Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Non Villages Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/)
-   -   Another mass shooting (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/another-mass-shooting-296194/)

New Englander 08-04-2019 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenswing (Post 1670144)
Tell me the difference between these two rifles.. Which one is an "Assault Weapon"? One is a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, the other an AR-15.

Nothing different. They may label the mini-14 a ranch rifle but it's really an assault rifle. I am familiar with weapons.

Kenswing 08-04-2019 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1670201)
I am also sure you know the generally accepted first mass shooting was in 1963 (or 1964 - not sure now) with a student in a tower at a Texas college/university, using a rifle. It is still ranked around 11th as most deadly mass shooting. So, we could say the modern mass shooting "thing" started there.

Actually it was in 1966. The gunman used an M-1 carbine and other rifles, a revolver and shotgun.

The next mass shooting was in 1975, then 1982. 2009 is when things really started to get bad.

ETA: I was referencing an article that listed mass shootings of 10 or more people.

OrangeBlossomBaby 08-04-2019 08:10 PM

A huge part of the problem is an elephant in the room that gets threads shut down. So there's really no point in discussing it at all, because you can't discuss the root of the CURRENT situation.

I will state though - it isn't mental illness. Only 22% of all mass shootings involved a shooter who was declared mentally ill.

Number 10 GI 08-04-2019 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahayward65 (Post 1670130)
Wake up! Have you heard about the assault weapons available to
buy by any Tom, Dick or Harry ! Pass some laws that ban the sale of these types of weapons, that would be a start. Alas too many of our members of Congress are indebted to the NRA.

I'm wide awake. The original "assault weapon" was coined by the Germans in WWII to describe the StG44 rifle. Sturmgewehr is the name given to this rifle has been roughly translated to mean assault rifle. The German word Sturm actually means storm, like bad weather. The StG 44 was an intermediate caliber select fire weapon which means it could be fired in semi-automatic or full automatic mode by a selector switch. The full automatic function is what makes it an assault rifle. In storming an enemy position the automatic mode allows a heavy amount of fire to suppress the return fire until you can close with the enemy and kill him at point blank distance. A semi-auto won't fill this job. A lot of misinformed people believe that AR in AR15 means "assault rifle". It means Armalite Rifle. Armalite is the company that built the rifle designed by Eugene Stoner, the inventor of the rifle. The military named it the M16 which is a full automatic rifle. Assault Rifle is a term used by the media to create a sinister connotation for the AR15.

GrumpyOldMan 08-04-2019 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenswing (Post 1670210)
Actually it was in 1966. The gunman used an M-1 carbine and other rifles, a revolver and shotgun.

The next mass shooting was in 1975, then 1982. 2009 is when things really started to get bad.

ETA: I was referencing an article that listed mass shootings of 10 or more people.

:ho:

Thanks for the correction, I was only 16 at the time, so I was not paying much attention.

Kenswing 08-04-2019 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1670216)
:ho:

Thanks for the correction, I was only 16 at the time, so I was not paying much attention.

Don't feel bad, I was only three.. :1rotfl:

OrangeBlossomBaby 08-04-2019 08:23 PM

Fixing mental illness issues doesn't solve a darned thing. The Sandy Hook killer was mentally ill, and was not a gun owner. His MOTHER was a gun owner. And here's the source of the song "I don't like Mondays" by the Boom Town Rats:

Quote:

In early 1978, staff at a facility for problem students, into which Spencer had been referred for truancy, informed her parents that she was suicidal. That summer, Spencer, who was known to hunt birds in the neighborhood, was arrested for shooting out the windows of Cleveland Elementary with a BB gun and for burglary.[1][9] In December, a psychiatric evaluation arranged by her probation officer recommended that Spencer be admitted to a mental hospital for depression, but her father refused to give permission. For Christmas 1978, he gave her a Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle with a telescopic sight and 500 rounds of ammunition.[5][7] Spencer later said, "I asked for a radio and he bought me a gun." When asked why he might have done that, she answered, "I felt like he wanted me to kill myself." [7][10]
She was clearly mentally ill, and was seeking help. Her father, who was NOT mentally ill, provided her with the weapon that she used to shoot down students and teachers at the Cleveland Elementary School in 1979.

Aces4 08-04-2019 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1670191)
That is very true, and can be proven by looking at history where it has happened. So we agree with that statement.

Now, could you point out how it is relevant on this thread? Has anyone proposed disarming "it's citizens"?

I understand the fear of a slippery slope, and agree it can not be allowed. But that is a far cry from the other slippery slope of not allowing any controls or restrictions. Would you agree that Nuclear weapons should not be permitted to be owned by citizens? Why not? After all Nuclear Weapons don't kill people, people kill people.

I’m more interested in the facts we are discussing about guns but a quick comment on all possibilities you want to examine.

You are proposing we need to ban cars also because one may be killed while in one with intention by a mentally deranged person?

Just how many items does the government need to ban to protect us? No thought is given to the obvious, monitoring the mentally ill. We have total invasion of our lives with cyber information gathering for everything but no one suggests monitoring bizarre behavior and information gathering by the mentally ill.

Aces4 08-04-2019 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1670212)
A huge part of the problem is an elephant in the room that gets threads shut down. So there's really no point in discussing it at all, because you can't discuss the root of the CURRENT situation.

I will state though - it isn't mental illness. Only 22% of all mass shootings involved a shooter who was declared mentally ill.

I don’t believe mentally healthy people EVER consider slaughtering groups of people randomly and for any reason other than self defense. We’d all be walking around murdering people if that was the case.

Aces4 08-04-2019 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1670219)
Fixing mental illness issues doesn't solve a darned thing. The Sandy Hook killer was mentally ill, and was not a gun owner. His MOTHER was a gun owner. And here's the source of the song "I don't like Mondays" by the Boom Town Rats:



She was clearly mentally ill, and was seeking help. Her father, who was NOT mentally ill, provided her with the weapon that she used to shoot down students and teachers at the Cleveland Elementary School in 1979.

Can we then think of institutions for the mentally ill. Do you realize how difficult it is to get help for a deranged person? Why do you think those stats are so low? People who has slipped through the cracks aren’t counted.

OrangeBlossomBaby 08-04-2019 08:45 PM

These shootings have been driven by hate. You want to address the shootings, then address the encouragement of hate, the culture that promotes it, that feeds it, that profits from it.

Til then, you will see more of them.

Aces4 08-04-2019 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1670228)
These shootings have been driven by hate. You want to address the shootings, then address the encouragement of hate, the culture that promotes it, that feeds it, that profits from it.

Til then, you will see more of them.

And that I would associate with modern tv programs, computer gaming and unparented children lost to society along with mental illness and psychosis.

GrumpyOldMan 08-04-2019 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1670228)
These shootings have been driven by hate. You want to address the shootings, then address the encouragement of hate, the culture that promotes it, that feeds it, that profits from it.

Til then, you will see more of them.

I don't believe there is one cause, but a lot of reasons. I believe the desire for peer approval, the desire to be remembered, a desire for power over people, lots of reasons - among them hate.

Aces4 08-04-2019 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1670242)
I don't believe there is one cause, but a lot of reasons. I believe the desire for peer approval, the desire to be remembered, a desire for power over people, lots of reasons - among them hate.

True.

Taltarzac725 08-04-2019 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1670228)
These shootings have been driven by hate. You want to address the shootings, then address the encouragement of hate, the culture that promotes it, that feeds it, that profits from it.

Til then, you will see more of them.

The Austin, Texas U of TX tower shooter might have been mentally ill. But a lot of these other mass murderers are basically evil. And should be judged that way in a court of law. Like the one in El Paso, Texas. He planned a terrorist attack and carried it out fully knowing what he was doing. It was premeditated mass murder. Charles Whitman - Wikipedia

Northwoods 08-04-2019 09:38 PM

I don't believe guns should be banned. Hunting is part of our culture and people own guns for protection. People also shoot guns for sport. But I have a hard time understanding why someone needs to own a semi-automatic weapon or any gun that can shoot a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
I get all the arguments... "only criminals will have guns," "it's a mental illness issue," "guns don't kill people." etc. But guns that fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time can potentially kill a lot of people. Why should people have a right to own this type of weapon? What do you use them for? And If you can own this type of weapon, why shouldn't you be able to own a machine gun... a grenade... or an atomic bomb? None of those kill people, it's the person that uses them.
If it is illegal to own a machine gun, I think it should be illegal to own a "semi automatic weapon" of any sort. Will it stop killings or mass murders? No. Will making it illegal keep it out of the hands of killers? No. But maybe it will stop one person from buying that weapon.. or make it a lot harder for someone to buy that weapon. If it stops a mass shooting.. would it be worth it?
"

Taltarzac725 08-04-2019 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northwoods (Post 1670255)
I don't believe guns should be banned. Hunting is part of our culture and people own guns for protection. People also shoot guns for sport. But I have a hard time understanding why someone needs to own a semi-automatic weapon or any gun that can shoot a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
I get all the arguments... "only criminals will have guns," "it's a mental illness issue," "guns don't kill people." etc. But guns that fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time can potentially kill a lot of people. Why should people have a right to own this type of weapon? What do you use them for? And If you can own this type of weapon, why shouldn't you be able to own a machine gun... a grenade... or an atomic bomb? None of those kill people, it's the person that uses them.
If it is illegal to own a machine gun, I think it should be illegal to own a "semi automatic weapon" of any sort. Will it stop killings or mass murders? No. Will making it illegal keep it out of the hands of killers? No. But maybe it will stop one person from buying that weapon.. or make it a lot harder for someone to buy that weapon. If it stops a mass shooting.. would it be worth it?
"

Yes it would. And going after the culture that encourages ownership of rifles that are made for the battlefield is something that needs to be done. They have been altered a little to be able to be sold to civilians but are still basically military rifles.

And these military weapons would probably tear apart game animals so I do not see much use of them for hunting. Home protection, maybe. But weapons long available to the general public would be just as useful for home defense.

OrangeBlossomBaby 08-04-2019 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northwoods (Post 1670255)
I don't believe guns should be banned. Hunting is part of our culture and people own guns for protection. People also shoot guns for sport. But I have a hard time understanding why someone needs to own a semi-automatic weapon or any gun that can shoot a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
I get all the arguments... "only criminals will have guns," "it's a mental illness issue," "guns don't kill people." etc. But guns that fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time can potentially kill a lot of people. Why should people have a right to own this type of weapon? What do you use them for? And If you can own this type of weapon, why shouldn't you be able to own a machine gun... a grenade... or an atomic bomb? None of those kill people, it's the person that uses them.
If it is illegal to own a machine gun, I think it should be illegal to own a "semi automatic weapon" of any sort. Will it stop killings or mass murders? No. Will making it illegal keep it out of the hands of killers? No. But maybe it will stop one person from buying that weapon.. or make it a lot harder for someone to buy that weapon. If it stops a mass shooting.. would it be worth it?
"

Because the Constitution, which was written before these kinds of weapons existed, in a world that had no technology to speak of (electricity wasn't available in households until the following century and the White House didn't have running water until the 1800s) says they can, therefore they can, and their right to do something is more important than your right to not be victimized by it.

Kenswing 08-04-2019 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northwoods (Post 1670255)
I don't believe guns should be banned. Hunting is part of our culture and people own guns for protection. People also shoot guns for sport. But I have a hard time understanding why someone needs to own a semi-automatic weapon or any gun that can shoot a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time.
I get all the arguments... "only criminals will have guns," "it's a mental illness issue," "guns don't kill people." etc. But guns that fire a large amount of bullets in a short amount of time can potentially kill a lot of people. Why should people have a right to own this type of weapon? What do you use them for? And If you can own this type of weapon, why shouldn't you be able to own a machine gun... a grenade... or an atomic bomb? None of those kill people, it's the person that uses them.
If it is illegal to own a machine gun, I think it should be illegal to own a "semi automatic weapon" of any sort. Will it stop killings or mass murders? No. Will making it illegal keep it out of the hands of killers? No. But maybe it will stop one person from buying that weapon.. or make it a lot harder for someone to buy that weapon. If it stops a mass shooting.. would it be worth it?
"

That leaves us with bolt and lever action rifles, shotguns and revolvers. How do you propose getting rid of all the other pistols and rifles?

manaboutown 08-04-2019 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1670266)
Because the Constitution, which was written before these kinds of weapons existed, in a world that had no technology to speak of (electricity wasn't available in households until the following century and the White House didn't have running water until the 1800s) says they can, therefore they can, and their right to do something is more important than your right to not be victimized by it.

Americans have the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. Criminals will obtain guns no matter the law as they do in Mexico and other countries. If I have a gun I can hopefully shoot someone who has broken into my home rather than wait 20 minutes or more for the police to show up and discover my corpse.

GrumpyOldMan 08-05-2019 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manaboutown (Post 1670275)
Americans have the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. Criminals will obtain guns no matter the law as they do in Mexico and other countries. If I have a gun I can hopefully shoot someone who has broken into my home rather than wait 20 minutes or more for the police to show up and discover my corpse.

This is a common argument for guns, and I believe it is mostly a reasonable argument. However, the trouble is in the details:

1. The argument does not require unlimited unregistered guns of any kind to protect ones self at home or in public. One could say they need automatic weapons using this argument, since without them only bad guys would have automatic weapons. One could say they need a Challenger 2 tank to protect their family. One could say they need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves against N. Korea and others. One of the fundamental reasons villages and larger groups of people were created is to provide for the common defense so individuals do not have to protect themselves from every possible enemy.

2. The argument does not require you be able to defend yourself without training and certification/licensing - neither of which would prevent your defending yourself or your family and would in fact help you do so.

3. The argument does not require you be able to accumulate unregistered guns. I personally do not believe that registering your guns would help stop mass shootings, but I see no reason it would hurt.

4. Requiring guns to be designed to only be able to be used by registered owners would not prevent you from defending yourself or your family and would prevent a bad guy from taking your gun away from you and killing you and your family (and other families) with it.

The number of lives saved by having unlimited access to guns seems to be seriously out weighed by the number of innocent people that are killed by bad people having guns. The argument that society would be safer if there were more guns would seem to have been proven wrong, since we now have over 300 million guns in circulation, that is more guns than adults.

With 300 million guns in circulation it is not possible to enforce a ban, so that is not going to happen. (Or let's just say, attempting to do so would probably make the civil war look like a peace rally). We have allowed this untenable situation to happen, and we need to figure out how to resolve it.

As has been said, the guns of themselves are not the problem. It is the undesirable uses of them that are the problem.

I find it difficult to understand why people who want to own guns are not the most vocal in trying to resolve this problem. It would be in both sides interest to work together to find a solution.

And finally, some statements from both sides from are just not useful. I have a daughter in law who said she was not worried about her son being killed in a school shooting, she was going to train him to use guns and he would be packing went he went into first grade. Seriously, I am not making that up. Can you imagine a class full of first graders all carrying guns?

GrumpyOldMan 08-05-2019 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island57 (Post 1670299)
Wow. What kind of white supremacy sources news media do you get your info from? Scary and stupid.

I am not sure you actually read the links.

In any case, it is in fact true that the US does not lead the world in mass shootings. the exact place we hold in the list depends on how you arrange the numbers (per capital, numbers killed, etc.) but in almost any way you analyze the data there are in fact much more dangerous places in the world. But, also, on a per capita basis (which is how it is often reported) countries with small populations will tend to be higher in the list with fewer shootings. It also depends on what you call a "mass shooting" - how many people killed by how many people, and why.

All that being said, I don't see it as significant. tell the families and children of the dead at any of the shootings here that they are safer here than they would be somewhere else, I expect you will receive a fairly incredulous glare in return.

We in fact have a problem. The problem is getting worse. We need to find a solution that we all can live with. We the people.

Aces4 08-05-2019 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1670304)
I am not sure you actually read the links.

In any case, it is in fact true that the US does not lead the world in mass shootings. the exact place we hold in the list depends on how you arrange the numbers (per capital, numbers killed, etc.) but in almost any way you analyze the data there are in fact much more dangerous places in the world. But, also, on a per capita basis (which is how it is often reported) countries with small populations will tend to be higher in the list with fewer shootings. It also depends on what you call a "mass shooting" - how many people killed by how many people, and why.

All that being said, I don't see it as significant. tell the families and children of the dead at any of the shootings here that they are safer here than they would be somewhere else, I expect you will receive a fairly incredulous glare in return.

We in fact have a problem. The problem is getting worse. We need to find a solution that we all can live with. We the people.

I think the same one sided theories can be spewed over and over again. But the bottom line is the fact that the USA is the prime target of several countries which crave our demise. Plus the fact that we have a wide open border and who knows who has already penetrated the population of the USA with the intent to create catastrophic damage.

Why the devil is it necessary to unarm US citizens who day in and day out uphold the law, act responsibly and store their weapons accordingly? If it is the perfect plan to unarm the citizenry does it make Russia shine as a country? Is anyone watching the squelching of the voice of the people right now in that country as they try to protest the questionable actions of their government?

When do we ban automobiles and airplanes? These two vehicles have caused far more injury and death in the US than any guns. Or maybe the most we allow is a smart car for everyone because fewer people would be killed or injured with a smaller vehicle.

To say that there is very little mental illness involved in shootings and that people are evil instead makes me laugh. A normal brain does not function on the premise that taking lives is fun. Isn’t that the main thrust of PTSD syndrome? There is something wrong upstairs when people want to commit mass murders!

It would be a huge mistake to unarm our citizenry, your freedom may depend on it someday. Why don’t those who champion government gun control champion mental health facilities and monitoring? Because grabbing guns is cheaper and easier.

Taltarzac725 08-05-2019 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 1670330)
I think the same one sided theories can be spewed over and over again. But the bottom line is the fact that the USA is the prime target of several countries which crave our demise. Plus the fact that we have a wide open border and who knows who has already penetrated the population of the USA with the intent to create catastrophic damage.

Why the devil is it necessary to unarm US citizens who day in and day out uphold the law, act responsibly and store their weapons accordingly? If it is the perfect plan to unarm the citizenry does it make Russia shine as a country? Is anyone watching the squelching of the voice of the people right now in that country as they try to protest the questionable actions of their government?

When do we ban automobiles and airplanes? These two vehicles have caused far more injury and death in the US than any guns. Or maybe the most we allow is a smart car for everyone because fewer people would be killed or injured with a smaller vehicle.

To say that there is very little mental illness involved in shootings and that people are evil instead makes me laugh. A normal brain does not function on the premise that taking lives is fun. Isn’t that the main thrust of PTSD syndrome? There is something wrong upstairs when people want to commit mass murders!

It would be a huge mistake to unarm our citizenry, your freedom may depend on it someday. Why don’t those who champion government gun control champion mental health facilities and monitoring? Because grabbing guns is cheaper and easier.

No one wants to disarm the people of this country. Stop the manufacture and further sale of assault type weapons like those used in many recent shootings. Yes. And develop buy back programs with local police departments for assault like weapons.

Many terrorists are fanatics. They look mentally ill to "normal" people. The 9/11 terrorists were not mentally ill nor the Boston Marathon bombers. They were radicalized though by propaganda. I have not seen any signs of mental illness in the Dayton nor El Paso mass murderers.

Polar Bear 08-05-2019 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1670341)
...I have not seen any signs of mental illness in the Dayton nor El Paso mass murderers.

Wow.

I don’t even know what to say about that observation.

graciegirl 08-05-2019 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1670304)
I am not sure you actually read the links.

In any case, it is in fact true that the US does not lead the world in mass shootings. the exact place we hold in the list depends on how you arrange the numbers (per capital, numbers killed, etc.) but in almost any way you analyze the data there are in fact much more dangerous places in the world. But, also, on a per capita basis (which is how it is often reported) countries with small populations will tend to be higher in the list with fewer shootings. It also depends on what you call a "mass shooting" - how many people killed by how many people, and why.

All that being said, I don't see it as significant. tell the families and children of the dead at any of the shootings here that they are safer here than they would be somewhere else, I expect you will receive a fairly incredulous glare in return.

We in fact have a problem. The problem is getting worse. We need to find a solution that we all can live with. We the people.

And while we are at it, we need to address the 68,000, that is correct, sixty-eight thousand people that died last year, 2018, from illegal drug overdose in the United States. This is despite laws that make it illegal to sell and to buy drugs to make yourself high, to make your thoughts disordered. Perhaps we should start taking guns away from people who have ever been caught with illegal drugs. I think most people would stand behind that. Oh wait. Felony possession of drugs does not allow the felon to own a gun. Watch one hour of live P.D. on A&E and see how many guns are found on people with illegal drugs. Maybe we should think of something else. Maybe if people who did not have much money were given money by the government from a fund taken from people who worked hard all of their lives. AND from some rich jerks who just woke up and found it or worked 14-16 hours a day at a high paying very stressful job?

Complex issues are not easy to solve, but are often averted by moral parents making sacrifices to be with their children when they are small and being tough on their tots when they steal, lie, and do all of the things little humans do.

This post won't last long. Good morning everyone. It is a beautiful day in The Villages where the large majority of folks agree with what I just said.

deaths in the u.s. due to overdose in 2018 - Bing

Disclaimer. I don't own a gun.

Aces4 08-05-2019 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1670341)
No one wants to disarm the people of this country. Stop the manufacture and further sale of assault type weapons like those used in many recent shootings. Yes. And develop buy back programs with local police departments for assault like weapons.

Many terrorists are fanatics. They look mentally ill to "normal" people. The 9/11 terrorists were not mentally ill nor the Boston Marathon bombers. They were radicalized though by propaganda. I have not seen any signs of mental illness in the Dayton nor El Paso mass murderers.

Stop the manufacture and sales... that is disarming, plain and clear and the offenders will still find those arms for themselves. They are mentally ill, not stupid.

“Radicalization” is, in studies, defined with mental health issues as the risk factor along with psychoses and autism are reported as common.

As reported earlier in this thread, shootings have increased slowly since the 1960’s. Guess when mental health institutions began to close, the 1960’s.

Do online searches for: how release of mental health patients began. It has been admitted that it was a huge mistake and I think more than likely responsible for the mass murders the US has suffered.

Taltarzac725 08-05-2019 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1670347)
Wow.

I don’t even know what to say about that observation.

You do know I am using the legal definition of mental illness whether the actor knows right from wrong and had full control of his or her actions. Both of these men planned their evil in advance and carefully and have no history of mental illness that I have seen.

Mental illness used by the average person could mean many things-- depression, addiction, etc.

Some seem to be using these two men's evil actions as yet another ruse not to actually address the gun problem in the US as well as the hate problem. These are connected.

Taltarzac725 08-05-2019 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 1670350)
Stop the manufacture and sales... that is disarming, plain and clear and the offenders will still find those arms for themselves.

“Radicalization” is, in studies, defined with mental health issues as the risk factor along with psychoses and autism are reported as common.

As reported earlier in this thread, shootings have increased slowly since the 1960’s. Guess when mental health institutions began to close, the 1960’s.

Do online searches for: how release of mental health patients began. It has been admitted that it was a huge mistake.

Most mentally ill people are the victims of violence and not those that carry it out. Do some research.

And look at the practices at some of those institutions. Many of these people had no clue about how to treat people. And there are still problems. There's a Psychiatrist Crisis in America That Few Are Talking About

Two Bills 08-05-2019 07:58 AM

We in UK banned hand guns many years ago, after a mass shooting of children in Scotland in 1996.
Banning guns was not a big deal, as we never really had a 'gun culture' anyway.
Stict laws were put onto shotgun ownership for sport, ie. blowing birds out of the sky every fall for a few months.
Our major problem now is knives.
Stabbings, singular and mass, are daily occurences, and amongst the young in most major cities, being stabbed is sadly, a normal risk if you get into an argument.
Most tpypes of knife, with few exeptions are banned from being carried, but it has made not a jot of difference to the number of incidents, in fact numbers of stabbings are on the rise.
So just banning certain types of weapon is not always the panacea.
It takes a whole lot more, and that 'more' is the major stumbling block, and the million dollar question in getting a ban to work.

Aces4 08-05-2019 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1670353)
Most mentally ill people are the victims of violence and not those that carry it out. Do some research.

And look at the practices at some of those institutions. Many of these people had no clue about how to treat people. And there are still problems. There's a Psychiatrist Crisis in America That Few Are Talking About

We’re talking apples and oranges, Tal. I’ve done a lot of research and, of course, not every person with mental illness will be violent in this manor. In fact, it is the minority that will project violence in this fashion.

I agree that SOME of the mentally ill have been victims of violence and many because the safety net was removed. The institutions were shuttered because lack of interest in cleaning up the management and money that politicians were saving for their own interests.

This doesn’t change the fact that mental illness is the leading factors in these murders and they will continue to wreak this sad havoc if the public is unwilling to advocate for change in dealing with those individuals.

Trust me when I say they will find even more heinous methods than automatic weapons.

GrumpyOldMan 08-05-2019 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 1670330)

Why the devil is it necessary to unarm US citizens who day in and day out uphold the law, act responsibly and store their weapons accordingly?

Why do people keep spreading this line? Is it to spread fear? As far as I know no one in any position to do anything has ever suggested disarming America.

Aces4 08-05-2019 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1670371)
Why do people keep spreading this line? Is it to spread fear? As far as I know no one in any position to do anything has ever suggested disarming America.

If you are removing guns, you are disarming, that simple. I still haven’t seen an answer as to why automobiles and airplanes shouldn’t be banned since this is the first knee jerk reaction to the risk association.

I think the real line here is the solution is simple, remove all guns with the exception of pistols and shotguns. Bill from the UK has provided some powerful insight here. Those intent on doing harm will find a way whether or not there are guns.

Northwoods 08-05-2019 08:28 AM

In the Dayton Ohio shooting, the gunman was killed in LESS THAN one minute after he started shooting. In less than a minute 9 people were killed and 27 people were injured. He used an assault-style rifle with high capacity magazines. He bought the gun legally. I can't imagine a reason why citizens are able to legally buy this type of weapon.

Number 10 GI 08-05-2019 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1670256)
Yes it would. And going after the culture that encourages ownership of rifles that are made for the battlefield is something that needs to be done. They have been altered a little to be able to be sold to civilians but are still basically military rifles.

And these military weapons would probably tear apart game animals so I do not see much use of them for hunting. Home protection, maybe. But weapons long available to the general public would be just as useful for home defense.

Every type of gun has been used by the military at one time or another and for the most part are currently owned by civilians. The Revolutionary army used flintlocks and so did civilians. The Civil War saw the use of cap lock muzzle loading rifles and near the end of the war lever action rifles were being used by the Union Army. The lever action is still a very popular rifle used by hunters and recreational shooters. WWI saw the use of the bolt action rifle that is used by hunters and target shooters. WWII introduced the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine which are semi-automatic rifles that are in great demand today by civilian shooters. The M16/M4 rifle is for the most part not available for civilians due to it being a full automatic rifle.
The round the AR15, M16/M4 shoots is the 5.56 X45 aka .223 in commercial ammo caliber designation. It does not tear up game animals. The .223/5.56 in most states is not allowed to be used on large game (deer, antelope, elk, etc.) not because it is so powerful, but because it isn't powerful enough.

Taltarzac725 08-05-2019 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 1670370)
We’re talking apples and oranges, Tal. I’ve done a lot of research and, of course, not every person with mental illness will be violent in this manor. In fact, it is the minority that will project violence in this fashion.

I agree that SOME of the mentally ill have been victims of violence and many because the safety net was removed. The institutions were shuttered because lack of interest in cleaning up the management and money that politicians were saving for their own interests.

This doesn’t change the fact that mental illness is the leading factors in these murders and they will continue to wreak this sad havoc if the public is unwilling to advocate for change in dealing with those individuals.

Trust me when I say they will find even more heinous methods than automatic weapons.

They have. Trucks. Like in Paris.

But police and others can plan for these kind of actions. And these murderers are usually driven by hate not mental illness. Hate propagated usually for the benefit of someone using it as a tool. And these players could not care less about the people they use.

I had a friend in library school in 1983-1984 who was from the U of Mosul Library in Iraq. Nice man and not mentally ill in any way. But as soon as he returned to Iraq from Denver and got into the propaganda surrounding the 1980 Iran-Iraq war he was angrier and angrier at anything about the West. I had stop writing him as a pen pal because his letters had so much hatred in them.

They destroyed the U of Mosul library around 2014. ISIS. Fanatics driven by hatred. Some probably are mentally ill too from what they have seen and done in those many wars in Iraq.

Taltarzac725 08-05-2019 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 1670380)
Every type of gun has been used by the military at one time or another and for the most part are currently owned by civilians. The Revolutionary army used flintlocks and so did civilians. The Civil War saw the use of cap lock muzzle loading rifles and near the end of the war lever action rifles were being used by the Union Army. The lever action is still a very popular rifle used by hunters and recreational shooters. WWI saw the use of the bolt action rifle that is used by hunters and target shooters. WWII introduced the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine which are semi-automatic rifles that are in great demand today by civilian shooters. The M16/M4 rifle is for the most part not available for civilians due to it being a full automatic rifle.
The round the AR15, M16/M4 shoots is the 5.56 X45 aka .223 in commercial ammo caliber designation. It does not tear up game animals. The .223/5.56 in most states is not allowed to be used on large game (deer, antelope, elk, etc.) not because it is so powerful, but because it isn't powerful enough.

What is it with guns?

Why do people love these so much?

You only need a gun for home protection and maybe some for hunting.

Aces4 08-05-2019 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 1670382)
They have. Trucks. Like in Paris.

But police and others can plan for these kind of actions. And these murderers are usually driven by hate not mental illness. Hate propagated usually for the benefit of someone using it as a tool.

I had a friend in library school in 1983-1984 who was from the U of Mosul Library in Iraq. Nice man and not mentally ill in any way. But as soon as he returned to Iraq from Denver and got into the propaganda surrounding the 1980 Iran-Iraq war he was angrier and angrier at anything about the West. I had stop writing him as a pen pal because his letters had so much hatred in them.

They destroyed the U of Mosul library around 2014. ISIS. Fanatics driven by hatred. Some probably are mentally ill too from what they have seen and done in those many wars in Iraq.

And you think hate of that magnitude isn’t mental illness?

Taltarzac725 08-05-2019 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northwoods (Post 1670379)
In the Dayton Ohio shooting, the gunman was killed in LESS THAN one minute after he started shooting. In less than a minute 9 people were killed and 27 people were injured. He used an assault-style rifle with high capacity magazines. He bought the gun legally. I can't imagine a reason why citizens are able to legally buy this type of weapon.

Me neither. What is the purpose of such a weapon? To kill people very quickly is all I can think of.

GrumpyOldMan 08-05-2019 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 1670378)
If you are removing guns, you are disarming, that simple. I still haven’t seen an answer as to why automobiles and airplanes shouldn’t be banned since this is the first knee jerk reaction to the risk association.

I think the real line here is the solution is simple, remove all guns with the exception of pistols and shotguns. Bill from the UK has provided some powerful insight here. Those intent on doing harm will find a way whether or not there are guns.

So, you are in favor of mentally ill people with a desire to kill as many people as possible to buy and own guns??

Conflating "disarming Americans" with regulating who can own guns is a bit of a scare tactic from my point of view.

During the previous administration it was believed that guns sales were going to be seriously reduced, resulting in massive increases in people buying guns and ammunitions. Now that the previous administration is over, the numbers have been added up and in fact just the opposite occurred, and more guns were sold during it that under any other in history.

Again, conflating regulation with disarming is not helping the conversation or helping to solve the problem.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.