[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The Secret Service is there to protect whoever they're charged with protecting. If the threat is removed (no firearms allowed) then they don't need the Secret Service there. If they need the Secret Service there, it's because it's that presumption of safety doesn't exist.

If everyone was allowed to carry at the Convention, they wouldn't need the secret service, would they?

Because ALL OF THOSE GOOD GUYS would be protecting each other from that one bad guy.

But if the secret service is needed afterall, then the above sentence is untrue.

That doesn't make sense. Are you saying that ALL NRA members or attendees are "good guys?" You don't know how the SS guys work? You don't know their policies or SOP? Just kidding, I know you were just being facetious.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Lottoguy

Locking school doors could be asking for more trouble. What if a fire starts? Nut jobs are saying "harden the schools and have one entrance and one exit". What happens if there is a fire?

Fire exits are locked to those on the outside. In case of emergency, you push the lever and the door opens. Emergency services have the ability to access the entrances also. However, a remote control from the office can be utilized if they wish to lock and unlock doors by use of a button. Many schools in the inner cities lock all doors to keep the drug pushers out during school session.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Woodbear

It is painful to read how uneducated some are when it comes to guns. A new AR platform ban is a joke. Below is 2 pictures of the SAME firearm. One has a wood stock and the other is scary black. They both shoot the same round. They both can change their magazine capacity. They are equally effective at doing their job. So what is an AR.......a normal gun in a costume!

Good post and good picture. That IS true, both guns have an equal semi-auto ACTION and both have about the same POTENTIAL to kill humans. That is why Australia encouraged their civilians to use bolt-action rifles INSTEAD of semi-auto actions and brought their MASS-murders down to about zero. The US should look to the Australians as an example of eliminating MASS-MURDER, while still allowing all their law-abiding citizens to own guns for legal purposes.
.........We KNOW that we have a problem. Other countries SOLVED the problem. Their children do NOT have the same FEAR when entering their schools as US children do. WE OWE it to the children to do the RIGHT thing for a change.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Please3 explain this rationale.

Guns make us safe. More gun make us safer, Gun free zones are worthless because makes it easier to kill us.

Trump will be there, so it is too hard to keep him safe unless we ban guns. What could be safer for Trump than a room full of ardent supporters packing?

The hypocrisy is blatant. Everyday in every way we are told we need more guns to make us safer, but Trump needs more guns to keep him safer from his own supporters?

I don't think it is hypocrisy. The NRA as well as the attendees are not against guns being at the convention. I've been to NRA conventions myself and had not problem carrying my handgun. It is the Secret Service who is dictating that no guns be present. That is the case at every single event that a person attends who they are charged to protect. Where any former President speaks, it will have to be gun free. As we can see from the recent headline where some Iraqi's were conspiring to kill George W. Bush. They don't have to be a sitting President to be at risk and the Secret Service will reduce as much risk as possible.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The Secret Service is there to protect whoever they're charged with protecting. If the threat is removed (no firearms allowed) then they don't need the Secret Service there. If they need the Secret Service there, it's because it's that presumption of safety doesn't exist.

If everyone was allowed to carry at the Convention, they wouldn't need the secret service, would they?

Because ALL OF THOSE GOOD GUYS would be protecting each other from that one bad guy.

But if the secret service is needed afterall, then the above sentence is untrue.

Here is a link to the Secret Service website. It might help, but then again.....

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by jdulej

You're sort of making the original poster's point. A room full of people with guns means you've got something to worry about. A room full of people without guns, means you have a lot less to worry about. The NRA tries to spin it the other way round.

For me, I'd much rather be in a store or school or a church (not that you could drag me into one of those) full of people without guns.

Agreed! Good logic!

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

See it is hard to solve something when you are looking in the wrong places. Mental health is a red herring being pushed by the parties with a vested interest. I can post links to dozens of studies by top psychologists in the world (but I wont because I have been given a vacation for posting too many links - spamming they called it). And they all come to the same conclusion - summarized by this:

Are All Mass Shooters Mentally Ill?

Here is the link, but I know most wont bother to read it, since it might disturb peoples world view. If you are interested in truth and not propaganda as so many claim - the take a look.

"They discovered that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness. They also found that mass shooters in the United States were more likely to have legal histories, use recreational drugs, abuse alcohol, and have histories of non-psychotic psychiatric or neurologic symptoms."

Let me repeat that, 8% of mass shooters have mental health problems associated with the shooting.

According to John Hopkins Medicine , 26% of Americans 18 and older have some form of diagnosable mental health.

Repeat that - 8% of shooters are mentally ill, 26% of the general population are mentally ill. Hmm.

So, there is an interesting anomaly here - MORE people that are NOT mass murders have some form of mental illness than the mass shooter. The shooters would seem to be "healthier". (that would be a false comparison, for those paying attention - since there are very few shooters so the sample size is very small.)

Mental Health Disorder Statistics | Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to other sources, 20% of the worlds population has mental health issues.

So, PLEASE, since you claim mental health explains mass shootings and school murders, PLEASE explain why the US is the ONLY country experiencing regular school shooting. Great Britain hasn't had one since 1996 with they banned most guns. Coincidence?

PLEASE explain WHY there are not MORE shootings since the general population has 3 times as much mental illness as the shooter population?

There, Did I repeat it enough times?

I won't wait for an answer, since EVERY single person I have asked, failed to respond with an answer. Typically if they answer at all they just deflect with "things are different here - yeah they are different. We have 400 million guns on circulation. And in this particular case virtually no requirements to buy a gun except a government ID, be 18, and breathing. (Oh and a pocket full of money)

I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

One of the Seven Deadly Sins is usually involved. And drugs and therapy can only do so much with mental illness especially if the patient stops taking the drugs. Seven deadly sins - Wikipedia

[PugMom]

Originally Posted by jdulej

Not quite sure who you were addressing this to, but I'll toss in my 2 cents. IMO, there is one (and only one) reason why someone commits any sort of violent crime - because they are mentally unstable.

Why not, as a start, require anyone who wants to buy a gun to prove they are mentally stable. 99.9% would pass and go on their way with their shiny new killing machine. The .1 failures are just out of luck.

We don't seem to have any issues adding more and more restrictions to people's right to vote, this does not seem to add that much of a burden to the vast majority gun owner wannabes

it's such a good & simple idea that just may work! but we have to discuss private sales then. how would/should we handle that? thx!

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

IMO, anyone who would actually kill others because of 2-7 above is mentally ill. The difference in the US is how easy it is for said person to act out their illness with mass killing weapons. The impact is orders of magnitude greater than someone who only has access to less destructive weapons, which is the case in the rest of the 1st world.
This may not be the technical definition of mentally ill, but it works for me - anyone who goes to the extreme of killing others for ANY reason (other than the immediate need for self-defense) has got a screw loose and should not be allowed to own a gun.
I gave up on any thought of actually banning guns a long time ago. I do think there is room to tighten rules around chains of ownership and liability - if good old uncle George gives little Jonny, who likes to torture animals, a gun for his birthday he shares liability for whatever Jonny does with it.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by PugMom

it's such a good & simple idea that just may work! but we have to discuss private sales then. how would/should we handle that? thx!

My brother's wife's brother was a very studious man in India while a follower of some religious leader over there. His mentor died and he moved in with them here in the States and eventually got hooked on hot dogs and two pistols with a very high rate of fire. It was not until after he committed suicide that my brother found out just how crazy he had become when the police were looking over his things at his apartment. He thought that someone had taken over my brother and his wife and that they were not even human. My brother had thrown him out of their house a few years before he committed suicide because he refused to get rid of those pistols while living in their home. They had tried to get him help while they had him in their home but he always knew just what to say to avoid commitment into a mental health facility.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

Yes.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

No. Many kill for money, over love lost or gained, in the heat of passion, and many, many other reasons. Why Do People Kill? 15 Motives for Murder

Many are not mentally ill when they do this evil act. Some are, though.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

According to the links provided in the post that I responded the answer is no. I'm pretty sure being a racist is not considered a mental illness. Neither is hatred.


This story isn't making the news although it should.

Charleston, West Virginia, 5/25/22

On Wednesday evening a family was having a birthday-graduation party with 40 people in attendance. Dennis Butler drove through the neighborhood and was confronted and warned about speeding down the street because children were present. He left the area and returned later with an AR style rifle and began shooting at the party goers. A woman attending the party and was armed, as a lawful conceal carry holder. She immediately engaged the shooter, striking him several times and he died at the scene. Nobody at the part was struck. This woman stopped a mass shooting (by definition) from happening, but the news networks will not carry the story.

Dennis Butler was a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from having firearms.