[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Oh, you mean Ian David Long, the former marine. The one whom police were called to Long's home in Newbury Park in 2018 for a domestic dispute where he was found to be "somewhat irate and acting irrationally," per Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean.

Dean said mental health workers examined Long at the time, but decided not to take him in for further observation.

The same guy who was a "former machine gunner and decorated combat veteran of the war in Afghanistan who, authorities said, had an episode of erratic behavior that suggested post-traumatic stress disorder.

Long's various interactions with police over the years pointed to a man who needed professional help. None came". Link

So another case where people were made aware of someone who had emotional issues, did nothing, and yet finger pointing at the NRA occurs. Why aren't we looking at the breakdown in the support system?

Used to be that would disqualify him to buy a gun...no longer.

You will need to research to find out why..cannot discuss it on this forum.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Well, the guy who went nuts was a civil engineer. If he could not have obtained a gun or three legally he was smart enough to have obtained them illegally as criminals and terrorists do regularly in gun controlled countries and regions of this country. Maybe he could have manufactured a shooting iron himself. He also could have made his own grenades, or horror of horrors, manufactured and used a poison gas, sprayed or poured acid on folks, or contrived other means of killing and maiming in numbers such as with bombs. He could have laced the office water supply with fentanyl.

But he didn't...he used the simple easy method

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Bucco

Used to be that would disqualify him to buy a gun...no longer.

You will need to research to find out why..cannot discuss it on this forum.

THAT, is a big part of the problem.

There has been a concerted and successful effort, mostly through donations...to stop ANY common sense changes to gun laws.

[ColdNoMore]

The tiresome, red herring and disingenuous argument of "if someone wants to kill, they will find a way," is a big reason that next to nothing has been done...about the MOST common method used by mass murderers.

I'm sure there have been those who have been killed with a purse too, but it is extremely rare and no one with any sense...would think of restrictions on purses.

And yet, continuing to use those exceedingly rare occasions where other than firearms (typically with high-capacity magazines) are used to kill more than one person, in one incident, is the distraction and justification used...and which mostly explains why nothing of significance has been accomplished toward the real problem.

The love of firearms and the sense of power/equalization they convey...is very addicting to a lot of people.

[anothersteve]

"Mass shootings represent national awakenings and moments when seeming political or social adversaries might come together to find common ground, whether guns are allowed, regulated, or banned. Doing so, however, means recognizing that gun crimes, mental illnesses, social networks, and gun access issues are complexly interrelated, and not reducible to simple cause and effect. Ultimately, the ways our society frames these connections reveal as much about our particular cultural politics, biases, and blind spots as it does about the acts of lone, and obviously troubled, individuals."
American Journal on Public Health

There are plenty of arguments here, but surely no discussion.
Steve

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by anothersteve

"Mass shootings represent national awakenings and moments when seeming political or social adversaries might come together to find common ground, whether guns are allowed, regulated, or banned. Doing so, however, means recognizing that gun crimes, mental illnesses, social networks, and gun access issues are complexly interrelated, and not reducible to simple cause and effect. Ultimately, the ways our society frames these connections reveal as much about our particular cultural politics, biases, and blind spots as it does about the acts of lone, and obviously troubled, individuals."
American Journal on Public Health
Steve

Link, so that we can read the article/opinion...in its entirety?

[Midnight Cowgirl]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

The tiresome, red herring and disingenuous argument of "if someone wants to kill, they will find a way," is a big reason that next to nothing has been done...about the MOST common method used by mass murderers.

I'm sure there have been those who have been killed with a purse too, but it is extremely rare and no one with any sense...would think of restrictions on purses.

And yet, continuing to use those exceedingly rare occasions where other than firearms (typically with high-capacity magazines) are used to kill more than one person, in one incident, is the distraction and justification used...and which mostly explains why nothing of significance has been accomplished toward the real problem.

The love of firearms and the sense of power/equalization they convey...is very addicting to a lot of people.

I believe it is very addicting because it is a macho thing to own one and they are usually more than happy to tell you about it.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

THAT, is a big part of the problem.

There has been a concerted and successful effort, mostly through donations...to stop ANY common sense changes to gun laws.

Not quite true. Per the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:

Identify Prohibited Persons
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 992(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

Oh, and did I mention that this is part of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that is used when purchasing a gun from a dealer?

I have asked in the past, what are some "common sense gun laws" that need to be passed?

[anothersteve]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Link, so that we can read the article/opinion...in its entirety?

Just one of many. Google is your friend. You can always find articles to suit you purpose, I found this one to be fairly non biased.

Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms

Steve

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

The tiresome, red herring and disingenuous argument of "if someone wants to kill, they will find a way," is a big reason that next to nothing has been done...about the MOST common method used by mass murderers.

I'm sure there have been those who have been killed with a purse too, but it is extremely rare and no one with any sense...would think of restrictions on purses.

And yet, continuing to use those exceedingly rare occasions where other than firearms (typically with high-capacity magazines) are used to kill more than one person, in one incident, is the distraction and justification used...and which mostly explains why nothing of significance has been accomplished toward the real problem.

The love of firearms and the sense of power/equalization they convey...is very addicting to a lot of people.

The disingenuous argument that taking guns away from everyone will immediately stop all deadly assaults is mind boggling. Did it ever cross your mind that police would rather deal with a maniac with a gun than the other horrendous possibilities that could be wrought?

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by anothersteve

"Mass shootings represent national awakenings and moments when seeming political or social adversaries might come together to find common ground, whether guns are allowed, regulated, or banned. Doing so, however, means recognizing that gun crimes, mental illnesses, social networks, and gun access issues are complexly interrelated, and not reducible to simple cause and effect. Ultimately, the ways our society frames these connections reveal as much about our particular cultural politics, biases, and blind spots as it does about the acts of lone, and obviously troubled, individuals."
American Journal on Public Health

There are plenty of arguments here, but surely no discussion.
Steve

It is required by TOTV to supply a link when you copy and paste. Your paste is from a 40 page thesis, and this is the link in case folks want context and bibliography. It matters.

Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms

[luperona9]

Soft targets.

Nuff said.

No amount of o dears will change the truth.

O dear
O dear
O dear

See. It's still about soft targets. By any standards 90 - 98 % of mass shootings are in gun free zones.

The government is actually advertising ... "Come shoot here, we can't shoot back"

[anothersteve]

Originally Posted by Midnight Cowgirl

I believe it is very addicting because it is a macho thing to own one and they are usually more than happy to tell you about it.

So women can be macho also? What would you call a woman that owns firearms?

Steve

[luperona9]

Originally Posted by anothersteve

So women can be macho also? What would you call a woman that owns firearms?

Steve

Lots of 380s in our handbags, right at the Town Square.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

The tiresome, red herring and disingenuous argument of "if someone wants to kill, they will find a way," is a big reason that next to nothing has been done...about the MOST common method used by mass murderers.

I'm sure there have been those who have been killed with a purse too, but it is extremely rare and no one with any sense...would think of restrictions on purses.

And yet, continuing to use those exceedingly rare occasions where other than firearms (typically with high-capacity magazines) are used to kill more than one person, in one incident, is the distraction and justification used...and which mostly explains why nothing of significance has been accomplished toward the real problem.

The love of firearms and the sense of power/equalization they convey...is very addicting to a lot of people.

While killing someone with a purse, if it happened, would be extremely rare, what about something that kills about 30 people per day? Is that enough deaths per day to warrant action? I refer to the approximately 30 people killed per day (that's one person every 48 minutes in 2017) as a result of drunk driving crashes per the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (link). Why aren't background checks done on ANY PERSON who purchases a car? Why aren't people who have been found guilty of alcohol related driving incidents not prohibited from owning a car? Why do so many people arrested for DUIs get "multiple bites at the apple" before serving serious jail time? Why aren't car manufacturers required to install breathalyzers in every car, and every person required to pass a breathalyzer test prior to operating their vehicle? The last time I checked, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, it is NOT a RIGHT under the constitution, so why can't people be barred from owning a vehicle after a DUI? So why is it that next to nothing has been done to address it?

Or is it that 30 people across the United States that are killed daily are not as important as 10 or 15 people killed in a single tragic event? I wonder if the relatives of those killed through alcohol related traffic deaths take solace that their loved ones were at least not killed by a gun? Somehow I don't think they do.