Recently the US Secret released a study on "Mass shootings"  Is the Issue Legal Gun Owners?  Why Penlize us

How about "MENTAL HEALTH"

Here's an important point:


"Most articles you read about this study will have one commonality: they will point the finger at guns, placing responsibility on “guns” in general. But that statement is far from accurate, and the Secret Service would agree.

The term “mental health” is used 57 times in the 60-page report, yet the reports being generated by the mainstream media won’t mention that aspect at all. ""


Cant upload since the 60 page report is too big ....PM me and i can email you the report

Aloha!

pacwire!

Can you post what the major results of the study were in easy to read format?

Example: 96% of active shooters were in gun free zones
CCW holders are 0.0005% likely to commit a crime, where as law enforcement are 0.05% likely.

I'd prefer a more basic explanation, like why the Secret Service is doing a study on mass shootings at all?

https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2023/01/new-secret-service-research-examines-first-time-five-years-mass-violence

Seems to me this is something the FBI is supposed to do/has already done/ought to do.

If you read their current strategic plan (2018-2022), there is no mention of mass shootings in any regard.

The United States Secret Service is a premier federal law enforcement agency
and ranks among the most elite in the world. Since its founding in 1865,
the Secret Service has evolved to meet changing mission demands. In the
beginning, our sole focus was to combat the threat of counterfeit currency to
ensure the financial stability of the country. Over time, our mission expanded to
securing the nation’s financial infrastructure and protecting the President and
Vice President of the United States, visiting foreign heads of state, and National
Special Security Events (NSSEs). Today, our highly skilled employees dedicate
their lives in service to our integrated mission, one that remains critically
important to our nation’s security.

https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-08/USSS%20Strategic%20Plan.Final_.pdf

Just more overreach and politicization of an executive-branch-controlled agency.

Look at this. Where do they happen the most?  Same places politicians are trying to  designate as Sensitive Places

I'd prefer a more basic explanation, like why the Secret Service is doing a study on mass shootings at all?

https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2023/01/new-secret-service-research-examines-first-time-five-years-mass-violence

Seems to me this is something the FBI is supposed to do/has already done/ought to do.

If you read their current strategic plan (2018-2022), there is no mention of mass shootings in any regard.
https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-08/USSS%20Strategic%20Plan.Final_.pdf

Just more overreach and politicization of an executive-branch-controlled agency.

It certainly isn't in their normal wheelhouse but there are reasonable possible explanations. Saying it is just overreach and politicization is jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts.

Recently the US Secret released a study on "Mass shootings"  Is the Issue Legal Gun Owners?  Why Penlize us

How about "MENTAL HEALTH"

Here's an important point:


"Most articles you read about this study will have one commonality: they will point the finger at guns, placing responsibility on “guns” in general. But that statement is far from accurate, and the Secret Service would agree.

The term “mental health” is used 57 times in the 60-page report, yet the reports being generated by the mainstream media won’t mention that aspect at all. ""


Cant upload since the 60 page report is too big ....PM me and i can email you the report

Aloha!

pacwire!

A guy I often debate on Facebook with and who is definitely a gun control supporter made a very interesting statement that I thought was actually spot on and actually was pro gun rights without him knowing it. I would often point out to him that other forms of firearms could accomplish the same amount of carnage when he would mention guns like an AR-15. After complaining about mass shootings so many times he said he didn't care anymore, people could have any gun they wanted and he wouldn't oppose it. Then came what stuck with me, he made the point that it only matters who has the guns. I realized how right he was, the most damage capable firearm with a million round clip, suppressed, short barrel, etc. is no threat in a responsible gun owners hand. Instead his comment basically admitted that the focus needs to be on who is able to get their hands on guns. Mental health is a big part of that question, trying to get better at catching as well as accurately predicting who is a threat and stopping them from owning firearms.  The gun rights community hasn't been real great on getting onto that boat, and understandably so but I think all sides need to do a much better job at looking at this angle.

It certainly isn't in their normal wheelhouse but there are reasonable possible explanations. Saying it is just overreach and politicization is jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts.

You mean the same way you just assumed they have a reasonable explanation without knowing all the facts?

When an agency does something not within their scope and which they have never done in the past, it becomes a valid assumption they are acting outside of their mandated duties -- especially when there are so many other agencies already doing the same thing, such as FBI, DOJ, ATF, CDC, etc.

How much redundancy in government are you willing to tolerate?

You mean the same way you just assumed they have a reasonable explanation without knowing all the facts?

When an agency does something not within their scope and which they have never done in the past, it becomes a valid assumption they are acting outside of their mandated duties -- especially when there are so many other agencies already doing the same thing, such as FBI, DOJ, ATF, CDC, etc.

How much redundancy in government are you willing to tolerate?

https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/ntac

It took me 1 minute to figure it out after clicking through. So yes, assumptions all around.

Going back to my university education.
mental illness is defined by the society,
in other words,  it is subjective.
In the absense of a physicalogical abberation,
it is all behavour.
And quite optional.
We are all what we want to be
not because we have to be.

Scary isn't it.
I'm actually responsible for me.
I accept that and can deal with it.
I do not accept people that can't accept
responsibility for their actions.
I call them Democrats.
Aloha.
 

You mean the same way you just assumed they have a reasonable explanation without knowing all the facts?

Like any sort of justification why so many federal agencies have SWAT teams.

They do not even bother trying to justify it, they just unilaterally create it.

Hey, they NEED those billions of rounds of ammo.   How many would be coopted into Øbowel's "national security force"?

https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/ntac

It took me 1 minute to figure it out after clicking through. So yes, assumptions all around.

I already posted that in the mission statement.

Calling mass shootings a nation security threat in order to justify a study is overreaching.

if that was okay, then they could designate any law enforcement issue a national security threat, because everyone, including members of the government, can be random victims of anything, anywhere and anytime.

Again -- it's a redundant study that offers nothing new when compared to other studies.

Might as well task the Secret Service to study gang violence in Chicago, muggings in LA and Medicaid fraud, because "public safety".

What makes the SS more capable of doing this report than the other agencies already doing it for decades?  Is it an admission that the results are not what the gun control zealots in the WH hoped for?

Keep asking different people the same question until you get the answer you wanted.   

The National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) was established as a component of the Secret Service in 1998 to provide research and guidance in direct support of the Secret Service protective mission, and to others with public safety responsibilities.

The center’s staff is composed of a multidisciplinary team of social science researchers and regional program managers who support and empower our partners in law enforcement, schools, government, and other public and private sector organizations to combat the ever-evolving threat of targeted violence impacting communities across the United States.

  The gun rights community hasn't been real great on getting onto that boat, and understandably so but I think all sides need to do a much better job at looking at this angle.

It's because our resources have to be focused on anti 2a lawmakers and organizations. I would say too bad the anti 2a people don't instead focus on mental health and keeping criminals behind bars. 

Majority of the guns possessed were done so illegally. Clue #1

Then half had mental health issues.  Not 10%, 15% or 30%.

My dad is anti 2a. But with the active shootings, he finally realized, the only way to stop them quickly is to shoot back.  So "let people carry their guns".

It's because our resources have to be focused on anti 2a lawmakers and organizations. I would say too bad the anti 2a people don't instead focus on mental health and keeping criminals behind bars. 

Majority of the guns possessed were done so illegally. Clue #1

Then half had mental health issues.  Not 10%, 15% or 30%.

My dad is anti 2a. But with the active shootings, he finally realized, the only way to stop them quickly is to shoot back.  So "let people carry their guns".

The real answer to his comment is the same as it's been that last few times it's been posted -- to him and others who make the comment similar to "keep the guns out of the wrong hands."

Unless you have some crystal ball that can tell who is going to commit crimes -- not just with guns -- then there's no way to identify everyone who should not have a gun until after they do something bad.  Grouping people into groups like mentally ill, career criminal, domestic abuser, White Supremacist, or even terrorist soccer moms at school board meetings shows how easy it is to deny rights to people based on a stigma or government label.  Most of the people in those groups never do anything violent.  The rate of violence among the mentally ill is no higher than that of the "mentally well" population.  Add to that the fact that there are plenty of people in those groups who have never been identified or treated because they fly under the radar of the systems and have yet to commit any crimes or acts of violence.

Remember the old adage, "It's better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted?"  I think the same should apply to rights.  Better that 10 people commit crimes while enjoying their civil rights than for 1 person have his rights unjustly violated.

You can't make bad people harmless by making good people helpless.

The National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) was established as a component of the Secret Service in 1998 to provide research and guidance in direct support of the Secret Service protective mission, and to others with public safety responsibilities.

The center’s staff is composed of a multidisciplinary team of social science researchers and regional program managers who support and empower our partners in law enforcement, schools, government, and other public and private sector organizations to combat the ever-evolving threat of targeted violence impacting communities across the United States.

The SS Protective Mission applies to government leaders and foreign dignitaries.  Nobody outside of government is afforded SS Protection.

Please correct me if i'm wrong.

As far as I know, the only mass shooting that involved government or political victims was when a Bernie Sanders supporter drove to DC and shot up the Republicans who were practicing for a baseball game.  Name another such mass shooting -- I don't remember any.

I'm all for data and information if used properly to identify potential solutions to a problem.  But I'm against the government dragging more and more agencies to try and bolster a weak argument for assault weapons bans, universal background checks or raising the gun owner/buyer age to 21 or more.

We rarely hear of the results of these studies if they don't come down on the side of gun control.  Only the gun community seems to remember the CDC's multiple reports that admit a ban on assault weapons would have little to no impact on crime, including mass shootings.  Yet, Biden and the other Democrats who wake up every morning hoping today is the day those firearms get banned continue to push for it.

More waste of tax payer money.  SS should stick to helping Biden find his bedroom.

The rate of violence among the mentally ill is no higher than that of the "mentally well" population.  Add to that the fact that there are plenty of people in those groups who have never been identified or treated because they fly under the radar of the systems and have yet to commit any crimes or acts of violence.

Can you link credible source of this?  That shows percentage of each demographic that commits a gun related crime?  The legislature is focusing on mental heath checks more than normal this session.  And if I can show them a stat then maybe they will lay off.

My testimonies often state "there's not much 1 can do to stop a motivated individual (someone who wants to commit an active shooting or crime). So more gun laws isn't going to deter them"

Can you link credible source of this?  That shows percentage of each demographic that commits a gun related crime?  The legislature is focusing on mental heath checks more than normal this session.  And if I can show them a stat then maybe they will lay off.

My testimonies often state "there's not much 1 can do to stop a motivated individual (someone who wants to commit an active shooting or crime). So more gun laws isn't going to deter them"

The bottom line? “Diagnosis alone is never enough to tell you if someone is likely
to be violent again in the future,” says Brown. Instead, a contextual approach is
needed that considers symptoms, circumstances, and individual characteristics,
among other factors, she says.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/ce-mental-illness

One factor is whether the mentally ill are on prescribed meds and/or "self medicated."  Mind altering substances can increase the chances of a violent behavior in mentally ill people. 

The percentage of violent behavior is low, according to the article.  Those with the more severe forms of mental illness such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder are somewhat more likely to commit violence, but that's still not a majority of them.

The rate of violence is 2.9% to 10% differentiated by the severity of their mental illness.  We are still talking about 90% to 97.1% of those included in the category "mentally ill" being nonviolent. 

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/ce-mental-illness

One factor is whether the mentally ill are on prescribed meds and/or "self medicated."  Mind altering substances can increase the chances of a violent behavior in mentally ill people. 

The percentage of violent behavior is low, according to the article.  Those with the more severe forms of mental illness such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and schizoaffective disorder are somewhat more likely to commit violence, but that's still not a majority of them.

The rate of violence is 2.9% to 10% differentiated by the severity of their mental illness.  We are still talking about 90% to 97.1% of those included in the category "mentally ill" being nonviolent.

Thanks. I'm busy doing legislature stuff so to google this takes time away from that. Thanks google-sifu.

Please correct me if i'm wrong.

I would never dream of doing such a thing.

I would never dream of doing such a thing.

So, you agree with me.

Good to know.