Mass Shootings

1. 82

   peoplepower73posted 5 years ago

   Many doctors are agreeing that mental issues is not the root cause of mass shootings.  It is the easy access to combat style weapons.
   
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/mental … li=BBnb7Kz

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This mental Health ruse is just another canard from the Right.
      
      So, if it's not the gun, how are you possibly going to identify people that are mentally ill? Who says so and on whose authority?
      
      What is the extent of the illness and the legal basis to deny such an individual access to a firearm?
      
      We have no idea what lurks within the minds of anyone at any time.
      
      I say that weapons that allow mass killings in a matter of seconds needs to be controlled so that at least we can limit the damage that any such individual can do.
      
      This will stick in the craw of the gun fanatics, but it has got to be better than the GOP idea of armed police forces stationed at all stores and schools.
      
      Imagine, a firearm with a 100 round capacity before reloading?

      replyreport
      1. 90

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you Credence, but the "old folks" used to say that anyone who killed another person was "off in the head" (mentally ill). That was years before the days of mass shootings. I think the availability of these combat-style weapons just gives the mentally ill a more efficient way of killing.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It is not guns who kill.
            If guns are banned, they will find some other means. Like driving a truck into a crowd... or build a truck bomb like timothy McVeigh.
            What are you going to do then? Ban all trucks and fertilizers?
            This whole thing is a ruse.
            I understand people are upset by mass shootings..
            But even one shooting, or deaths, if it is your family member is disturbing.
            
            The solution is many prongs.
            It begins with the family. Some family member. close to the disturbed individual should intervene. Call it an INTERVENTION...
            Just because someone is over 21 and an adult does not mean he can do whatever he wants. The family, who is closest to him or her, knows more than any professional. He or she should be able to institutionalize that individual or have them committed so they cannot harm themselves or others. This was always the case in our long history. When did this behavior changed?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Check this out ...
               
               https://nypost.com/2019/08/07/panic-in- … -gunshots/
               
               Maybe we should ban motorcycles?

               replyreport
            2. 81

               Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               its a tired old refrain from the gun slingers and the gun lobby. I am talking about the ease of killing, could I stab 100 people to death, the way I could mow people down with a weapon with a 100 round capacity? it takes time and effort to kill that many people with explosive chemical combinations and the like, improving the likelihood that the perp will be caught in the meantime.
               
               Jack, there has to be proof from a psychiatrist that such a person is a danger to himself or others to the extent that their Constitutional right to bear arms becomes null and void. A very high level of proof will always be required and I don't think that the cherry picking approach will work.
               
               My point is family or no, sometimes the manifestation of mental illness could express itself in any direction. There are the opioid homeless on the street, much of that is mental illness. But does it rise to the level where society has a right to infer that such a person is homicidal or suicidal because they an addict or even eccentric or odd? Who can say?
               
               There has simply been too many incidents, and there is pressure to the address the problem, to do whatever it takes.

               replyreport
            3. 60

               dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               It is hard to institutionalize an adult that has a mental illness. I think it was during the Reagan administration that many mentally ill people were let out on the street.  Many of the homeless people have some type of mental impairment.  How do I now this for a fact?  I tried to get my sister institutionalized.  I was told:  Unless she hurts someone else or herself, there is nothing we can do.  She did get institutionalized for about 3 days.  They diagnosed bipolar paranoid schizoprenia.  Though prescribed meds, she refused to take them.  She did hurt someone else.  She killed her friend.  They gave her 8 years.  While in prison, they could not force her to take meds.  She was let out of prison, untreated, and went right back to the street.  Her condition was such that she couldn't liv e with anyone  She tried sleeping in the back yard but ended right back in the homseless community.
               
               Getting help for mentally ill people is one of the hardest things for a family to do.

               replyreport
            4. 90

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with most of what you are saying, Jackclee. It changed when our civil rights laws were enacted or being enforced. History has a record of men, especially the wealthy, putting their sane wives into mental institutions when they tired of them. Or fathers putting away daughters, or sons in some cases, who didn't conform to the family behavioral code. Even an "odd" neighbor or town citizen, like a mentally challenged person could be institutionalized in a mental institution. However, the laws went to the other extreme, and now it is difficult for a family member to get help for an adult member of the family who really needs it. I know because our family has been in that situation.
               
               These laws are needed, but they need to be changed to make it easier to get help for a family member.

               replyreport
         2. 81

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, my sentiments exactly...
            
            I also think that mental illness may well be an excuse for people who are consumed by hate and know exactly what they are doing.
            
            If we experienced an attack from Islamic terrorism, would we necessarily consider the perpetrators as mentally ill?

            replyreport
            1. 90

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Right again! I think we as a nation are having a hard time believing that our own people are capable of the evil perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. Apparently they exist in all parts of the world.

               replyreport
      2. 0

         Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         "I say that weapons that allow mass killings in a matter of seconds needs to be controlled so that at least we can limit the damage that any such individual can do."
         
         We can probably limit clip size for citizens, though yes, the NRA will fight it.  I do wonder what clip size will be determined to be "allowable" for citizens though?  And there's still the reality that the black market will allow any evil individual to obtain those larger clips (if they want them for their crime).
         
         When a mass shooter obtains some of these clips, we can always charge them with the crime of illegally possessing oversized clips, along with the crime of murder. )

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Try to get the NRA to be reasonable with any sort of restriction that is needed, good luck with that.
            
            We all know that criminals can obtain what they want, but is that a reason not to police the situation to making high capacity clips (far beyond needs for self defense and sport) and such more difficult to obtain legally?
            
            A law prohibiting possession of high capacity clips, silencers, bump stocks could possibly be a sufficient deterrent for at least a few folks.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "A law prohibiting possession of high capacity clips, silencers, bump stocks could possibly be a sufficient deterrent for at least a few folks."
               
               Copy that.  But mass killings will continue at a level we've not experienced before, and I've not seen proof that the killings are increasing BECAUSE of high capacity clips, though perhaps someone can make a good argument for it.
               
               Since America is, and has been, removing the moral underpinnings necessary for a republic, we can anticipate more calls for taking freedoms away from citizens in the name of security.  This will accelerate as lawlessness accelerates.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, we are in ugly times and I do not dismiss your take on the causes lightly.
                  
                  But, the milk has been spilled and cannot be returned to the container.
                  
                  From my point of view I don't think that this society has ever really been "moral" . It is nothing more than going from bad to worse.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Good thinking. A law would do very little to quell the high capacity magazines, Prof. They made machine guns--fully automatic-- illegal for personal use and they are everywhere, right?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     My primary point is this: It won't be enough.  Mass killings will continue, and more regulation will be required. 
                     
                     Bigger, more overbearing government will be demanded, Americans' rights will succumb.

                     replyreport
   2. 0

      Onusonusposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Only in recent history has America experienced mass shootings like this. And there used to be many more guns available to the public.
      
      The change? Less morals, less God, fewer consequences for crimes.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         "Only in recent history has America experienced mass shootings like this. And there used to be many more guns available to the public.
         
         The change? Less morals, less God, fewer consequences for crimes."
         
         Precisely.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            We do indeed need more gods. The ones we have now aren't worth a hoot!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               If you don't like yours, I guess you could trade it in.
               
               )

               replyreport
            2. 90

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               

               replyreport
   3. 90

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "Combat style weapons"?  I'm absolutely positive that you know such guns are VERY tightly controlled and there are very, very few in the hands of civilians.
      
      Adding the word "assault" to the terminology does not magically change the gun to something used by the military in combat.  It may sound scary, and is useful in frightening the public, but does not change the gun one iota.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         If you can add a 100 round magazine then it may be a "combat style weapon." It certainly isn't a hunting weapon of any sort, other than hunting humans that is.
         
         
         Where would you draw the line, Dan? Machine guns, bazookas, nukes?

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I've never served in the army, but am under the impression that the only non-automatic rifles are a few sniper rifles and the occasional handgun.  Am I wrong?
            
            Because if not it would seem that the deciding factor is that military rifles are all automatics.  And those are not available to the general public.  So yes, machine guns if you prefer that term.  My comment was not addressing what should be allowed; it addressed the false impression that "combat guns" are readily available to the public.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               So you do not consider a weapon proven capable of killing 9 people in 30 seconds as an assault rifle?  Okay..

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Because of this commonly used distraction from those who oppose any additional regulation of guns, I simply use the term, "rapid fire killing machines," which I consider to be a perfect description.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     By "rapid fire killiing machines" you do not mean automatic fire guns, then?  Or do you simply want to include any semi-automatic (current legal definition of an "assault rifle")?
                     
                     Gonna be an awful lot of unhappy hunters.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        All of this is over my head.  I know a gun from a knife.

                        replyreport
                  2. 90

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Are you leaving out the machine guns or simply trying to include all semi-automatic guns?  Because if you are there are going to an awful lot of unhappy hunters when you confiscate their means of a food supply.
                     
                     (Better include lever action guns, too - those can fire nearly as fast as a semi-automatic and with more accuracy.)

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Since I am not personally involved in drafting any gun laws, I assume you mean the generic "you."  I am pretty certain any regulations that make it through Congress will not affect a hunter's ability to continue hunting.

                        replyreport
               2. 90

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Under the legal definition of some states anything with a barrel shroud is an "assault rifle".  As is anything with a folding stock.  As is my nephews 22 cal plinking gun as it holds too many shells in the tubular magazine.
                  
                  As I said, the term used to have a military meaning to the public, but some people round it useful to add the term "assault" to ordinary guns that were painted black in order to scare the public and make possible the confiscation of another gun.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     And, I've been told that instructions to make bump stocks are online. I'm not going to check this out because I don't want to leave a trail that might make the government suspicious of me. (One never knows.)

                     replyreport
               3. 77

                  DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  A shotgun can easily kill 9+ people in 30 seconds or less...
                  
                  In the hands of someone with even a little training a shotgun can be extremely lethal and much more damaging than most other firearms accessible by your average citizen.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Shotguns kill more people each year than all rifles combined, including the so-called "assault rifles".  Knives kill 5X as many as all rifles, blunt objects (bats, hammers, etc.) kill more than rifles, and even hands and feet out-kill all rifles.  So we concentrate efforts on a sub-class of rifles.
                     
                     Makes good sense, doesn't it?  Maybe because if we call them a military sounding name we can scare people?

                     replyreport
   4. 60

      dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Without a diagnosis or knowing who a person is why label someone mentally challenged?  We have watched the behavior of people over a long period of time and considered the possitility.  Others say you can't make that accusation because you are not a mental health professional.  Totally inconsistent!

      replyreport
   5. 67

      awareposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It's just as easy to burn the building down

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Are you a professional arsonist now, Prof? You didn't respond to my comment about how many machine guns there are for some reason.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            *shrug*  That's what happened in Australia - they confiscated all the semi-automatic weapons with the useful result that mass murders continued at the same amount as before.  The killers just used matches as the most common weapon rather than guns.  Even the overall murder rate showed no change and continued on the same slow slide it had been on for years.
            
            So let's take all those evil assault rifles, right?  We can hope for the same results, and have corpses charred black rather than corpses with bullet holes.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               What are the stats in the US after fully automatic weapons were banned for use by the ordinary citizen, Dan? If you can give the stats on Australia, you should be able to tell us how many murders were committed after the fully automatic weapons were banned.
               
               
               I don't remember such a crime happening in the US recently.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  That was in about 1934, I believe.  Basically forever, then.
                  And no, I have zero idea of what the murder rate was before and after...but do recall the stories (true or not) of the mafia using automatic weapons quite freely.  "Bonnie and Clyde" come to mind as well.
                  
                  Bans don't mean much to criminals.  Except, perhaps, that their victims will be unarmed.
                  
                  No - there have been no murders via a "machine gun" in many, many years.  I'm thinking just one in the last 50 plus years.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     RTalloniposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     "Bans don't mean much to criminals.  Except, perhaps, that their victims will be unarmed" is a good point but there's no perhaps. Unarmed is exactly how criminals want to find their victims. It's sad, but we need to be prepared and willing to defend ourselves from criminals if the need arises. That does not have to mean having a firearm, but all we have to do is talk to the countless victims of crime who used a firearm to defend themselves to find out how grateful they were to have theirs.
                     
                     Why a government would not want people to be able to defend themselves from criminal activity is an important question to discuss, but what people need is experience with criminals if they will not use common sense to address the issue of being able to defend oneself. Instead of being filled with fear they need education. Instead of using the fact that firearms are misused by some why not learn the truth about their usefulness in self-defense.
                     
                     Why not ban alcoholic beverages (the third leading preventable death cause behind smoking and poor diet/lifestyle) which kill and ruin lives every day? Contrary to popular belief, crime went down during prohibition, but people mock it and will not stand for it. Why haven't bans on drugs worked? Why not take a factual look at why the death penalty is a deterrent to crime: https://www.heritage.org/testimony/the- … aves-lives  So many questions to explore...

                     replyreport
      2. 82

         peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         It sure is, but these guys have kill lists. They are targeting specific people. Combat style weapons are specific and much more efficient.  They also have the element of surprise.  How long would it take for an arson to be discovered by burning a building with people in it in broad daylight?

         replyreport
2. 82

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   Doggoneit! Just lost a terrific response. Oh well. HP should at least buffer whatever we are doing before we lose it because we have to "log in" again. Damn!
   
   Anyway Mike, I agree that the "mental illness" rational is just an excuse, but I say that because I think we, (the general public), and the doctors are talking about two different things.
   
   I think the doctors are talking about clinical and diagnosable mental illness, whereas we are talking about mental illness being any thought process that is abnormal to accepted societal norms.
   
   For instance; it is abnormal for us "normal folks" to think of grabbing a gun and committing mass murder, so a misguided, influenced, or just evil person that does so must be mentally ill.
   
   I don't agree. Our society is full of those types of folks that would not fit any medical classification of mental illness.
   
   I don't think either of the two recent shooters was mentally ill, I just think one was a bad person, (Dayton), and the other was a badly misguided bad person, (El Paso).
   
   So I agree, easy access is a bigger part of the problem than the mental illness excuse. But what do we do? Of the 2 million, (a guess), assault rifles in private hands, maybe a dozen, (again, just a guess), have been used in mass shootings.
   
   I wouldn't mind making them harder to get, as long as we don't make them impossible to get.
   
   As your article noted, the gun isn't the problem, it is the abnormal folks getting access to them that is the problem.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Er...the shooter at the concert had many assault rifles in his room, Gus. Are you counting these as well? I don't know how many were used though.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         What does that have to do with the point of the conversation Randy? I did note that both numbers quoted were only guesses, as in for illustrative purposes only.
         
         Do you think exact numbers would make a comparative difference?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            At some point, certainly!  It's what an assault rifle can do compared to an ordinary small capacity firearm. Kills or hits per incident, in other words.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Yep - one of those fake military rifles can do a lot of damage when in the wrong hands.  Not as much as a truckload of fertilizer, or a bit of anthrax, or a cannister of Sarin gas or even chlorine or a 727 with the wrong person.  Not even as much as a match in the wrong hands at the wrong time, but they can do a lot of harm.  Given that more people are killed with hands and feet than with all long guns combined we definitely need to put our resources into getting rid of those scary, black guns, right?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Getting rid of the high capacity clips and drums would suit me, Dan. I know, this wouldn't mean they can't be found on the black market, but a stiff enough penalty for possessing one would help deter their ownership.
                  
                  Do you actually need a 100 round drum of ammo to protect yourself or to kill a deer? I take that back....you may be an extremely poor shot. 

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Bigger question is do you need a 100 round drum of ammo to kill lots of people.  And the answer is a resounding "No".
                     
                     Taking the preferred weapon from honest citizens will not stop the killings.  It has not done so in this country and it has not done so anywhere else in the world.  Killers will kill whether they can get their weapon of choice or not.
                     
                     Nor is it about what people "need" - precious few people "need" a rifle at all in this country, not with a grocery store on every corner.  You need to hunt for your food, bows are readily available.  It's about rights and freedom, not about what we decide people need for whatever purpose.
                     
                     But, like you, I would support banning large ammo clips.  It might even save a couple of lives and should bother only a handful of people that like popping off dozens of rounds at once.  Maybe they like the sound - I don't know - but I'm not opposed to stopping that any more than I'm against banning jake brakes on trucks in a city setting.

                     replyreport
               2. 60

                  dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I see two different problems that require different actions.  What?  I don't know.

                  replyreport
   2. 60

      dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting and it makes sense.  But why is the Dayton guy a "bad" guy and the El Paso guy a "badly misguided bad" guy.  Grant it, the Dayton guy sounds like someone that might have killed family pets as a kid.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Diane, relative to your question about "bad," my perception of the difference is this;
         
         From media presentation, it appears the Dayton shooter was a potential killer from his early childhood years; rape lists, kill lists, behavior noticeable enough that friends reported it. He was just a bad guy and a potential killer. As MizBejabbers might remember some folks saying; 'just a bad seed'
         
         Conversely, the El Paso shooter seems like, (again from media presentation), a formally "normal," (at least almost normal?), guy that became radicalized, and then became "bad," (as in willing to kill people due to his radicalization).
         
         Of course, that is just a thought, but it sounds right to me.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "From media presentation, it appears the Dayton shooter was a potential killer from his early childhood years; rape lists, kill lists, behavior noticeable enough that friends reported it. He was just a bad guy and a potential killer."
            
            Yeah.  Some folks are going to reveal themselves more readily than others.  The El Paso guy may have been just as disturbed early on as was the Dayton guy, but simply didn't show it - did a better job of keeping it under wraps.  There's a lot we'll never know.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I agree Hxprof. That is why I qualified my opinion as formed from media-presented information.
               
               The El Paso guy could have been just as bad, or worse than the Dayton guy. Maybe he didn't need radicalization, just affirmation.
               
               We both know the door that last statement opened don't we. Get ready . . .
               
               GA

               replyreport
            2. 82

               peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Trump made it easier for the mentally ill to get guns when he rolled back Obama's regulation that prevented that from happening.
               
               https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pr … it-easier-
               mentally-ill-get-guns-when-n1039301
               
               Here are gun violence statistics current as of 2017
               
               https://lawcenter.giffords.org/facts/gu … tatistics/

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pr … it-easier-
                  
                  This link is unavailable Peoplepower.

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm sorry try this one.
                     
                     https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pr … n-n1039301

                     replyreport
         2. 60

            dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So maybe the Dayton guy was legitimately mentally ill.  Does that include psochopaths and sociopaths?  The El Paso guy may have needed validation and he found it in a bad place.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               What is your point Randy?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  That was me!  Not Randy!  I'm thinking the little girl that was the bad see must have been a sociobapth. (Dayton guy)  The El Paso guy might have had low self esteem, felt unappreciated, or was abused.  He was accepted by a bad group (like a gang) and he was talked into killing as many people as he could.

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Here is the first part of the manifesto for the El Paso shooter.  Please notice the last three words.  They are The Great Replacement.
                     
                     WALMART SHOOTER MANIFESTO
                     Sat Aug 03 2019 22:31:51 ET
                     
                     The Inconvenient Truth
                     About Me
                     In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion. Some people will think this statement is hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic and cultural destruction brought to the Native Americans by our European ancestors, but this just reinforces my point. The natives didn’t take the invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what’s left is just a shadow of what was. My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement.
                     
                     Here is what The Great Replacement is about:
                     
                     https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker … mainstream
                     
                     If you want to read his entire manifesto, just let me know, and I will post it on this forum.  It is quite long, but will give you a much better understanding of this person.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Aha!  That's where The Great Replacement orginated!

                        replyreport
                  2. 82

                     GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Oops! Mixed things up, didn't I. Sorry.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        peoplepower73posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Statistically air travel is supposed to be one of the safest forms of transportation.  If you can just imagine how many planes are taking off and landing world wide without incident, at any instant in time,  it becomes mind boggling.  However, when a wide body airliner crashes and all 300 people, including the crew, are killed it is a horrendous tragedy. 
                        
                        But statistically it is still very low compared as to how other deaths are caused. It is the same thing with mass shootings, the deaths caused by mass shootings are statistically insignificant compared to other causes of dying, but it is still a horrendous tragedy. Gun advocates always use that as argument. But when it is viewed from an empathetic standpoint it is very significant.
                        
                        Why is air travel so safe?  It's because many different infrastructures and institutions  were put in place to make it safe.  The same holds true for car manufactures.  Ralph Nader wrote "Unsafe at any Speed" which caused the car manufactures to make cars much safer in how they are manufactured, including seat belts and air bags all around the cars, including speed limits.
                        
                        When it comes to mass shootings, statistically the number of people killed compared to other means of dying is insignificant.  However, many people right now are at the point where they don't even feel safe going to public gatherings, because the domestic terrorist, and white supremacist are using soft targets as their goals. 
                        
                        Gun advocates are always afraid that the government is going to turn on them someday and they need those guns to protect themselves or they can protect themselves from the soft target shooters. 
                        
                        But really what we need is a cohesive force of many institutions  and infrastructures to come together to make our lives safer, just like they did with air travel and cars. 
                        
                        But as long as there is the congress and an administration that is beholden to the NRA and gun industry for the almighty dollar, none of it will happen, including standardizing gun laws across states.

                        replyreport
                        1. 90

                           wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           You make a good case for gun control being just an emotion driven argument rather that one of rational thought.

                           replyreport
                     2. 60

                        dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Everyone of us screws up every now and then.  I think I will forgive you!

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Thanks, your generosity is overwhelming. :-)
                           
                           Ga

                           replyreport
3. 90

   Will Apseposted 5 years ago

   I haven't seen any false flag claims for the recent shootings. Have I not been paying attention?

   replyreport
4. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

   A shotgun only holds 5 rounds.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Mod kit will get you to 8 +1...and with 00 Buck shot that is 81... 0.32 cal bullets....
      
      A good friend of mine can clear 18 rounds in 43 seconds while doing an obstacle course...
      
      A shot gun can be re-loaded fairly quickly using combat loading techniques...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Perhaps, but the average Joe cannot. It's easier for the amateurs to point an assault weapon with a 100 drum and not have to reload every ten shots or so.  But you can disagree if you like....

         replyreport
         1. 77

            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Here is a video you might find interesting...
            
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bOwdhTAxlI
            
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejy58DCoYKE
            
            and some sites that sell drum mags for shotguns...
            
            https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/promag- … 09815.html
            
            https://www.gunbroker.com/item/825769478

            replyreport
5. 0

   Onusonusposted 5 years ago

   Right now Trump is advocating for red flag laws that destroy the second amendment and forgo due process, the liberals still hate him and the conservatives still love him.
   
   That's how stupid partisan politics are. People give up their basic morals simply to tow the line of their preferred party.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, as a liberal, I have heard this type of talk from Trump many times and nothing came of it, so pardon me if I withhold my praise until something is done. If the president  were to use his influence to get Mitch to agree to any new gun control regulation, I would give him some credit, but I will never love him.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Onusonusposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         You aren't supposed to love politicians. That's the whole idea.

         replyreport
6. 93

   Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

   Take a look into Project MK Ultra, and that is where the psychiatric industry began with mind control and brainwashing. 
   
   There is a technique called Pain/Drug/Hypnosis. It is a method of embedding post-hypnotic suggestions so deeply in a person's psyche that they have no idea it is there, and it can be triggered by the person who implanted it.
   
   Have you noticed that every single one of these shooters follows the same basic pattern And, in the end, almost all of them turn the gun on themselves or get themselves killed by police?
   
   This is not an act of desperation. Those who survived to say they either don't recall doing the act or they carried it out in a robotic fashion as though they are watching themselves do it. They were not under their own control.
   
   This has been going on for a very long time. The only reason "no one knows" about it is because it is so unspeakably evil that good people have a hard time confronting that evil of this nature exists.
   
   This is why when someone reveals evidence of this type of situation, it is called "conspiracy theory" and discredited.
   
   The unfortunate part is that if we don't confront it and expose it despite the intense evil, it will be used more and more and the people will be manipulated into "other solutions“ which inevitably lead to a further restriction of civil rights for those who are innocent.
   
   Let's start digging under the surfaces here. Let's see exactly where all this leads.
   
   A friend of mine contributed to this write-up.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How do you go about confronting and exposing without someone saying you are mentally ill?

      replyreport
      1. 90

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Diane, I'm reading into this post that you are bringing up the possibility that the shooter could be under the hypnotic or brainwashing control of someone else. That is a very interesting theory, and one that has not been brought out publicly before. I think it is a valid point that should be further explored.
         When I took classes in psychics and paranormal at the Little Rock Psychic Center, one basic class was self-hypnotism. Our instructor told us to never let someone else hypnotize us because the very thing you mention could happen. We were taught to hypnotize ourselves for things like relaxation, relieving pain, or changing bad habits. I've also heard that one can't be hypnotized to commit an act that is outside of their own morality. Now which theory is true?
         A person I know, who was part of the Department of Defense during the Cold War and trained in identifying subversive activities explained to me about "sleeper spies" years before that knowledge was released to the public. If the brainwashing and hypnotism began early enough in childhood, the person could be successfully made unaware of it and to "go off" at a trigger word or phrase. So, apparently, if a person is a child who has not formed his/her moral code yet, it can be done.
         Which brings up the question, if this IS being done to some of these shooters, where is the source, TV, day care, church (yes, even some churches are opportunistic), etc.? I've never believed in back masking, but could Spongebob or Big Bird be a source? Now I'm getting ridiculous, right? I dunno, but maybe the subject should be explored further.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I was actually asking a question of Kenna McHugh.  She brought up a possibility that I had never heard of and suggested that we expose and confront.  I'm wondering how a person does that wihout being labeled a nut case.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            MizJ, I've heard of the sleepers  I think I've seen a move or two -  maybe NCIS.

            replyreport
7. 93

   Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

   Calling someone "mentally ill" because they are confronting and exposing evil crimes is a tactic the Nazi's used. The witch hunts of Salem used the same tactic but called them "witches" instead. 
   
   Some groups support human rights. I would ally with them and work with them to expose the evil crimes.

   replyreport