by teachers and administrators in the schools, because bad guys won't attack in places that people shoot back. This would require a big push to encourage teachers and administrators to carry since majority are antigun. Sell it as their responsibility as guardians of the children. The guns will be hidden so the children won't see it. Offer tax credits for the purchase of a handgun and training. However post signs in the school and media letting everyone know that if a school is attacked, the teachers will fight back. Create a Hawaii Shall Issue CCW for just teachers and administrators in school with backing from the HRA. After a while, the politicians may see CCW isn't so bad after all and open it up to everyone else.
I don't think we'll get anywhere with armed guards at school since the cost would be too high. Metal detectors are worthless unless you also have armed guards.
Post by: punaperson on February 18, 2018, 06:43:54 AM
Let's keep this civil.That's a new one! :rofl:
...the fart left liberals...
Post by: Inspector on February 18, 2018, 07:04:34 AM
This stemmed from another conversation but I think it deserves its own thread. Here is some of what I think the pro-gun rights groups can suggest for solutions to mass murder and gun violence in general. I say this because I think we have stonewalled too much and we look like we don't care and don't have any ideas. If we don't come up with something they will eventually overrun us and claim we never offered any input.I don't agree with your premise.
Let's keep this civil. This is to develop ideas, not so others can start a flame war. Present ideas and discuss them.
I think the first step though is to examine the way the two sides are communicating because right now most people aren't communicating, they are yelling back and forth. We can't be painting everyone as either one extreme or the other. They want to say we are all gun nuts thinking all crazy people should own guns and our side is painting them as someone who doesn't want us to be allowed to own a butter knife. We need to stop falling for and continuing this false dichotomy. Now we cannot force the fart left liberals to communicate nicely but we can avoid contributing to the degradation of the conversation. Sometimes when we meet their hostility with calm politeness then we can break down their defensive wall and actually communicate. This isn't a solution to the problem of course but it is opening the door to start.
Now I don't have very specific ideas yet but here would be the general themes I would suggest that pro gun people propose.
-Develop a system whereby someone with a serious mental health condition that is correlated with violence be evaluated. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
-Develop a system whereby someone who exhibits serious behavior issues that are correlated with violence to have their firearms taken away. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
-The firearm revocation must have a limit, say a hearing involving the individual must be held within 4 days to decide whether there is cause to keep the guns from that individual. If no cause or no hearing, they get their guns back.
-Develop a system where someone selling a gun, whether private or by a business, can make a simple check to see if that person can legally own a firearm. Doesn't need to be registration or tracking of the sale, just a way to check with authorities that the individual is legally allowed to purchase the gun. (I have been thinking about this one for a while to propose to a legislator here. I have more specifics but am just giving the basics here)
-Develop a system where information is shared quickly and efficiently across jurisdictions. We have something like that for people convicted of a crime but there are holes in the system. Consider ways to expand it to have people who are dangerously mentally ill.
-Implement a check and balance to the whole proposal where people can appeal decisions and get review after time has passed since some mental health issues go away.
-Consider more funding for mental health overall.
-Consider having more individuals who are dangerous kept in secure facilities. As part of this we may need to look at re-evaluating which ones go to prison and which ones go to a mental hospital.
These are just general directions to head, Of course the devil is in the details but we can brainstorm first.
I do agree we need to communicate but communication takes two willing participants. And I find generally speaking that most pro 2A discussions I see on Facebook and other sites (Not this site), that the pro 2A is very polite and trying to have a logical discussion with the other side and it is mostly the other side that is not willing to discuss this topic in a logical and polite manner. I observe most of the time it is the other side that goes down the rabbit hole so to speak. I'm not saying that what you claim here doesn't happen. What I am saying is that just from my general observations of this type of discussion on other sites, what generally occurs is exactly what you say should happen (Pro 2A side being polite and concise and open to listening) and it usually doesn't end well for the anti 2A crowd. As it is the anti 2A crowd that really doesn't want to discuss this issue. They are the ones stone walling. And it really makes no difference to the Anti 2A side how polite and how well the Pro 2A side presents itself.
What I find completely insincere and intellectually dishonest are those people who continue to say something needs to be done, but don't offer up any workable, doable and logical solutions that they can get behind and might actually be a compromise that both sides can get behind. Continuing on with the insincere and intellectually dishonest theme I find those that not only do not know what a good solution is, but what they do know is that the workable, doable and logical solutions that the pro 2A side offers will NEVER work. No one in this world can have any type of meaningful discussion with someone who is like this. I believe there is some common ground between both sides here.
I have even gone as far as to offer up a compromise in my discussions just to see where the Anti 2A people will go with my suggestion. And they completely reject any suggestions to a compromise I offer them. Even when that compromise gives them what they are asking for, they don't want to give our side what we are asking for. For instance, I have offered to ban AR-15's in exchange for allowing teachers to carry in the classroom. And the Anti 2A side KNOWS that banning the AR will work but allowing teachers to carry WILL NOT. I found that when I ask what they are willing to accept from our side in exchange what they want from their side I get mostly those who refuse to answer or the more radical ones are not willing to give an inch. Meaning they want us to give in to their whims but don't want to give an inch to us. This is no way to have a discussion. That is how I find out if a person is worth having this discussion with. I have yet to find anyone from the other side willing to compromise.
The other problem with your premise is that before an actual discussion can talke place between the two sides then both sides have to agree on a common theme. That theme is that this type of shooting is impossible to prevent. If someone wants to do this, there is nothing we can do to prevent 100% of them from happening. The biggest problem to coming together on discussing a solution is that one side understands the truth that it is impossible to prevent this sort of thing from occurring 100%. While the other side believes that this sort of thing is 100% preventable. Until the anti 2A crowd comes to their senses there will never be a productive solution.
This is of course only my observation. I know you disagree. In my 60 years of life I found trying to change the minds of those who are not willing to really discuss this topic is fruitless. Nothing good comes from this sort of discussion. The key to discussion of this topic is to first find someone who is open to listening and having an actual discussion and willingness to find a compromise is the key to finding someone to discuss this with. Both sides must first agree on the one basic premise. These shootings are not 100% preventable. Some might be preventable like this latest shooting. But until you can find that rare combination of two open minded people a discussion will only be more of a debate. And when one side gets pushed into a corner that side will go down that rabbit hole so to speak.
Not trying to go off the civility track here. I find your premise a bit too utopian for the average person on the street. Not saying it isn't possible, but mostly unrealistic. And that is just generally speaking. I am sure there are plenty of people out there who is Anti 2A and is truly willing to listen to our side then work towards a compromise. I just have not found anyone like that yet. JMHO.
Post by: punaperson on February 18, 2018, 07:06:41 AM
For mental health in Hawaii, currently police can detain people if they are an immediate threat to themselves and others. They are taken to a hospital for evaluation and involuntarily committed or treated and released. Not sure if this is Hawaii specific.The psychology/psychiatry community has been quite clear in peer-reviewed published research that they have no capability at all of predicting who will and won't be violent, including amongst patients all diagnosed with the same condition. The cops visited the Isla Vista murderer twice before he committed his murders (once just a couple days prior to), once with six deputies, and they all found him to be "not a threat" nor "a danger to himself and others" (of course the sheriff is being sued for incompetence and dereliction of duty for those assessments by the officers). His psychologist/psychiatrist deemed him to be "not a threat". His parents contacted the cops because "something was wrong with him", but are you going to arrest/confine every person who someone else thinks has "something wrong with him"? None of the proposed attempts to capture or disable all the potential violent actors could possibly be effective without detaining 99%, or more, innocent people who will never commit acts of violence. I call total bullshit. And even then it won't capture all the people intent on committing acts of violence, because they will be capable of skirting the "system" in one way or another (because they will learn avoidance by observing how others have been captured) if they are intent on enacting a plan of violence. Isn't that fucking obvious? These people might be "crazy", but they are not stupid. How many more examples do you need?
This could be expanded to include non-immediate threats with the immediate confiscation of firearms with a 30 day court order with evidence showing mental health conditions with the likelyhood of violence. Police can investigate their case further and request an extension by the court with further evidence.
There is a problem if another person in the household owns guns. Would have to ensure the person affected by the 30 day order isn't able to access them.
That's why the only methods that have a true capability of decreasing the carnage, NOT stopping it, but decreasing is "hard targeting", which includes all the things proposed in other threads.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 18, 2018, 12:31:49 PM
Quote
A severe shortage of inpatient care for people with mental illness is amounting to a public health crisis, as the
number of individuals struggling with a range of psychiatric problems continues to rise.
The revelation that the gunman in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting escaped from a psychiatric
hospital in 2012 is renewing concerns about the state of mental health care in this country. A study published
in the journal Psychiatric Services estimates 3.4 percent of Americans — more than 8 million people — suffer
from serious psychological problems.
The disappearance of long-term-care facilities and psychiatric beds has escalated over the past decade, sparked
by a trend toward deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients in the 1950s and '60s, says Dominic Sisti, director
of the Scattergood Program for Applied Ethics of Behavioral Health Care at the University of Pennsylvania.
"State hospitals began to realize that individuals who were there probably could do well in the community," he tells
Here & Now's Jeremy Hobson. "It was well-intended, but what I believe happened over the past 50 years is that
there's been such an evaporation of psychiatric therapeutic spaces that now we lack a sufficient number of psychiatric
beds."
A concerted effort to grow community-based care options that were less restrictive grew out of the civil rights
movement and a series of scandals due to the lack of oversight in psychiatric care, Sisti says. While those efforts
have been successful for many, a significant group of people who require structured inpatient care can't get it, often
because of funding issues.
A 2012 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit organization that works to remove treatment barriers for
people with mental illness, found the number of psychiatric beds decreased by 14 percent from 2005 to 2010. That
year, there were 50,509 state psychiatric beds, meaning there were only 14 beds available per 100,000 people.
"Many times individuals who really do require intensive psychiatric care find themselves homeless or more and more
in prison," Sisti says. "Much of our mental health care now for individuals with serious mental illness has been shifted
to correctional facilities."
The percentage of people with serious mental illness in prisons rose from .7 percent in 1880 to 21 percent in 2005,
according to the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights.
Many of the private mental health hospitals still in operation do not accept insurance and can cost upwards of $30,000
per month, Sisti says. For many low-income patients, Medicaid is the only path to mental health care, but a provision
in the law prevents the federal government from paying for long-term care in an institution.
As a result, many people who experience a serious mental health crisis end up in the emergency room. According to
data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, between 2001 and 2011, 6 percent of all emergency
department patients had a psychiatric condition. Nearly 11 percent of those patients require transfer to another facility,
but there are often no beds available.
"We are the wrong site for these patients," Dr. Thomas Chun, an associate professor of emergency medicine and pediatrics
at Brown University, told NPR last year. "Our crazy, chaotic environment is not a good place for them."
Most hospitals are unable to take care of people for more than 72 hours, Sisti explains, so patients are sent back out
into the world without adequate access to treatment.
In order to bridge the gap between hospital stays and expensive community-based care options, Sisti argues for "a
continuum of care that ranges from outpatient care and transitional-type housing situations to inpatient care."
While President Trump and others have claimed a connection exists between mental illness and the rise in gun violence,
most mental health professionals vehemently disagree.
"There is no real connection between an individual with a mental health diagnosis and mass shootings. That connection
according to all experts doesn't exist," says Bethany Lilly of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
Sisti says the stigma around mental health is "systematized" in our health care system, more so than in the public view.
Health care providers are "rather leery about these individuals because these people are, often at least according to the
stereotype, high-cost patients who maybe are difficult to treat or noncompliant," he says. "I think the stigma that we should
be really focused on and worried about actually emerges out of our health care system more than from the public."
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/567477160/how-the-loss-of-u-s-psychiatric-hospitals-led-to-a-mental-health-crisis
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 18, 2018, 08:06:04 PM
For mental health in Hawaii, currently police can detain people if they are an immediate threat to themselves and others. They are taken to a hospital for evaluation and involuntarily committed or treated and released. Not sure if this is Hawaii specific.
This could be expanded to include non-immediate threats with the immediate confiscation of firearms with a 30 day court order with evidence showing mental health conditions with the likelyhood of violence. Police can investigate their case further and request an extension by the court with further evidence.
There is a problem if another person in the household owns guns. Would have to ensure the person affected by the 30 day order isn't able to access them.
Agreed, that is why part of my suggestion was to reinforce protections when going over the abilities of the government to take away guns.
To add, I think that this process could go beyond just firearms. We may want to consider limiting their access to other sorts of items or locations depending on the circumstances. After all a crazy violent person who isn't lazy will seek other means
Right now police can take someone for a mental health checkup but they cannot recover their guns unless the gun was present and somehow involved in the incident. Currently the department would have to send out a letter asking for the firearms back within 30 days I think? By that time it might be too late. That is why I think an immediate recovery option should be in place but as a balance to abuse the accused has to have a hearing within 4 days (to allow for 3 day weekends).
I don't think they should be able to confiscate family member's firearms but perhaps they could mandate that the family member must lock them in a safe that the accused cannot access.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 18, 2018, 08:28:02 PM
I do agree we need to communicate but communication takes two willing participants. And I find generally speaking that most pro 2A discussions I see on Facebook and other sites (Not this site), that the pro 2A is very polite and trying to have a logical discussion with the other side and it is mostly the other side that is not willing to discuss this topic in a logical and polite manner. I observe most of the time it is the other side that goes down the rabbit hole so to speak. I'm not saying that what you claim here doesn't happen. What I am saying is that just from my general observations of this type of discussion on other sites, what generally occurs is exactly what you say should happen (Pro 2A side being polite and concise and open to listening) and it usually doesn't end well for the anti 2A crowd. As it is the anti 2A crowd that really doesn't want to discuss this issue. They are the ones stone walling. And it really makes no difference to the Anti 2A side how polite and how well the Pro 2A side presents itself.
My facebook post on the subject centered on the communication. I tried to remain neutral with it so as to foster good communication. I do agree that generally I see 2A people on facebook being more polite but there is no shortage of snakiness, insults, etc. Granted that social media is a little different but I regularly deal with unhappy customers at work and I find that the best way is to remain non confrontational and give no signs of aggression. Listen to their grievance even if it is nonsense. It can take a while and requires patience but I would say it works 90-95% of the time. To be honest I might not give myself the same success rate with facebook arguments but I have seen times where it was effective. I try to show that I see it from both sides even if I disagree by acknowledging where their points might seem intuitive or reasonable. After all, our arguments make sense to us but theirs also makes sense to them, so insulting their argument doesn't help
One of the other things I noted about this though is that the discussion really isn't just between two people. I may be arguing with some hardcore liberal who is rude and insulting and no real headway is being made after many back and forth posts. But I have come to find out later that there are many people who later tell me they watched the conversation and just didn't chime in. So while the fanatic might not change his/her mind, it seems many bystanders may be actually considering the issue.
Quote
What I find completely insincere and intellectually dishonest are those people who continue to say something needs to be done, but don't offer up any workable, doable and logical solutions that they can get behind and might actually be a compromise that both sides can get behind. Continuing on with the insincere and intellectually dishonest theme I find those that not only do not know what a good solution is, but what they do know is that the workable, doable and logical solutions that the pro 2A side offers will NEVER work. No one in this world can have any type of meaningful discussion with someone who is like this. I believe there is some common ground between both sides here.
Agreed, I generally try to point out that the devil is in the details and that though their intentions are good, it really is something much more complicated than a political war cry.
Quote
I have even gone as far as to offer up a compromise in my discussions just to see where the Anti 2A people will go with my suggestion. And they completely reject any suggestions to a compromise I offer them. Even when that compromise gives them what they are asking for, they don't want to give our side what we are asking for. For instance, I have offered to ban AR-15's in exchange for allowing teachers to carry in the classroom. And the Anti 2A side KNOWS that banning the AR will work but allowing teachers to carry WILL NOT. I found that when I ask what they are willing to accept from our side in exchange what they want from their side I get mostly those who refuse to answer or the more radical ones are not willing to give an inch. Meaning they want us to give in to their whims but don't want to give an inch to us. This is no way to have a discussion. That is how I find out if a person is worth having this discussion with. I have yet to find anyone from the other side willing to compromise.
I think these types of suggestions do help in a number of ways. In one way it helps discern who is open to compromise and an exchange of ideas and the other way is that it shows all those watching and listening that we have ideas and can be reasonable.
Quote
The other problem with your premise is that before an actual discussion can talke place between the two sides then both sides have to agree on a common theme. That theme is that this type of shooting is impossible to prevent. If someone wants to do this, there is nothing we can do to prevent 100% of them from happening. The biggest problem to coming together on discussing a solution is that one side understands the truth that it is impossible to prevent this sort of thing from occurring 100%. While the other side believes that this sort of thing is 100% preventable. Until the anti 2A crowd comes to their senses there will never be a productive solution.
I have had many debates with individuals who do recognize this point and are not in favor of a complete firearm ban. They know that such an event cannot be prevented but they logically reason that if certain types of firearms are banned that the body count will be lower. But yes, there are those, and they tend to be the loudest, that tout gun control as being able to prevent school shootings.
Quote
This is of course only my observation. I know you disagree. In my 60 years of life I found trying to change the minds of those who are not willing to really discuss this topic is fruitless. Nothing good comes from this sort of discussion. The key to discussion of this topic is to first find someone who is open to listening and having an actual discussion and willingness to find a compromise is the key to finding someone to discuss this with. Both sides must first agree on the one basic premise.
Not trying to go off the civility track here. I find your premise a bit too utopian for the average person on the street. Not saying it isn't possible, but mostly unrealistic. And that is just generally speaking. I am sure there are plenty of people out there who is Anti 2A and is truly willing to listen to our side then work towards a compromise. I just have not found anyone like that yet. JMHO.
I just made this thread as a starting ground. Basic ideas that can be developed into a workable strategy.
As far as changing ideas it is very hard but there have been some interesting scientific studies that have shown some ways are more effective than others at changing peoples mind. Here is a video I watched recently that was interesting from a sort of psychological angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWKUhZJp7uw
Post by: edster48 on February 18, 2018, 09:50:48 PM
Every time one of these cowardly POS's shows up in a school, at a movie theater or a mall: Shoot them until they stop moving.
Bludgeon them to death with baseball bats or any other blunt object you can get your hands on.
Stab them to death with any available sharp implement.
Put these scummy pieces of shit on notice that this will happen EVERY TIME they show up to kill innocents. EVERY_FUCKING_TIME.
When we catch one alive, like this last piece of shit, give them a fair trial and a first class hanging. ON LIVE TELEVISION.
Stop pretending there is some PC, fluffy unicorn way of dealing with this. You want communication? We need to communicate that if you do something like this you WILL die a hard, painful death.
There is no "Fixing" evil. You can only kill it where you find it.
Post by: bass monkey on February 19, 2018, 08:31:35 AM
Someone mentally unstable that can't be admitted but instead will be let free and slowly have every single dangerous item banned from them, instead of having them admitted
Post by: punaperson on February 19, 2018, 08:45:28 AM
That's an interesting predicament.Yeah, because no one will be able to get anything that has been "banned from them"... not a gun, not a car, not a knife, not a hammer, not a can of gasoline, not a bumpstock (I'm sorry, I meant a "device that increases the rate of fire" or a "device that simulates automatic gunfire")... :rofl:
Someone mentally unstable that can't be admitted but instead will be let free and slowly have every single dangerous item banned from them, instead of having them admitted
Post by: Bota-CS1 on February 19, 2018, 09:13:39 AM
We have those mechanisms in place. Are they being enforced or used???
One recent example of failure of a mechanism or process is the embarrassing escape of Mr. Saito.
Or worse when tips get called in an no one does anything about it. :wtf:
I have a simpler, more direct, and I believe more effective suggestion.
Every time one of these cowardly POS's shows up in a school, at a movie theater or a mall: Shoot them until they stop moving.
Bludgeon them to death with baseball bats or any other blunt object you can get your hands on.
Stab them to death with any available sharp implement.
Put these scummy pieces of shit on notice that this will happen EVERY TIME they show up to kill innocents. EVERY_FUCKING_TIME.
When we catch one alive, like this last piece of shit, give them a fair trial and a first class hanging. ON LIVE TELEVISION.
Stop pretending there is some PC, fluffy unicorn way of dealing with this. You want communication? We need to communicate that if you do something like this you WILL die a hard, painful death.
There is no "Fixing" evil. You can only kill it where you find it.
Until we "harden" up, these types of incidents will continue to happen.
Post by: oldfart on February 19, 2018, 09:36:30 AM
I have a simpler, more direct, and I believe more effective suggestion....
Every time one of these cowardly POS's shows up in a school, at a movie theater or a mall: Shoot them until they stop moving.
Bludgeon them to death with baseball bats or any other blunt object you can get your hands on.
Stab them to death with any available sharp implement.
Put these scummy pieces of shit on notice that this will happen EVERY TIME they show up to kill innocents. EVERY_FUCKING_TIME.
When we catch one alive, like this last piece of shit, give them a fair trial and a first class hanging. ON LIVE TELEVISION.
Stop pretending there is some PC, fluffy unicorn way of dealing with this. You want communication? We need to communicate that if you do something like this you WILL die a hard, painful death.
There is no "Fixing" evil. You can only kill it where you find it.
I was just about to write this but you beat me to it.
The sooner our new gen politically correct justice system realizes this undeniable truth, the sooner will our country be made great again.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 19, 2018, 03:00:53 PM
Stop pretending there is some PC, fluffy unicorn way of dealing with this. You want communication? We need to communicate that if you do something like this you WILL die a hard, painful death.
There is no "Fixing" evil. You can only kill it where you find it.
Interesting idea. Let them know they will be humiliated publicly and suffer great pain. Despite being unconstitutional I can see the logic there. I am just not sure it would apply. A lot of these shooters end up killing themselves, I think they go into it expecting to die. I am just not sure it would deter them much, but I could be wrong.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 19, 2018, 03:06:11 PM
That's an interesting predicament.
Someone mentally unstable that can't be admitted but instead will be let free and slowly have every single dangerous item banned from them, instead of having them admitted
We may need to re-evaluate who we admit for longer periods of time and build more secure mental facilities. Unfortunately this is going to cost more taxpayer money but it may be necessary.
We just need to find a balance though as the mental institutions of the past had some serious issues.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 19, 2018, 04:26:51 PM
We may need to re-evaluate who we admit for longer periods of time and build more secure mental facilities. Unfortunately this is going to cost more taxpayer money but it may be necessary.
We just need to find a balance though as the mental institutions of the past had some serious issues.
You love the phrase "we need to find."
That's a "filler" for "I don't know if this can be done." The answer is, "No", not with today's technology.
We can NOT identify violent people without specific communications from them or acts of violence. We can NOT incarcerate people for what they MIGHT do in the future.
You should take a class on Managerial Accounting or at least Data Analysis and Problem Solving.
There are methods that you use to collect not only potential solutions, but also known, probable limitations.
The Constitution limits the set of feasible solutions, so we can stop discussing or suggesting those. Other limitations would be privacy and HIPPA rights. Those solutions have to be excluded.
Government agencies are for the most part restricted by law from sharing information unless the information is released by the individual or the law allows for specific, narrow exceptions. That's another limitation on some solutions. You can't have NICS improve their efficiency rate if the states are not able to share some additional protected information to them.
Hawaii makes us sign away all our privacy rights to get a gun permit. Not all states are that eager to trample our rights to exercise a right.
Any limitations that can be mitigated should be added back into the solution set, but that isn't easy. In practice, those mitigations may not be as effective as they appear on paper. When gov't is involved, you have to assume Murphy's Law is in full effect.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 19, 2018, 05:16:03 PM
So on the one hand you blame them for dropping the ball but on the other you suggest they aren't able to do anything. Which is it?
So say the FBI had gone to the house and done their due diligence. Would you be then OK with them taking away this kids guns or locking him in a mental institution?
Both,
They dropped the ball PROVING they can't effectively keep us safe.
Post by: groveler on February 19, 2018, 05:25:19 PM
The real problem is
Democrats.
I don't agree with them.
I despise them.
They pass bad laws,
kill, and get away with it.
Here in Hawaii they are called
our government. :popcorn:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 19, 2018, 09:24:16 PM
You love the phrase "we need to find."
That's a "filler" for "I don't know if this can be done." The answer is, "No", not with today's technology.
Incorrect, it is "filler" for I don't have the answer yet. First you get an idea, then you brainstorm.
Quote
We can NOT identify violent people without specific communications from them or acts of violence. We can NOT incarcerate people for what they MIGHT do in the future.
Strawman. I don't think anyone is suggesting we just throw anyone with a specific diagnosis in a mental prison or without any evidence to show they are dangerous.
How about this, instead of just tearing into other people's ideas, what are your suggestions? Yes, I know you want armed school personnel but what do you propose in terms of trying to prevent these situations?
Should we stop watching for terrorists then and only reacting when they attack? We surveil people of interest who have not yet committed any crime. I am not talking about the terrorist watchlist either but republicans seem to have a lot more ideas when it comes to terrorist threats than we do when it comes to crazy person threats.
Post by: hvybarrels on February 19, 2018, 09:31:22 PM
At the risk of being banned,
The real problem is
Democrats.
I don't agree with them.
I despise them.
They pass bad laws,
kill, and get away with it.
Here in Hawaii they are called
our government. :popcorn:
Then you have the Republicans. Climate denying corporate sycophants who would propose bringing back chattel slavery if wasn't such a generally despised institution. Both parties love war and more war and selling their great grandchildren's kidneys to pay for it. Both say yeah you could vote third party but then the Other Guy would win. It's like choosing between two brands of shit-flavored ice cream. It tastes horrible no matter which one you pick.
And have you seen the Republicans in this state? They are a total joke and completely out of touch. Hawaii is technically a State but it's more like occupied territory. The Democrats got a foothold because the Big Five abused their labor to the point of basically driving them into the hands of unions. Now everybody is running on government handout autopilot and the system lurches on under pure intertia because the best idea for an opposition party is Republicans based on a continental confederate model. In Hawaii. It makes absolutely no sense here.
The first thing that is needed is to come up with a Hawaii-based party that makes sense to locals. It's a good time right now because lots of people are getting sick of the status quo. They just keep voting D because the Rs look like a bunch of glue sniffers and paste eaters.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 19, 2018, 09:59:20 PM
Incorrect, it is "filler" for I don't have the answer yet. First you get an idea, then you brainstorm.
Strawman. I don't think anyone is suggesting we just throw anyone with a specific diagnosis in a mental prison or without any evidence to show they are dangerous.
How about this, instead of just tearing into other people's ideas, what are your suggestions? Yes, I know you want armed school personnel but what do you propose in terms of trying to prevent these situations?
Should we stop watching for terrorists then and only reacting when they attack? We surveil people of interest who have not yet committed any crime. I am not talking about the terrorist watchlist either but republicans seem to have a lot more ideas when it comes to terrorist threats than we do when it comes to crazy person threats.
NO. Brainstorming is designed to find an idea. Here's the definition: BRAINSTORM: verb produce an idea or way of solving a problem by holding a spontaneous group discussion.
Stop trying to lecture. You don't know what you're talking about.
As for my ideas, if the "guns in the hands of good guys" policy was implemented in schools, it would prevent many incidents through deterrence, and it would limit carnage through active resistance.
If that one idea was implemented, we'd be able to evaluate how effective it is, and THEN see where other measures might also be needed. If it's able to stop 80% of shooters, that'll reduce the number of less effective, more expensive solutions meant to prevent shootings and avoid guns in the hands of faculty.
Post by: aieahound on February 19, 2018, 11:22:00 PM
I've tried to stay quiet but Once again you make no sense and flout your arrogance.
Brainstorm starts with a concept, say, like gun violence solutions (as the thread title states)
Someone starts the discussion with an idea and additional ideas are thrown on the table.
You're semantic diversions are getting old.
You're insulting and attacking of other members is getting old. ( I know you'll want to say something about how I'm attacking you but I'm not, except my SnowFlapp address. The rest of the above was just observation)
How much would armed guards at every entrance to every school cost?
Arm teachers ? How many teachers across the country want to be armed and charged with teaching AND facing an intruder armed with a rifle with their handgun?
How much are we gonna increase their pay for this additional responsibility?
How would we measure it's effectiveness ?
Correlation doesn't doesn't equal causation, as you like to say.
We could definitely measure it's cost.
Brainstorming, anyone else got ideas for gun violence solutions?
Particularly in schools? (Per SnowFlappss last post)
I've read a lot of comments but not many with proposed realistic, real world solutions.
With the exception of Edsters.
How real world that is is applaudable but questionable.
Passionate though. :shaka:
I understand the feeling of many members that the government is incompetent.
Same government many of you have worked for or work for. ( military and independent contractors included)
But arguments for enforcing rights and at the same time rights violating practices are mind boggling.
Post by: zippz on February 20, 2018, 08:03:55 AM
Post by: edster48 on February 20, 2018, 08:36:30 AM
Interesting idea. Let them know they will be humiliated publicly and suffer great pain. Despite being unconstitutional I can see the logic there. I am just not sure it would apply. A lot of these shooters end up killing themselves, I think they go into it expecting to die. I am just not sure it would deter them much, but I could be wrong.
Unconstitutional?
At the risk of starting another of your infamous "Wiping my butt with a hoop" diatribes, please explain to me how self defense using deadly force is "Unconstitutional".
I just finished reading about a kid in the Florida shooting that took 5 rounds, because he was holding a door closed to protect the other kids in the room. This kid has BALLS. He deserves to be treated like the hero he is, but, what if he hadn't been indoctrinated with the "Run, Hide, Fight" mentality?
What if he and a couple of others had the "Kill this Motherfucker and Save as Many as Possible from Him" mentality and took those rounds while they assaulted him with whatever weapons were available and beat him to death? How many might have been spared? If this was practiced on a consistent basis how many of the mass shooters that kill themselves afterwords would've opted to just avoid the confrontation and merely blown their own brains out?
My guess is we aren't going to find out anytime soon, because we're teaching our children to be cowards.
Look at how "Bullying" is dealt with now. The prevailing "Solution" is to have the victim "Tell Somebody", then the "Bully" gets some counselling. Then goes right back to bullying the same victim. Completely ineffective, because there is no cost or consequence to the bully. this is why we have a problem with this today.
I'll never forget my first "Bullying" experience. There were two neighborhood kids that were making fun of me and threatening me. I went and told my Dad. He told me "You have to stand up to them, otherwise it will never end. Never be afraid to stand up for yourself, then they'll leave you alone." Sure enough, a few days later, those boys were yelling at me and making fun and decided to get in my face. I didn't back down. I fought those two to a stalemate. They never bothered me again. An important lesson I learned that day, I was 5 years old. This is why bullying was less of a problem then than it is now. The prevailing attitude has become "Tolerance" rather than "Nip it in the Bud".
We have to stop teaching and preaching "Tolerance" in regards to violence and aggression and start teaching people that they don't have to tolerate the violent aggression of others. You can take action yourself, in fact, you must.
Post by: 6716J on February 20, 2018, 10:07:20 AM
http://www.criticalstop.com/on-school-shootings.pdf
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: robtmc on February 20, 2018, 11:34:20 AM
The first thing that is needed is to come up with a Hawaii-based party that makes sense to locals.A party created by the common Gibsmedat mentality? How would it be different from the current regime?
Most vote D because they are not bright enough to think it through on their own. Just go along. You may have seen one of those maps of the IQ average in all the states. Hawaii is down there with CA, MS,LA and AL, FWIW. Not going to improve in our lifetime.
Post by: aieahound on February 20, 2018, 12:55:04 PM
Friend of mine who is big into 2A and helped craft the current WVA CCW law write this. Gives some insight into thoughts and plans.Thanks for posting that 6716J
http://www.criticalstop.com/on-school-shootings.pdf
An interesting read with food for thought and direct to this topic.
Post by: Heavies on February 20, 2018, 01:51:16 PM
Friend of mine who is big into 2A and helped craft the current WVA CCW law write this. Gives some insight into thoughts and plans.Thank you. Can this be shared?
http://www.criticalstop.com/on-school-shootings.pdf
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 20, 2018, 05:01:04 PM
When considering solutions, you have to set priorities. This, to me, is priority #1. Taking time to go through the process of drafting, passing and implementing laws to "prevent" a shooting only gives the next killer time ...
Post by: edster48 on February 20, 2018, 05:03:31 PM
Friend of mine who is big into 2A and helped craft the current WVA CCW law write this. Gives some insight into thoughts and plans.
http://www.criticalstop.com/on-school-shootings.pdf
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
THIS.
This reminds me of an old Jeff Cooper speech I watched on You Tube not too long ago.
Although he still held onto the hope that someone would do something. Must've been from the late 70's or early 80's.
He also classified schools as "Soft Targets" and advocated for hardening them and being prepared for attacks, much as they have in Israel.
THIS is common sense action. Action that isn't being taken because of money. How utterly ludicrous. Our governments Federal, State and Local, all blow BILLIONS of dollars on some of the stupidest shit imaginable, hell they LOSE billions of dollars. I mean like: "WTF?? where did that 6 BILLION dollars go? Shit. Must've lost it. Oh well!"
Yet these same twatwaffles can't mange to pony up the money needed to protect our kids.
Unacceptable.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2018, 12:36:40 AM
Post by: robtmc on February 21, 2018, 09:23:02 AM
The next school shooter is out there, and he probably has a gun already.And likely being carefully groomed and prepped.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2018, 12:44:45 PM
And likely being carefully groomed and prepped.
The mistake for Florida is that Cruz didn't commit suicide. He changed his mind at the last moment. New guy at the CIA will get fired.
Post by: tillamook on February 21, 2018, 02:30:18 PM
-Develop a system whereby someone with a serious mental health condition that is correlated with violence be evaluated. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.This is already in place. physicians need to report risk of suicide or violence against others if the patient reports it. If they are medically adjudicated then it is supposed to be in the NICS. Some states, like Wyoming, dont update NICS with this information (there are only 4 records on mental health from wyoming in NICS. So the current background check system is broke.
Quote
-Develop a system whereby someone who exhibits serious behavior issues that are correlated with violence to have their firearms taken away. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.As we know from Hawaii, most mental health professionals are not going to weigh in on if someone can have a gun. otherwise I would not have people thinking about spending a bunch of money to see me to get a clearance letter.
As the constitution says, we dont take a right away based on wheat a medical professional says. If you want that, change the constitution.
Quote
-The firearm revocation must have a limit, say a hearing involving the individual must be held within 4 days to decide whether there is cause to keep the guns from that individual. If no cause or no hearing, they get their guns back.
In a hypothetical government, this would be fine. In the real world police lie, destroy firearms and otherwise make it difficult to impossible to get a firearm back. You should not have any trust that the police would follow a rule like this.
Quote
-Develop a system where someone selling a gun, whether private or by a business, can make a simple check to see if that person can legally own a firearm. Doesn't need to be registration or tracking of the sale, just a way to check with authorities that the individual is legally allowed to purchase the gun. (I have been thinking about this one for a while to propose to a legislator here. I have more specifics but am just giving the basics here)we already have this. NICS. As I said above it is broken. citizens cant get access to it.
Quote
-Develop a system where information is shared quickly and efficiently across jurisdictions. We have something like that for people convicted of a crime but there are holes in the system. Consider ways to expand it to have people who are dangerously mentally ill.This is fine. fix NICS. chances of it happening? very low.
Quote
-Implement a check and balance to the whole proposal where people can appeal decisions and get review after time has passed since some mental health issues go away.this should be the case for any reason to take a right away
Quote
-Consider more funding for mental health overall.good luck with that. mental health care is not a very high profit business. Hospitals remove inpatient mental health wards and replace them with more profitable wards like for cancer treatment. There is a huge lack of mental health professionals as well. More money does not necessarily mean better care
Quote
-Consider having more individuals who are dangerous kept in secure facilities. As part of this we may need to look at re-evaluating which ones go to prison and which ones go to a mental hospital.sorry. Regan got rid of the vast majority of state mental health facilities and hospitals. There is no profit in it so plan a huge tax hike to bring them back.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2018, 03:33:33 PM
This is already in place. physicians need to report risk of suicide or violence against others if the patient reports it. If they are medically adjudicated then it is supposed to be in the NICS. Some states, like Wyoming, dont update NICS with this information (there are only 4 records on mental health from wyoming in NICS. So the current background check system is broke.
As we know from Hawaii, most mental health professionals are not going to weigh in on if someone can have a gun. otherwise I would not have people thinking about spending a bunch of money to see me to get a clearance letter.
As the constitution says, we dont take a right away based on wheat a medical professional says. If you want that, change the constitution.
In a hypothetical government, this would be fine. In the real world police lie, destroy firearms and otherwise make it difficult to impossible to get a firearm back. You should not have any trust that the police would follow a rule like this.
we already have this. NICS. As I said above it is broken. citizens cant get access to it.
This is fine. fix NICS. chances of it happening? very low.
this should be the case for any reason to take a right away
good luck with that. mental health care is not a very high profit business. Hospitals remove inpatient mental health wards and replace them with more profitable wards like for cancer treatment. There is a huge lack of mental health professionals as well. More money does not necessarily mean better care
sorry. Regan got rid of the vast majority of state mental health facilities and hospitals. There is no profit in it so plan a huge tax hike to bring them back.
Sorry, too, but where do you get that from?
Reagan was Governor of California, and in 1967, he saw a decline in the number of patients in mental institutions. Therefore, he cut funding to help balance the budget there. After 2 years, he saw the problem with mentally ill not receiving treatment rising again, so in 1969 he reversed his cuts and provided a record funding increase of $28 million to the Department of Mental Hygiene.
The mental healthcare responsibility had always rested with the states throughout the decline in mental hospitals in the 50s and 60s.
Then President Kennedy signed the Mental Health Community Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients from the state toward the federal government. JFK wanted to create a network of community mental health centers where mentally ill people could live in the community while receiving care. JFK could have been inspired to act because his younger sister, Rosemary, was mentally disabled, received a lobotomy and spent her life hidden away.
Less than a month after signing the new legislation, JFK is assassinated. He doesn’t see the plan through. The community mental health centers never receive stable funding, and even 15 years later less than half the promised centers are built.
In 1965, the U.S. Congress establishes Medicaid and Medicare. Mentally disabled people living in the community are eligible for benefits but those in psychiatric hospitals are excluded. By encouraging patients to be discharged, state legislators could shift the cost of care for mentally ill patients to the federal government.
Then, in 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the Mental Health Systems Act to improve on JFK's plan. Interesting it was so close to the end of his term, as if it was something he did as he walked out the door for Reagan to deal with, or he was using it as a carrot to buy votes. Either way, it was Reagan's baby to decide what to do with.
1981 President Reagan repeals Carter’s legislation with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients back to the states. The legislation creates block grants for the states, but federal spending on mental illness declines.
So, your characterization that "Regan [sic] got rid of the vast majority of state mental health facilities and hospitals." isn't accurate. That process started 2 decades before he was President. By JFK and Carter trying to make mental healthcare a federal responsibility, the states are the ones who took that opportunity to withdraw previous funding. That's what caused the centers to close. Had the States gone back to funding what they previously did before JFK and Carter overstepped their boundaries (IMO, since healthcare is always managed by the states regardless of the funding source), you wouldn't have seen so many closures in the Reagan years.
As I highlighted in red, it was 1965 when the states started pushing the responsibility onto the feds under Medicaid and Medicare funding. To blame Reagan 20 years later for state's playing hot potato with mental healthcare seems inaccurate. Remember, Reagan was taking responsibility as California's Governor during 1967-1969 by correcting his budget cuts. That's what the other states should have done for THEIR citizens and not relied on the federal government to foot the bill.
Post by: tillamook on February 21, 2018, 09:07:43 PM
Sorry, too, but where do you get that from?
Reagan was Governor of California, and in 1967, he saw a decline in the number of patients in mental institutions. Therefore, he cut funding to help balance the budget there. After 2 years, he saw the problem with mentally ill not receiving treatment rising again, so in 1969 he reversed his cuts and provided a record funding increase of $28 million to the Department of Mental Hygiene.
The mental healthcare responsibility had always rested with the states throughout the decline in mental hospitals in the 50s and 60s.
Then President Kennedy signed the Mental Health Community Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients from the state toward the federal government. JFK wanted to create a network of community mental health centers where mentally ill people could live in the community while receiving care. JFK could have been inspired to act because his younger sister, Rosemary, was mentally disabled, received a lobotomy and spent her life hidden away.
Less than a month after signing the new legislation, JFK is assassinated. He doesn’t see the plan through. The community mental health centers never receive stable funding, and even 15 years later less than half the promised centers are built.
In 1965, the U.S. Congress establishes Medicaid and Medicare. Mentally disabled people living in the community are eligible for benefits but those in psychiatric hospitals are excluded. By encouraging patients to be discharged, state legislators could shift the cost of care for mentally ill patients to the federal government.
Then, in 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the Mental Health Systems Act to improve on JFK's plan. Interesting it was so close to the end of his term, as if it was something he did as he walked out the door for Reagan to deal with, or he was using it as a carrot to buy votes. Either way, it was Reagan's baby to decide what to do with.
1981 President Reagan repeals Carter’s legislation with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients back to the states. The legislation creates block grants for the states, but federal spending on mental illness declines.
So, your characterization that "Regan [sic] got rid of the vast majority of state mental health facilities and hospitals." isn't accurate. That process started 2 decades before he was President. By JFK and Carter trying to make mental healthcare a federal responsibility, the states are the ones who took that opportunity to withdraw previous funding. That's what caused the centers to close. Had the States gone back to funding what they previously did before JFK and Carter overstepped their boundaries (IMO, since healthcare is always managed by the states regardless of the funding source), you wouldn't have seen so many closures in the Reagan years.
As I highlighted in red, it was 1965 when the states started pushing the responsibility onto the feds under Medicaid and Medicare funding. To blame Reagan 20 years later for state's playing hot potato with mental healthcare seems inaccurate. Remember, Reagan was taking responsibility as California's Governor during 1967-1969 by correcting his budget cuts. That's what the other states should have done for THEIR citizens and not relied on the federal government to foot the bill.
Thanks for the clarification and details. I'll admit I did not know the details and just a little like the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act that he signed as Governor. Thanks again for the information
My opinion is still not to expect any expansion of mental health care now because I've seen the quality and quantity of it drop over the last 20 years.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 22, 2018, 06:40:52 PM
Unconstitutional?
At the risk of starting another of your infamous "Wiping my butt with a hoop" diatribes, please explain to me how self defense using deadly force is "Unconstitutional".
I just finished reading about a kid in the Florida shooting that took 5 rounds, because he was holding a door closed to protect the other kids in the room. This kid has BALLS. He deserves to be treated like the hero he is, but, what if he hadn't been indoctrinated with the "Run, Hide, Fight" mentality?
What if he and a couple of others had the "Kill this Motherfucker and Save as Many as Possible from Him" mentality and took those rounds while they assaulted him with whatever weapons were available and beat him to death? How many might have been spared? If this was practiced on a consistent basis how many of the mass shooters that kill themselves afterwords would've opted to just avoid the confrontation and merely blown their own brains out?
My guess is we aren't going to find out anytime soon, because we're teaching our children to be cowards.
Look at how "Bullying" is dealt with now. The prevailing "Solution" is to have the victim "Tell Somebody", then the "Bully" gets some counselling. Then goes right back to bullying the same victim. Completely ineffective, because there is no cost or consequence to the bully. this is why we have a problem with this today.
I'll never forget my first "Bullying" experience. There were two neighborhood kids that were making fun of me and threatening me. I went and told my Dad. He told me "You have to stand up to them, otherwise it will never end. Never be afraid to stand up for yourself, then they'll leave you alone." Sure enough, a few days later, those boys were yelling at me and making fun and decided to get in my face. I didn't back down. I fought those two to a stalemate. They never bothered me again. An important lesson I learned that day, I was 5 years old. This is why bullying was less of a problem then than it is now. The prevailing attitude has become "Tolerance" rather than "Nip it in the Bud".
We have to stop teaching and preaching "Tolerance" in regards to violence and aggression and start teaching people that they don't have to tolerate the violent aggression of others. You can take action yourself, in fact, you must.
You suggested beating them till the died a painful death. This would fall under cruel and unusual punishment which is prohibited by the US constitution.
However if you simply meant that bystanders should do this then yes, the constitution wouldn't apply. Criminal charges could if the suspect surrendered and was still beat to death, but I don't think you will find anyone who would object to a necessary amount of lethal force to stop a terrorist.
I am glad you managed to end your bullying experience by standing up you them but I don't think such a simple answer covers everything. Look at columbine, those kids were bullied and they stood up against those who bullied them... by murdering a bunch of them.
Bullying is a complex social interaction and it needs more than just some hard nose response.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 22, 2018, 06:43:54 PM
NO. Brainstorming is designed to find an idea. Here's the definition: BRAINSTORM: verb produce an idea or way of solving a problem by holding a spontaneous group discussion.
Stop trying to lecture. You don't know what you're talking about.
As for my ideas, if the "guns in the hands of good guys" policy was implemented in schools, it would prevent many incidents through deterrence, and it would limit carnage through active resistance.
If that one idea was implemented, we'd be able to evaluate how effective it is, and THEN see where other measures might also be needed. If it's able to stop 80% of shooters, that'll reduce the number of less effective, more expensive solutions meant to prevent shootings and avoid guns in the hands of faculty.
You can brainstorm for ideas and you can brainstorm on ideas. Stop being difficult just because you want to troll me, you have taken up way too much time and space on this thread without adding anything of value. I asked you a simple question about what would you suggest outside of armed teachers and your answer was armed teachers.
Post by: 6716J on February 22, 2018, 06:52:39 PM
Thank you. Can this be shared?Oh yes, please share far and wide!
The more knowledge we share the better off we are.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: edster48 on February 23, 2018, 07:20:25 AM
You suggested beating them till the died a painful death. This would fall under cruel and unusual punishment which is prohibited by the US constitution.
However if you simply meant that bystanders should do this then yes, the constitution wouldn't apply. Criminal charges could if the suspect surrendered and was still beat to death, but I don't think you will find anyone who would object to a necessary amount of lethal force to stop a terrorist.
I am glad you managed to end your bullying experience by standing up you them but I don't think such a simple answer covers everything. Look at columbine, those kids were bullied and they stood up against those who bullied them... by murdering a bunch of them.
Bullying is a complex social interaction and it needs more than just some hard nose response.
Ready the Hoop!
I'm going to call Bullshit, again.
You really do have a terrible habit of cherry picking portions of a complete statement to fit your narrative, or do you just have issues with reading comprehension?
My point was obvious. While I can't say I'm "Opposed" to an officer "Accidentally" discharging 17 rounds into a murderer's head, you'll note that I did say that should one be captured alive they should be tried and hung on national television. The better to provide an example of what they can expect.
The point being that resistance should be the rule, rather than the exception. We've been teaching our kids to be victims since the 70's { I know because I was there when it started }. The result is adults that accept cowardice as the "Norm". The only thing this is conducive to is perpetuating the problem.
As far as my "Bullying Experience", that was hardly the only one. That's just how I learned to deal with them. That method has always worked, and always will work, because at heart all bully's are cowards. Your contention that bullying is a "Complex Social Interaction" is bullshit. Bullying is simply one person attempting to establish dominance over another with intimidation. It has been this way since the beginning of human interaction. By lending credence to the notion that it's "Complex" you perpetuate the problem.
"The Columbine shooters were Bullied!" More Bullshit. { Where are my fucking waders? } OK, they were bullied, but hardly exclusively, and the "Bullies" had graduated the year before the shooting. I'll direct you to a paper by Peter Langman Ph.d. His conclusions were that Eric Harris had a "Disturbed Personality" and "Prominent Antisocial, Narcissistic, and Sadistic Traits". If memory serves, he was also on psychotropic drugs. The notion that bullying was responsible for his actions has been debunked Ad Nauseam, and the fact is they participated in bullying themselves.
I stand by my assertion that you can't prevent evil, you can only kill it where you find it.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 23, 2018, 09:11:54 AM
Post by: Heavies on February 23, 2018, 10:24:25 AM
Post by: drck1000 on February 23, 2018, 11:31:37 AM
For short term, not going to prevent violence. Can only try to deter. Make schools a less soft target, the next will be at a concert or other public event.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 23, 2018, 11:37:58 AM
They need to stop sensationalizing all mass shootings, including schools. The only reason the media does it is to push the anti-gun agenda while emotions are high and to boost ratings. Period.
We did it for suicides. Studies showed when suicides were given prominence in news reporting, there followed sometimes multiple copycat suicides. When reporting stopped, so did almost all copycats.
Post by: edster48 on February 23, 2018, 12:55:18 PM
Pass a law to stop the media from using the shooter's name, likeness and guns used in their reports.
They need to stop sensationalizing all mass shootings, including schools. The only reason the media does it is to push the anti-gun agenda while emotions are high and to boost ratings. Period.
We did it for suicides. Studies showed when suicides were given prominence in news reporting, there followed sometimes multiple copycat suicides. When reporting stopped, so did almost all copycats.
This is true.
Experienced it myself when I had to call in a guy who'd jumped from a parking structure in Waikiki { this was many years ago } and asked a friend in HFD why I didn't see it on the news.
Common sense solutions.
Post by: 6716J on February 23, 2018, 02:41:21 PM
Ugh
Post by: Inspector on February 23, 2018, 03:38:18 PM
When I was around 9 or 10 there were a couple bullies on my block and they were 16-17 years old. They beat me up regularly. I have two older brothers, one who is 13 years older than me. And he was back visiting my parents from basic training. I came home beat up and crying that day and my parents asked my brother to take care of the situation. He did. Their parents came to my parents house and complained and my father told them if they ever beat me up again he would sue them and told them to call the cops and slammed the door in their face. No cops ever showed up and they stayed far away from me after that.
When I was 6 or 7 and in elementary school there was a much bigger kid that started bullying me. He would wait after school and try and block me from walking home. I escaped a couple of times and cried to my parents. My father told me I had to stand up for myself. He also told me that when defending myself there is no such thing as an unfair fight. What he said was I can bite, kick, scratch and use anything as a weapon to defend myself. The next day the bully started hitting me while I was walking home. He kept on hitting me so I swung around with my metal lunchbox and whacked him upside the head. My thermos went flying and broke. The lunchbox had a pretty good dent and wouldn't close anymore. The bully was bleeding pretty good. My father was proud and immediately took me out to buy a new lunchbox. The bully's father came to our house later that night and my father threatened to beat him up if his kid ever touched me again and slammed the door in his face. The bully left me alone after that and other kids heard what happened and came up to me and told me they were happy someone beat that bully up as he stopped bullying them after what I did.
I learned a lot from those two incidents. Standing up for yourself and deterrence is the answer. Prevention is only possible in some circumstances and is not realistic in most cases. Bullies only understand one thing. Yes, violence or the threat of violence is the only realistic alternative when circumstances don't allow prevention. Which IMO is most of the time.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 23, 2018, 03:44:00 PM
I have two bullying memories from when I was a child.
When I was around 9 or 10 there were a couple bullies on my block and they were 16-17 years old. They beat me up regularly. I have two older brothers, one who is 13 years older than me. And he was back visiting my parents from basic training. I came home beat up and crying that day and my parents asked my brother to take care of the situation. He did. Their parents came to my parents house and complained and my father told them if they ever beat me up again he would sue them and told them to call the cops and slammed the door in their face. No cops ever showed up and they stayed far away from me after that.
When I was 6 or 7 and in elementary school there was a much bigger kid that started bullying me. He would wait after school and try and block me from walking home. I escaped a couple of times and cried to my parents. My father told me I had to stand up for myself. He also told me that when defending myself there is no such thing as an unfair fight. What he said was I can bite, kick, scratch and use anything as a weapon to defend myself. The next day the bully started hitting me while I was walking home. He kept on hitting me so I swung around with my metal lunchbox and whacked him upside the head. My thermos went flying and broke. The lunchbox had a pretty good dent and wouldn't close anymore. The bully was bleeding pretty good. My father was proud and immediately took me out to buy a new lunchbox. The bully's father came to our house later that night and my father threatened to beat him up if his kid ever touched me again and slammed the door in his face. The bully left me alone after that and other kids heard what happened and came up to me and told me they were happy someone beat that bully up as he stopped bullying them after what I did.
I learned a lot from those two incidents. Standing up for yourself and deterrence is the answer. Prevention is only possible in some circumstances and is not realistic in most cases. Bullies only understand one thing. Yes, violence or the threat of violence is the only realistic alternative when circumstances don't allow prevention. Which IMO is most of the time.
In other words, you can't be sure the bully will change, so your best bet is to change yourself. Even IF the bullies you have to deal with today are "corrected," what about the next, and the next, and that one over there, and the one behind you .... ?
Post by: Inspector on February 23, 2018, 03:52:42 PM
In other words, you can't be sure the bully will change, so your best bet is to change yourself. Even IF the bullies you have to deal with today are "corrected," what about the next, and the next, and that one over there, and the one behind you .... ?Exactly. You can't change other peoples behavior. So you have to change your behavior in order to deal with this sort of thing.
Isn't this the reason why we want to conceal carry?
Post by: groveler on February 23, 2018, 04:14:41 PM
Exactly. You can't change other peoples behavior. So you have to change your behavior in order to deal with this sort of thing.We want concealed carry because we are old men and don't want to get robbed and killed.
Isn't this the reason why we want to conceal carry?
I have a 26.5 mm signaling device in my vehicle so they can find me.
Post by: Inspector on February 23, 2018, 05:54:31 PM
Post by: 6716J on February 23, 2018, 07:33:28 PM
HAHA
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 23, 2018, 08:38:46 PM
Ready the Hoop!
I'm going to call Bullshit, again.
You really do have a terrible habit of cherry picking portions of a complete statement to fit your narrative, or do you just have issues with reading comprehension?
My point was obvious. While I can't say I'm "Opposed" to an officer "Accidentally" discharging 17 rounds into a murderer's head, you'll note that I did say that should one be captured alive they should be tried and hung on national television. The better to provide an example of what they can expect.
The point being that resistance should be the rule, rather than the exception. We've been teaching our kids to be victims since the 70's { I know because I was there when it started }. The result is adults that accept cowardice as the "Norm". The only thing this is conducive to is perpetuating the problem.
As far as my "Bullying Experience", that was hardly the only one. That's just how I learned to deal with them. That method has always worked, and always will work, because at heart all bully's are cowards. Your contention that bullying is a "Complex Social Interaction" is bullshit. Bullying is simply one person attempting to establish dominance over another with intimidation. It has been this way since the beginning of human interaction. By lending credence to the notion that it's "Complex" you perpetuate the problem.
"The Columbine shooters were Bullied!" More Bullshit. { Where are my fucking waders? } OK, they were bullied, but hardly exclusively, and the "Bullies" had graduated the year before the shooting. I'll direct you to a paper by Peter Langman Ph.d. His conclusions were that Eric Harris had a "Disturbed Personality" and "Prominent Antisocial, Narcissistic, and Sadistic Traits". If memory serves, he was also on psychotropic drugs. The notion that bullying was responsible for his actions has been debunked Ad Nauseam, and the fact is they participated in bullying themselves.
I stand by my assertion that you can't prevent evil, you can only kill it where you find it.
These shooters know they will be famous and they plan to die in the act. What makes you think a public execution will dissuade them?
I don't know the specific breakdown of which shooter was bullied for how long but reports did show that they both had been bullied. Yes, most of the bullying was from the class ahead of them but the pain doesn't disappear just because the bullies do. Yes, Erik Harris had some serious mental health issues. But there were also a second shooter who seemed to be more the follower. He also reported bullying and Klebold's motives were revenge, not being a psycopath. Bullying was a factor, this is not a myth. I mention columbine as an example but it goes beyond that. Columbine isn't the only time the bullied have fought back with violence. Not the first and won't be the last. And what does it prove that they participated in bullying? People who bully were frequently the target of bullying, this is why it is complex, this is why you can't approach the subject from such a minimal understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold#Bullying
Bullying is complex not because of the basic interaction but because of all the issues that stem from it. Yes, one person establishes dominance over the other but it is not that simple. People bully for various reasons and they react to bullying in various ways. The whole "just be a tough guy" attitude is harmful and isn't a practical solution. I think your attitude can basically invite more violence. Lets say one kid teases another kid over and over again. His dad tells him to stand up for himself so he goes and hits the kid in the head with a bat or stabs him with a knife. I guess in a simplistic way you are correct, if the bully lives he won't insult this kid anymore. The kid will be in jail for a while but by golly he stood up to the bully! Then you have the kids who just commit suicide instead of lashing out at others, but what is that to you, just culling the herd?
I guess we are forced to disagree on the rest.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 23, 2018, 08:39:34 PM
Pass a law to stop the media from using the shooter's name, likeness and guns used in their reports.
They need to stop sensationalizing all mass shootings, including schools. The only reason the media does it is to push the anti-gun agenda while emotions are high and to boost ratings. Period.
We did it for suicides. Studies showed when suicides were given prominence in news reporting, there followed sometimes multiple copycat suicides. When reporting stopped, so did almost all copycats.
While I agree with you fully, you do realize that such a law would be unconstitutional?
Unfortunately with the media , as they say "if it bleeds, it leads", so I don't think they are ready to heed this advice.
Maybe the police need to take the step and just never publish the shooters name? Not sure if that would work either though because someone would find out eventually.
Copy cat behavior does seem to be involved in the minds of a number of mass shooters so it is something the media needs to realize. The radio show I listen to they vowed never to use names and only call them stupid angry cowards.
Post by: edster48 on February 23, 2018, 10:50:41 PM
While I agree with you fully, you do realize that such a law would be unconstitutional?
Unfortunately with the media , as they say "if it bleeds, it leads", so I don't think they are ready to heed this advice.
Maybe the police need to take the step and just never publish the shooters name? Not sure if that would work either though because someone would find out eventually.
Copy cat behavior does seem to be involved in the minds of a number of mass shooters so it is something the media needs to realize. The radio show I listen to they vowed never to use names and only call them stupid angry cowards.
THEY_ALREADY_DO_THIS_WITH_SUICIDES.
IT_WORKS.
IT_CAN_BE_DONE_VOLUNTARILY.
HELP_US_TO_HELP_YOU.
Post by: edster48 on February 23, 2018, 10:55:12 PM
These shooters know they will be famous and they plan to die in the act. What makes you think a public execution will dissuade them?
I don't know the specific breakdown of which shooter was bullied for how long but reports did show that they both had been bullied. Yes, most of the bullying was from the class ahead of them but the pain doesn't disappear just because the bullies do. Yes, Erik Harris had some serious mental health issues. But there were also a second shooter who seemed to be more the follower. He also reported bullying and Klebold's motives were revenge, not being a psycopath. Bullying was a factor, this is not a myth. I mention columbine as an example but it goes beyond that. Columbine isn't the only time the bullied have fought back with violence. Not the first and won't be the last. And what does it prove that they participated in bullying? People who bully were frequently the target of bullying, this is why it is complex, this is why you can't approach the subject from such a minimal understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold#Bullying
Bullying is complex not because of the basic interaction but because of all the issues that stem from it. Yes, one person establishes dominance over the other but it is not that simple. People bully for various reasons and they react to bullying in various ways. The whole "just be a tough guy" attitude is harmful and isn't a practical solution. I think your attitude can basically invite more violence. Lets say one kid teases another kid over and over again. His dad tells him to stand up for himself so he goes and hits the kid in the head with a bat or stabs him with a knife. I guess in a simplistic way you are correct, if the bully lives he won't insult this kid anymore. The kid will be in jail for a while but by golly he stood up to the bully! Then you have the kids who just commit suicide instead of lashing out at others, but what is that to you, just culling the herd?
I guess we are forced to disagree on the rest.
Do you ever notice that you have a hard time seeing the forest because of all the trees?
BTW, Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source material.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 24, 2018, 05:50:56 AM
THEY_ALREADY_DO_THIS_WITH_SUICIDES.
IT_WORKS.
IT_CAN_BE_DONE_VOLUNTARILY.
HELP_US_TO_HELP_YOU.
You seem to be under the impression that I am against this tactic. I am not, my post clearly shows I support this practice. I only pointed out that you could not constitutionally prevent the media from reporting suicides with a law. It has to be voluntary cooperation
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 24, 2018, 06:02:35 AM
Do you ever notice that you have a hard time seeing the forest because of all the trees?
BTW, Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source material.
You can't just push aside bullying as a factor just because one of the boys had psychotic issues.
You want to say just be tough and overcome bullying because it worked for you fine but don't pretend to do some magic solution that will work for everyone.
You are glossing over the issue because this isn't just about Columbine. This is about a greater picture where some people will react violently when being bullied too much. When you're tough guy method doesn't work then we see things like suicide and school shootings. So your idea is great in a theory but it is not practical because it doesn't work for everyone.
Look at the other post I made in the general discussion section about the testimony of a man who was going to shoot up a school but didn't. Bullying was clearly a key issue for him. Luckily he didn't stand up to bullies by shooting up a school.
If you question the Wikipedia accounts just check the sources. Like this one about the bullying.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/col1003a.htm
Post by: edster48 on February 24, 2018, 10:08:55 AM
You can't just push aside bullying as a factor just because one of the boys had psychotic issues.
You want to say just be tough and overcome bullying because it worked for you fine but don't pretend to do some magic solution that will work for everyone.
You are glossing over the issue because this isn't just about Columbine. This is about a greater picture where some people will react violently when being bullied too much. When you're tough guy method doesn't work then we see things like suicide and school shootings. So your idea is great in a theory but it is not practical because it doesn't work for everyone.
Look at the other post I made in the general discussion section about the testimony of a man who was going to shoot up a school but didn't. Bullying was clearly a key issue for him. Luckily he didn't stand up to bullies by shooting up a school.
If you question the Wikipedia accounts just check the sources. Like this one about the bullying.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/col1003a.htm
You can't just push aside the fact that one of the boys { The leader of the group in this case } had psychotic issues simply because at some point they experienced bullying.
Your claim that a solution, that works 99% of the time, isn't "Practical" because it doesn't guarantee a 100% outcome? That's the most moronic thing I've ever heard.
Newsflash Hoop Boy, there is no 100% guaranteed solution when dealing with people. We can only go with what works in the vast majority of situations.
I saw the video you posted somewhere else before you put it up. It disgusts me, because it attempts to put the onus for this sick individuals "Issues" on the rest of us for "Not being Kind Enough". Make no mistake, if you feel that killing others because you were bullied, disliked or unpopular, is in any way a normal response, you have psychotic issues. Seek help, blow your brains out, whatever. But don't expect me to take responsibility for your psychosis or absolve you of blame because of it.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 24, 2018, 07:16:56 PM
You can't just push aside the fact that one of the boys { The leader of the group in this case } had psychotic issues simply because at some point they experienced bullying.
Your claim that a solution, that works 99% of the time, isn't "Practical" because it doesn't guarantee a 100% outcome? That's the most moronic thing I've ever heard.
Newsflash Hoop Boy, there is no 100% guaranteed solution when dealing with people. We can only go with what works in the vast majority of situations.
I saw the video you posted somewhere else before you put it up. It disgusts me, because it attempts to put the onus for this sick individuals "Issues" on the rest of us for "Not being Kind Enough". Make no mistake, if you feel that killing others because you were bullied, disliked or unpopular, is in any way a normal response, you have psychotic issues. Seek help, blow your brains out, whatever. But don't expect me to take responsibility for your psychosis or absolve you of blame because of it.
I wasn't claiming that bullying caused his psychotic issues.
I think your premise is flawed, I don't think it works 99% of the time. It basically condones people fighting all the time and resorting to violence with no clear line. Puna stated he hit a kid in the head with a lunch box, but what if he had instead stabbed the kid in the neck with a fork? It isn't practical because it doesn't solve the problem and because sometimes it makes it worse. Sure, maybe you don't get bullied anymore but what stops the bully from just picking a new target?
I think you miss the point of the video. He was not blaming others for not being nice enough he was saying that it was acts of kindness (love?) that helped him recover.
Post by: ren on February 24, 2018, 08:04:21 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 24, 2018, 08:34:35 PM
these ideas sure are rough
That's because everyone is just getting ideas before they start brain storming.
Which of course, they aren't. Brain storming involves a process, but I was informed doing the process in reverse is really how it's done.
Start with an idea, then people .... something, something .... which leads to ..... something else.
Incorrect, it is "filler" for I don't have the answer yet. First you get an idea, then you brainstorm.
Post by: zippz on February 24, 2018, 09:11:19 PM
It's different from suicides which are a more normal private affair which don't really attract mass readership. The mass shootings get everyone's attention and is very emotional. It can also be tied into a lot of things on the agenda. All of this means money for the media.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 24, 2018, 09:28:00 PM
Keeping mass shootings out of the headlines and hiding the shooters name would be very difficult and unlikely, but would be effective if done.
It's different from suicides which are a more normal private affair which don't really attract mass readership. The mass shootings get everyone's attention and is very emotional. It can also be tied into a lot of things on the agenda. All of this means money for the media.
How about we start with baby steps? Keep the mass shootings out of the press in which the shooter commits suicide. Seems like the suicide part would be enough justification, huh?
Post by: edster48 on February 24, 2018, 10:44:06 PM
Keeping mass shootings out of the headlines and hiding the shooters name would be very difficult and unlikely, but would be effective if done.
It's different from suicides which are a more normal private affair which don't really attract mass readership. The mass shootings get everyone's attention and is very emotional. It can also be tied into a lot of things on the agenda. All of this means money for the media.
All too true.
Unfortunately the MSM doesn't seem to have the best interests of the country or its citizens at heart
Apparently all this talk of "If it saves just one life.." pales in comparison to the almighty ratings and the Dimocrat agenda.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 25, 2018, 06:23:25 AM
these ideas sure are rough
Perhaps you would like to contribute something useful? A rough idea is better than no idea and sticking her head in the sand
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 25, 2018, 06:29:17 AM
That's because everyone is just getting ideas before they start brain storming.
Which of course, they aren't. Brain storming involves a process, but I was informed doing the process in reverse is really how it's done.
Start with an idea, then people .... something, something .... which leads to ..... something else.
Don't get snippy with me just because you don't know the definition of brainstorming. Can we please just avoid such a childish argument? Maybe it will hurt your pride too much to apologize so don't but at least try to be an adult about this topic.
brainstorming
[breyn-stawr-ming]
noun
a conference technique of solving specific problems, amassing information, stimulating creative thinking, developing new ideas, etc., by unrestrained and spontaneous participation in discussion.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse
Post by: edster48 on February 25, 2018, 06:29:31 AM
I wasn't claiming that bullying caused his psychotic issues.
I think your premise is flawed, I don't think it works 99% of the time. It basically condones people fighting all the time and resorting to violence with no clear line. Puna stated he hit a kid in the head with a lunch box, but what if he had instead stabbed the kid in the neck with a fork? It isn't practical because it doesn't solve the problem and because sometimes it makes it worse. Sure, maybe you don't get bullied anymore but what stops the bully from just picking a new target?
I think you miss the point of the video. He was not blaming others for not being nice enough he was saying that it was acts of kindness (love?) that helped him recover.
I didn't say you were. But you were trying to downplay the role his psychosis played in the events at Columbine and insinuate that "Bullying" was the central cause.
Maybe you don't "think" standing up to bullies works, my experience over the years has shown me that it does. Sometimes a lunchbox upside the head is just what someone needs to straighten out their thought processes.
I think what you really have issue with is that fact that sometimes you have to meet violence with violence.
Teaching kids that standing up for themselves isn't "Condoning" violence, nor does it lead to "Fighting all the time". It actually leads to less violence. Even if the person standing up to the bully loses that confrontation, the bully is faced with the realization that he/she { wouldn't want to be sexist now would we } is going to face resistance rather than be rewarded by appeasement. As I said before, and has been proven time and again, bullies are essentially cowards. They're looking for the easy win, not a fight. Once they realize that they'll be facing resistance, those that aren't psychotic change their behavior. People see others resisting and realize they can resist too. The 1% that are psychotic will never change. You can't "Fix" them. They will never be "Normal". They will always have the seed of evil within them.
Yes, my solution to that 1% is to exterminate them with extreme prejudice wherever we find them.
As far as that puling tub of lard is concerned, you can go read the response I posted in that thread.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 25, 2018, 07:09:41 AM
I didn't say you were. But you were trying to downplay the role his psychosis played in the events at Columbine and insinuate that "Bullying" was the central cause.
Maybe you don't "think" standing up to bullies works, my experience over the years has shown me that it does. Sometimes a lunchbox upside the head is just what someone needs to straighten out their thought processes.
I think what you really have issue with is that fact that sometimes you have to meet violence with violence.
Teaching kids that standing up for themselves isn't "Condoning" violence, nor does it lead to "Fighting all the time". It actually leads to less violence. Even if the person standing up to the bully loses that confrontation, the bully is faced with the realization that he/she { wouldn't want to be sexist now would we } is going to face resistance rather than be rewarded by appeasement. As I said before, and has been proven time and again, bullies are essentially cowards. They're looking for the easy win, not a fight. Once they realize that they'll be facing resistance, those that aren't psychotic change their behavior. People see others resisting and realize they can resist too. The 1% that are psychotic will never change. You can't "Fix" them. They will never be "Normal". They will always have the seed of evil within them.
Yes, my solution to that 1% is to exterminate them with extreme prejudice wherever we find them.
As far as that puling tub of lard is concerned, you can go read the response I posted in that thread.
I focus on the bullying because that is something we can control. We can't stop a psychotic from being a psychotic but we can decide how we interact with them.
I am not suggesting that standing up to bullies never works but I think it an overly simple solution given to an emotional child and isn't always going to lead to the best outcome. Like I asked you earlier, how is this scared child standing up to a bully know where to draw the line between stabbing them and hitting them with a lunch box?
Not all bullying is physical by the way. For example the witty kid who can insult someone less socially savvy. I don't want to make an assumption of what you are saying so I want to know if your solution of standing up to a bully by fighting them physically is something you would also suggest when standing up to a verbal bully?
Bullying can also be done to make oneself look better at the cost of somebody else, not just establish control Maybe these people are cowards or maybe they are opportunists seeing ways to increase their popularity at the cost of another's.
Standing up to a bully can often work, I will give you that but the reality is that not everyone will stand up to a bully. For those who can't or won't stand up to a bully, I want to make a difference so that they don't end up choosing to hurt themselves or other people
Exterminating evil after it has run its course does nothing towards preventing it from happening.
Post by: Inspector on February 25, 2018, 07:39:52 AM
We used to have debtor's prisons why not family prisons? Put 'em all in jail together and let the parents deal with the consequences and the child. Let the MSM in to see how families are living. It is not perfect. And it is probably too simplistic for your complex problem theories. But I am of the idea that simple solutions, to even the most complex problems, are still the best way.
I know you are going to come up with more complex issues stemming from my solution. However, I feel like most here that we have to do what is best for the majority. I think when you start making these problems about the individual and not about what is best for the majority you make things unnecessarily complex. JMHO
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 25, 2018, 08:01:58 AM
EEF, I have been reading what you have been writing. Are you saying that more and more children are becoming more violent than when (let's say) I was a child in the 60's? Because this violence did not occur when I was a child. As a child I wouldn't think of acting out like this. I was too afraid of the consequences. So could it be the child's upbringing that is now different causing these violent outbursts? If so, and this is how I feel, I think the solution here is to make the parents responsible for what their children do. Both criminally and civilly. I think you will see a drastic change in how parents raise their children.
We used to have debtor's prisons why not family prisons? Put 'em all in jail together and let the parents deal with the consequences and the child. Let the MSM in to see how families are living. It is not perfect. And it is probably too simplistic for your complex problem theories. But I am of the idea that simple solutions, to even the most complex problems, are still the best way.
I know you are going to come up with more complex issues stemming from my solution. However, I feel like most here that we have to do what is best for the majority. I think when you start making these problems about the individual and not about what is best for the majority you make things unnecessarily complex. JMHO
I was a child of the 80s so honestly I cannot really say how it compared to the 60s. I think in some areas we have improved and parenting and in others we have got worse. Children without fathers show a fairly strong correlation to increased criminality so I think it certainly appropriate to question what role parental responsibility plays. I have not looked much into the parents of mass shooters so I don't know if there are certain patterns that have been recognized that we could address.
I certainly don't think that there has been a shift in human brain chemistry to explain the modern phenomena of random Mass killing so I would theorize it to be a social issue. Did parenting change enough over the past 60 years to explain this whole phenomena? Maybe but I am skeptical of that. I think the copycat aspect needs to be studied more. At least with this Florida shooter they will have somebody to interview and study.
While I do appreciate your fresh idea on the subject I am very skeptical about a family prison type thing working. Throwing mom and dad in jail because their child did something bad almost seems like it could snow ball. For the sake of brevity I will leave out specifics. It also sounds a little bit too much like North Korea where when one person screws up you put three generations of their family in prison. Wouldt it even be constitutional?
Post by: macsak on February 25, 2018, 08:11:50 AM
I certainly don't think that there has been a shift in human brain chemistry to explain the modern phenomena of random Mass killing
the shift in brain chemistry comes from psychotropic drugs
that has been documented in mass shooters, yet the MSM does not concentrate on that, because it does not fit the message of "child-killing evil black rifles sold by the NRA"
Post by: edster48 on February 25, 2018, 08:29:06 AM
I focus on the bullying because that is something we on the outside can control. We can't stop a psychotic from being a psychotic we can decide how we interact with them.
I am not suggesting that standing up to bullies never works but I think overly simple solution to a complex problem given to an emotional 12 year old is always going to lead to the best outcome. What about the bullying that isn't physical what is verbal? Like I asked you earlier, how is this scared child standing up to a bully know where to draw the line between stabbing them and hitting them with a lunch box?
For example the witty kid who can insult someone less socially savvy? Should the bullied individual punch the bully in the face for making fun of him, responding to offense with violence? I don't want to make an assumption of what you are saying so I want to know if your solution of standing up to a bully by fighting them physically is something you would also suggest when standing up to a verbal bully?
Bullying can also be done as a sort of status thing, to make oneself look better at the cost of somebody else. It is not merely one person trying to exert control over another. Maybe these people are cowards or maybe they are opportunists seeing ways to increase their popularity at the cost of another's.
Standing up to a bully can often work, I will give you that but the reality is that not everyone will stand up to a bully and there be consequences as a result. So for those who can find the courage to do what you say great but for those who don't we will end up with other consequences, consequences we may have been able to help avert by treating them a certain way.
Exterminating evil after it has run its course does nothing towards preventing it from happening.
You can't "Control" bullying. You can only deal with it.
Your focus on "Control" is what leads you to complex solutions for relatively simple problems. Problems that weren't as prominent when we applied those "Overly Simple Solutions" back in the day.
You don't "Interact" with psycho's. You terminate them. They are not redeemable. Culling them from society prevents them from breeding more.
You teach children where the line is in regards to an appropriate response. This is called "Parenting". You further teach them that they will need to rise to the expectations of society, not that society will dumb itself down to satisfy them. Work towards the highest common denominator, not the lowest.
What is "Status" but another form of dominance? We, as gun owners in this state, are being "Bullied" by those with "Status" as we speak. This country was founded on the idea that we can stand up to them.
Yes, there are those that won't stand up for themselves. Notice that I don't say "Can't", they can but for whatever reason they won't. You do what you can to protect them, but in the end if they refuse to stand up for themselves they are destined to become victims.
Predators seek out prey, it is simply the nature of the world, it cannot be avoided.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 25, 2018, 08:37:47 AM
the shift in brain chemistry comes from psychotropic drugs
that has been documented in mass shooters, yet the MSM does not concentrate on that, because it does not fit the message of "child-killing evil black rifles sold by the NRA"
Sorry, what I was getting at was the biology of the human brain. I meant that I don't think the human brain suddenly evolved to create this phenomenon.
Psychotropic drugs definitely seem to be a reoccurring factor in mass shooters though I do think there are a fair number of examples where shooters were not on these drugs. This is a question worthy of more in-depth study I think.
One of the questions that comes to my mind is a sort of chicken or the egg type question. Is it the psychotropic drugs that cause them to do this or are psychotropic drugs just a symptom?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 25, 2018, 09:00:11 AM
You can't "Control" bullying. You can only deal with it.
Your focus on "Control" is what leads you to complex solutions for relatively simple problems. Problems that weren't as prominent when we applied those "Overly Simple Solutions" back in the day.
You don't "Interact" with psycho's. You terminate them. They are not redeemable. Culling them from society prevents them from breeding more.
You teach children where the line is in regards to an appropriate response. This is called "Parenting". You further teach them that they will need to rise to the expectations of society, not that society will dumb itself down to satisfy them. Work towards the highest common denominator, not the lowest.
What is "Status" but another form of dominance? We, as gun owners in this state, are being "Bullied" by those with "Status" as we speak. This country was founded on the idea that we can stand up to them.
Yes, there are those that won't stand up for themselves. Notice that I don't say "Can't", they can but for whatever reason they won't. You do what you can to protect them, but in the end if they refuse to stand up for themselves they are destined to become victims.
Predators seek out prey, it is simply the nature of the world, it cannot be avoided.
I'm not sure how far you are suggesting we take culling Psychopaths especially considering mental illnesses exist on a spectrum, not simply a clear dangerous or not dangerous line. With many of these Mass shooters there may have been signs for concern but not always reason enough to lock them up. Regardless, your suggestion is really more of a post problem solution. By that time the bodies are already on the floor. The goal is to try and avoid having it go that far in the first place
You didn't really give me a clear answer on the issue of verbal bullying. Do you think it is acceptable for a bullied person to use physical Force against a verbal bully?
I think you can control bullying in so far as you can take steps to reduce it. A friend of mine who is let's say a little unskilled socially told me that he was bullied in his small town in the mainland that he grew up. He told me one time the bullies even hit him with their truck. He tried to report them but they were popular and on the sports team if I remember correctly so no one took any action. Those people who knew of the bullying but did nothing had a chance to control it but didn't. Kind of hard for him to stand up to a moving vehicle. I guess he could have found a gun and shot them so they would never try to do it again.
I do think there are those who qualify as being unable to stand up to bullies. Kids with mental or physical disabilities for example.
Post by: edster48 on February 25, 2018, 09:07:54 AM
Sorry, what I was getting at was the biology of the human brain. I meant that I don't think the human brain suddenly evolved to create this phenomenon.
Psychotropic drugs definitely seem to be a reoccurring factor in mass shooters though I do think there are a fair number of examples where shooters were not on these drugs. This is a question worthy of more in-depth study I think.
One of the questions that comes to my mind is a sort of chicken or the egg type question. Is it the psychotropic drugs that cause them to do this or are psychotropic drugs just a symptom?
I was a child of the 80s so honestly I cannot really say how it compared to the 60s. I think in some areas we have improved and parenting and in others we have got worse. Children without fathers show a fairly strong correlation to increased criminality so I think it certainly appropriate to question what role parental responsibility plays. I have not looked much into the parents of mass shooters so I don't know if there are certain patterns that have been recognized that we could address.
I certainly don't think that there has been a shift in human brain chemistry to explain the modern phenomena of random Mass killing so I would theorize it to be a social issue. Did parenting change enough over the past 60 years to explain this whole phenomena? Maybe but I am skeptical of that. I think the copycat aspect needs to be studied more. At least with this Florida shooter they will have somebody to interview and study.
While I do appreciate your fresh idea on the subject I am very skeptical about a family prison type thing working. Throwing mom and dad in jail because their child did something bad almost seems like it could snow ball. For the sake of brevity I will leave out specifics. It also sounds a little bit too much like North Korea where when one person screws up you put three generations of their family in prison. Wouldt it even be constitutional?
This is an excellent train of thought.
I would agree that this is a societal problem, on the whole.
With the decline of the nuclear family we have seen an attendant rise in criminality of young men. Without proper male role models and a two parent support system young men have increasingly fallen into gangs and other criminal enterprises to compensate for the lack of positive direction at home.
You can almost trace the increase in mass shootings back to the beginning of the demise of the nuclear family back in the 60's and 70's. Before then single parent households were a rarity, now they've become mainstream. The rise in criminality and social problems is real and traceable.
I too disagree with the concept of punishing parents for the behavior of their children. As is obvious from my previous posts, I firmly believe that the individual should be held responsible for their actions.
Unfortunately, this is a long term solution. I think we should address it, but to see the concept bear fruit will take at least the 50+ years it's taken to get to this point. Not to mention the great societal shift that will have to take place to accomplish it.
No small task. But a worthy undertaking.
Post by: Surf on February 25, 2018, 09:24:51 AM
Post by: edster48 on February 25, 2018, 09:37:12 AM
I'm not sure how far you are suggesting we take culling Psychopaths especially considering mental illnesses exist on a spectrum, not simply a clear dangerous or not dangerous line. With many of these Mass shooters there may have been signs for concern but not always reason enough to lock them up. Regardless, your suggestion is really more of a post problem solution. By that time the bodies are already on the floor. The goal is to try and avoid having it go that far in the first place
You didn't really give me a clear answer on the issue of verbal bullying. Do you think it is acceptable for a bullied person to use physical Force against a verbal bully?
I think you can control bullying in so far as you can take steps to reduce it. A friend of mine who is let's say a little unskilled socially told me that he was bullied in his small town in the mainland that he grew up. He told me one time the bullies even hit him with their truck. He tried to report them but they were popular and on the sports team if I remember correctly so no one took any action. Those people who knew of the bullying but did nothing had a chance to control it but didn't. Kind of hard for him to stand up to a moving vehicle. I guess he could have found a gun and shot them so they would never try to do it again.
I do think there are those who qualify as being unable to stand up to bullies. Kids with mental or physical disabilities for example.
Did you read the part where I stated "You teach children where the line is in regards to an appropriate response"?
Since you seem to need it spelled out in words of one syllable: No.
Sounds like your friend would've been justified if he had taken up arms to defend himself against someone using a car as a deadly weapon. I'm glad he managed to survive.
Psychopaths exist at the far end of the "Spectrum". you can't compare someone that picks their nose compulsively to someone that wants to commit mass murder or torture pets for fun. If they don;t give us enough reason to lock them up or even investigate them before hand, there really isn't much that can be done until "The bodies hit the floor" as you say. There is no "Pre Crime", you can't prove someone guilty of what they haven't done.
Yeah, people with mental and physical disabilities are going to have problems. You try and teach others that it's "Wrong", but unfortunately there will always be those that will take advantage of others weaknesses.
Post by: macsak on February 25, 2018, 09:50:34 AM
Psychotropic drugs definitely seem to be a reoccurring factor in mass shooters though I do think there are a fair number of examples where shooters were not on these drugs.
perhaps you should look into it
and you will probably try and get out of your statement by qualifying "a fair number"
Post by: ren on February 25, 2018, 10:01:24 AM
We are medicating our kids at an unprecedented rate. What is socially acceptable now is dramatically different. As a simple example, what was an R rated movie in the 70's-80's wouldn't even be PG-14 today. In other words, the exposure and societal acceptance of vulgarity and violence have drastically changed. Combine a mixture of many of these things, and it is no wonder why we are where we are.
That's my observation (a small sample size of course) and my opinion.
I'm guilty of it as I probably own funds that have drug stocks. Pharmaceuticals don't make money off of advice - they make money off of new drugs.
It appears that we commercialized ourselves to the limits and are always looking for new things to sell. More violence, more sex. We continue to push moral and ethical limits to expand markets. We attacked religion, schools, govt. and businesses to pave way for "progressive" ideas. There are many new societal ills that we experience: hoarding in many forms, addictions in many forms, gender confusion. Maybe a lot of these "new" problems are a result of poor parenting and/or guidance. Perhaps we haven't moved beyond the stage of self-awareness.
One example of social ills:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37586976/father-accused-of-killing-baby-after-losing-video-game (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37586976/father-accused-of-killing-baby-after-losing-video-game)
One day I came home crying at the age of 7 because I was bitten by a german shepherd. My grandfather asked me why I didn't bite the dog back.
I enlisted in the military later and was directed that if the enemy shot at me I shoot back. It was a new concept for some of the recruits.
I agree with the simple solution of arming teachers or whoever wants to on school campus. We guard superficial items such as cash with arms, so again, why is it so hard to understand that we must protect our kids with arms? This passive approach doesn't appear to work. The uncomfortable idea or "image" of having guns in schools with kids projected by thise opposed to it is rather immature and ignorant. These pacifists parents need to realize that this isn't a a superhero movie where someone is going to save their asses...parents are the ultimate solution to the safeguarding of their own kids
Post by: rklapp on February 25, 2018, 11:54:01 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 25, 2018, 03:08:55 PM
My wife's cousin has a small child in Manila. The child has a friend who is very rich. They have five horses in the metropolitan city. The cousin is concerned that if her child hangs out with the rich child, then both might be kidnapped at the same time. When they figure out that the cousin is not rich, the kidnappers will probably kill her child and ransom the rich child to the rich parents. These are the kind of problems that occur in other countries. Yes, kidnappings occur here but not to that extent and it's rarely national news. Why are kidnappings a big problem in developing countries and school shootings a big problem in our country?
Because the crooks made it such a common problem, the victims decided to protect themselves by getting kidnap insurance. Now the crooks just have to find out the limits of the policy, kidnap the covered individual, and demand the max amount the insurance will pay. It's run like a business venture.
The victims guarantee there is a payday for the kidnappers, subsidized by the insurance industry. Since it's the insurance company's money, the family is unlikely to refuse payment. Guaranteed ransom beats being told the family is broke.
When you subsidize something, you get more of it. If people refused to pay, kidnapping would drop to near nothing. Similar to policies of non-negotiation with terrorists.
Post by: ren on February 25, 2018, 06:07:37 PM
Another good example is airport security after 9/11. They banned box cutters, any kind of edged weapons, liquids. We've banned everything we can think of. Terrorists will find a way while we citizens are powerless because all we want to do is travel from point A to point B. Instead of empowering its citizens our govt. make us more less than sheep. We're fucking roaches in a roach motel.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 26, 2018, 06:12:13 AM
perhaps you should look into it
and you will probably try and get out of your statement by qualifying "a fair number"
I have looked into it before and I know the numbers or statistically significant but I could not remember them off the top of my head hence I said a fair number.
A few examples, the Sandy Hook shooter showed no drugs or alcohol in his system when they ran a toxicology report. II Columbine shooter, Dylan Klebold, showed no drugs or alcohol in his system in his toxicology report.
The problem I see with the claim that the vast majority of these Mass shooters were all taking these drugs is that they were less than scientific. There was no analysis of doses nor was there a distinction between whether the individual was actually taking the medicine or were they simply prescribed the medicine.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying this could not be a factor only that it is not decisive. I think more study is warranted before such a strong claim is made.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 26, 2018, 06:25:28 AM
Did you read the part where I stated "You teach children where the line is in regards to an appropriate response"?
Since you seem to need it spelled out in words of one syllable: No.
Sounds like your friend would've been justified if he had taken up arms to defend himself against someone using a car as a deadly weapon. I'm glad he managed to survive.
Psychopaths exist at the far end of the "Spectrum". you can't compare someone that picks their nose compulsively to someone that wants to commit mass murder or torture pets for fun. If they don;t give us enough reason to lock them up or even investigate them before hand, there really isn't much that can be done until "The bodies hit the floor" as you say. There is no "Pre Crime", you can't prove someone guilty of what they haven't done.
Yeah, people with mental and physical disabilities are going to have problems. You try and teach others that it's "Wrong", but unfortunately there will always be those that will take advantage of others weaknesses.
I agree that you set specifics to your children about how they can and should resist bullies. The reason I asked you for specifics is because you didn't clearly indicate where you drew the line and I didn't want to make assumptions about it. When it is a bully taking your lunch money in the playground I think it is a little clearer but when it has to do with verbal bullying then it becomes a little more hazy on where the line should be drawn on how to stand up to that type of bullying. That is why I asked if a physical response was ever appropriate in reaction to verbal bullying. Part of the problem I see is that if one is not skilled verbally then standing up to a verbal bully without using Force can end up backfiring. Imagine a kid who stutters trying to get out a savvy verbal response against a bully.
Again, I do think we need to teach our children to be tough and that we have sort of embraced a softening of our children in society. But I think the problem of bullying also needs to be tackled from the other side to teach and condition people not to bully because in those rare cases where someone doesn't gather the courage to stand up a few of them will end up reacting violently.
As for my friend, I think he was a juvenile and would not have been carrying a firearm at the time. Anything he would have done after of course would have ended up being a crime. I'm sure there are some other avenues he could have exhausted but I didn't ask for details.
For me I was never real seriously bullied. I was a good size kid so not one who could easily be physically picked on. I was a little socially awkward and sometimes teased. I never really thought of shooting up the school but I did find the fact that such incidences occurred a usable defense mechanism. If I made myself appear to be one who would shoot up a school then I would in effect sort of make people hesitant to tease me
Post by: Jl808 on February 26, 2018, 09:57:58 AM
My wife's cousin has a small child in Manila. The child has a friend who is very rich. They have five horses in the metropolitan city. The cousin is concerned that if her child hangs out with the rich child, then both might be kidnapped at the same time. When they figure out that the cousin is not rich, the kidnappers will probably kill her child and ransom the rich child to the rich parents. These are the kind of problems that occur in other countries. Yes, kidnappings occur here but not to that extent and it's rarely national news. Why are kidnappings a big problem in developing countries and school shootings a big problem in our country?
Some children in Manila who are at risk of being kidnapped are protected by .... you guessed it.. ARMED bodyguard(s).
Post by: Jl808 on February 26, 2018, 10:14:31 AM
To prevent violence, we can do our part if we are parents or teachers:
- teach a child about moral right and wrong (draw the line that they should not cross)
- teach a child empathy
- teach a child about consequences
- teach a child how to calm down
- teach a child how to deal with frustrations
- teach a child what is socially acceptable behavior
- help them to make friends and develop healthy relationships
- keep an eye on who they hang out with
- give your child attention
- form a bond with them
- help them develop their abilities and give them a healthy outlet
We can also teach them how to avoid and stop violence if or when it happens:
- teach them self defense (in whatever form is age appropriate)
- teach them situational awareness
- teach them to not be a victim
- help them to not become sheep and become sheepdogs instead
This is the best I can come up with. Open to good ideas if there are any others.
Post by: Jl808 on February 26, 2018, 10:35:17 AM
You're asking for "gun" violence prevention solutions. I responded that violence is not a hardware issue but is a software issue, so I am not really answering your question.
Could you narrow down the question a bit? Do you just want a brainstorm of ideas specific to prevention of (1) violence/homicides involving firearms, or are you looking for (2) prevention of mass shootings?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 26, 2018, 11:00:41 AM
EEF -- I was reading my last reply and wondered... is the original question too broad or is the premise of it wrong?
You're asking for "gun" violence prevention solutions. I responded that violence is not a hardware issue but is a software issue, so I am not really answering your question.
Could you narrow down the question a bit? Do you just want a brainstorm of ideas specific to prevention of (1) violence/homicides involving firearms, or are you looking for (2) prevention of mass shootings?
It's a given that anytime someone used the term "gun violence", "gun deaths", or "gun crime", they are already being dishonest. They are not interested in stopping violence, deaths or crime. Their agenda is to enact gun control.
We don't talk about blunt force object violence, knife deaths or vehicular crime solutions. it's always focused on the tool when gun-related issues are discussed.
When Cops kill someone, we focus on the Cop. When someone stabs another person, we focus on the killer. When someone commits murder using a gun, we focus on the gun. It's an agenda, not a solution.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 26, 2018, 04:32:30 PM
It's a given that anytime someone used the term "gun violence", "gun deaths", or "gun crime", they are already being dishonest. They are not interested in stopping violence, deaths or crime. Their agenda is to enact gun control.
We don't talk about blunt force object violence, knife deaths or vehicular crime solutions. it's always focused on the tool when gun-related issues are discussed.
When Cops kill someone, we focus on the Cop. When someone stabs another person, we focus on the killer. When someone commits murder using a gun, we focus on the gun. It's an agenda, not a solution.
Actually people do focus on deaths by other means. The FBI even keeps national statistics about it.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 26, 2018, 04:41:24 PM
EEF -- I was reading my last reply and wondered... is the original question too broad or is the premise of it wrong?
You're asking for "gun" violence prevention solutions. I responded that violence is not a hardware issue but is a software issue, so I am not really answering your question.
Could you narrow down the question a bit? Do you just want a brainstorm of ideas specific to prevention of (1) violence/homicides involving firearms, or are you looking for (2) prevention of mass shootings?
Ideally we would find solutions for both general gun violence as well as mass killing type incidents because both are used as reasons to further restrict firearms.
Stopping it when it starts to me is the easy question. Meet violence with violence and end it as quickly as possible. Unfortunately the problem with only focusing on that is that people already have died at that point usually. We save some lives, but not as many as if we can prevent it altogether.
I frequently point out that 90 people died when a guy used a truck as a weapon to illustrate that restricting them to less deadly firearms won't make a significant difference, in my opinion. I could easily imagine a number of scenarios where an individual could manage a large body count with deaths much more gruesome than a school shooting. I never say what they are because I don't want to give any ideas but it is only a matter of time before one crazy person bent on murder comes up with it himself.
So I really want to focus on prevention and when it comes to the gun control debate prevention is what the left is focusing on as well so that is where I think cooperation can happen and we can temper their more extreme objectives.
Does that narrow it down? I want to brainstorm on the harder issue of how do we prevent or reduce the number of these events from occurring.
The NRA spokeswoman at the CNN town hall has called for mandatory reporting to the NCIC system. I support this gun control measure because an ineffective background check doesn't do a lot of good. That wouldn't catch all people but it would catch some. Overcoming medical privacy laws was one suggestion but I am very hesitant to see how that could be done without serious potential for abuse. I am open to ideas though.
Post by: drck1000 on February 26, 2018, 06:55:43 PM