[Russ_Boston]

Don't you guys on TOTV realize that you can't argue with Gun people? They write posts so long I give up reading them!

Like it or not the San Antonio story wasn't as big a story because NO ONE DIED. Simple. Death makes the headlines. Preventing death does not. Not a conspiracy.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

Don't you guys on TOTV realize that you can't argue with Gun people? They write posts so long I give up reading them!

Like it or not the San Antonio story wasn't as big a story because NO ONE DIED. Simple. Death makes the headlines. Preventing death does not. Not a conspiracy.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by buggyone

"There may be many more of us who are trained to return fire in a shoot back situation."

If you are trained to return fire in a shoot back situation, you would be a welcome addition to the gun carrying community. A person who just carries but is not trained in stressful shooting situations is a liability and a danger to those around the situation.

The wannabee cowboys and wannabee policemen are hazards.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Rebel Pirate

“So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.” Figmo Bohica

“I found it reported in national news sources.” Taltarzac725

Yes, it was reported in the national press. But most significantly, the Newtown shooting received almost continuous coverage in print, broadcast, and online media, while the San Antonio shooting was reported sporadically in the press. I personally had no knowledge of the San Antonio shooting until reading this post.

“I certainly don't think it was part of a huge conspiracy to suppress news of this sort.” Graciegirl

Agreed – I don’t think there’s a conspiracy of news organizations to suppress news.

However, I do believe that one’s world view influences what one thinks is news worthy. Almost all the news coverage of the Newtown tragedy includes an implication that new federal legislation restricting gun ownership (i.e., better gun control) is the universal antidote to mass shootings/killings. And since the San Antonio news story supports a different narrative (the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun) most media deem it not news worthy...at least in terms of volume and amplitude of the coverage.

What about mentally ill people being one of the principal causes of mass killings where guns are simply their weapon of choice? Think back to many of the most recent, news-worthy shootings; many of these shootings were the work of mentally-ill individuals.

Do you remember several decades back when mentally ill people were routinely institutionalized? What happened? Well, society has undergone a long-term change called deinstitutionalization. The following passage between the **** is from Wikipedia.
*******************************
Deinstitutionalization is the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability.

Deinstitutionalization works in two ways: the first focuses on reducing the population size of mental institutions by releasing patients, shortening stays, and reducing both admissions and readmission rates; the second focuses on reforming mental hospitals' institutional processes so as to reduce or eliminate reinforcement of dependency, hopelessness, learned helplessness, and other maladaptive behaviors.

According to psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, deinstitutionalization has been an overall benefit for most psychiatric patients, though many have been left homeless and without care. The deinstitutionalization movement was initiated by three factors:
• A socio-political movement for community mental health services and open hospitals;
• The advent of psychotropic drugs able to manage psychotic episodes;
• A financial imperative to shift costs from state to federal budgets.

According to American psychiatrist Loren Mosher, most deinstitutionalization in the USA took place after 1972, as a result of the availability of SSI, long after the antipsychotic drugs were used universally in state hospitals.

According to psychiatrist and author Thomas Szasz, deinstitutionalization is the policy and practice of transferring homeless, involuntarily hospitalized mental patients from state mental hospitals into many different kinds of de facto psychiatric institutions funded largely by the federal government. These federally subsidized institutions began in the United States and were quickly adopted by most Western governments. The plan was set in motion by the Community Mental Health Act as a part of John F. Kennedy's legislation and passed by the U.S. Congress in 1963, mandating the appointment of a commission to make recommendations for "combating mental illness in the United States".

In many cases the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in the Western world from the 1960s onward has translated into policies of "community release". Individuals who previously would have been in mental institutions are no longer continuously supervised by health care workers. Some experts, such as E. Fuller Torrey, have considered deinstitutionalization to be a failure, while some consider many aspects of institutionalization to have been worse.
*******************************
Another world view is to judge everything using the “black or white” model, i.e., it’s good or bad. The alternative world view is to recognize that everything (every product, every decision, every political system, and every (fill in the blank)) has both pros and cons.

Deinstitutionalization is good for the freedom of individuals. (PRO)
Deinstitutionalization is bad for the prevention of gun violence by mentally ill people who stop taking their psychotropic medications. (CON)

Gun ownership is good for the freedom of individuals. (PRO)
Gun ownership is bad for the prevention of gun violence by mentally ill people who stop taking their psychotropic medications. (CON)

SO, is deinstitutionalization or gun ownership the cause of gun violence? Or is it possible that both deinstitutionalization and gun ownership are both factors in mass shootings? Is it possible that neither is THE cause of gun violence?

Is it possible that over-simplification (gun ownership is the cause of gun violence) is not helpful to understanding and solving a complex social issue?...but that it DOES support an agenda promoted by many national leaders and media organizations?

Is it possible that the nature of the media (commercial success of for-profit news organizations is driven by the need for catchy headlines and appeal to a mass-audience) contributes to the over-simplification of complex issues?

Is it possible that people who feel they need to own guns are different than me?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

Don't you guys on TOTV realize that you can't argue with Gun people? They write posts so long I give up reading them!

Like it or not the San Antonio story wasn't as big a story because NO ONE DIED. Simple. Death makes the headlines. Preventing death does not. Not a conspiracy.

That sounds true. Rebel Pirate does have a point but certainly whenever a law is written lawyers find ways to get around it. That's pretty much what I learned while at the University of Minnesota Law Scool (Class of 1989). You just need someone writing the laws who is as clever as the Ivy League legal eagles in D.C. who are going to be trying to push holes in any assault weapons ban. Maybe, a reasonable person standard for what is an assault weapon? Reasonable person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That would make the courts determine on the facts involved whether or not some weapon meets a ban criteria. Jury Instruction

Gun control facts-- Gun Control - Just Facts

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Rebel Pirate]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

That sounds true. Rebel Pirate does have a point but certainly whenever a law is written lawyers find ways to get around it. That's pretty much what I learned while at the University of Minnesota Law Scool (Class of 1989). You just need someone writing the laws who is as clever as the Ivy League legal eagles in D.C. who are going to be trying to push holes in any assault weapons ban. Maybe, a reasonable person standard for what is an assault weapon? Reasonable person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That would make the courts determine on the facts involved whether or not some weapon meets a ban criteria. Jury Instruction

Gun control facts-- Gun Control - Just Facts

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the reference to "Just Facts"...never saw that one before...it looks to be a rich resource for those who are really interested in facts, not just opinion.

[Emery Eaton]

There is nothing more precious than life. It seems that some young people don't respect life these days. They want to "go out with a bang" so to say. I just can't understand these tragic events. It made me sick to my stomach to hear about what happened in CT.

I actually drove through that town the other day on my way back down from New Hampshire. Such a nice little New England town, things like that could happen anywhere. I believe it is because the generations have stopped communicating. in some families kids don't talk to parents, and grandparents don't share their experiences with their grandchildren. Love solves the problems more than programs. The families that survive are the families who remain close and communicate. They don't let silence get in the way, they share their love with each other.

[Cantwaittoarrive]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Is it possible that people who feel they need to own guns are different than me?

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -Adolph Hitler

It's also possible that people that feel like gun control is good are different then you

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Cantwaittoarrive

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -Adolph Hitler

It's also possible that people that feel like gun control is good are different then you

Few have argued that we should ban all firearms. The argument seems to be against guns that have very little practical use for either hunting, home protection (a 12 gauge would probably be as efficient in home protection as an assault rifle), concealed carry, etc. Maybe, it is fun to use an assault weapon for target practice but it seems rather juvenile when compared with what kind of message allowing these weapons to be sold sends.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Cantwaittoarrive

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -Adolph Hitler

It's also possible that people that feel like gun control is good are different

then you

I don't know. I just don't feel comfortable owning a gun. Just since moving here to The Villages have I met people who had guns who didn't hunt.
It is new to me.


I don't understand why so many gun people are so adversarial.

I am a conservative person in most areas but this intensity about guns is new to me.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Figmo Bohica

On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.


Two wounded in theater shooting - San Antonio Express-News

Suppose you were the editor of a big city newspaper with limited resources. Where would you send your reporters...to cover the worst event to happen in this country since September 11, 2001 when 20 innocent children were slaughtered, or some yahoo trying to kill his girlfriend in a movie theater where no one died?

Sadly these events happen every day in this country. Sometimes there's a good outcome, like what happened in San Antonio, but most times there's not a good outcome.

We've become so accustomed to these type of events, that they hardly make the news any more.

Are you suggesting that there should be armed guards at the Rialto?

[Mr Hanky]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Few have argued that we should ban all firearms. The argument seems to be against guns that have very little practical use for either hunting, home protection (a 12 gauge would probably be as efficient in home protection as an assault rifle), concealed carry, etc. Maybe, it is fun to use an assault weapon for target practice but it seems rather juvenile when compared with what kind of message allowing these weapons to be sold sends.

I don't get how you can categorize every law abiding citizen of the United States that goes target shooting with a firearm that YOU don't care for as " juvenile " .
And what message is being sent by allowing firearms that YOU don't care for to be sold in our free country? Enlighten me please.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Mr Hanky

I don't get how you can categorize every law abiding citizen of the United States that goes target shooting with a firearm that YOU don't care for as " juvenile " .
And what message is being sent by allowing firearms that YOU don't care for to be sold in our free country? Enlighten me please.

Shooting a target with massive amounts of bullets sounds very juvenile to me. It seems a little like blowing up plastic models for kicks. Something I did when I was twelve.

What reasonable purpose does an assault rifle have?? I cannot come up with one. Maybe if you are battling the Taliban or a gang of drug dealers. We have soldiers, S.W.A.T, and police for those purposes.

[Mr Hanky]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I don't know. I just don't feel comfortable owning a gun. Just since moving here to The Villages have I met people who had guns who didn't hunt.
It is new to me.


I don't understand why so many gun people are so adversarial.

I am a conservative person in most areas but this intensity about guns is new to me.

Gracie you have every right as an American to not want to own or even like guns. I appreciate your position on that and you have pretty much sat back on this issue.
It's the positions of some others though that make inflametary remaks about good citizens that choose the right to Cary or own weapons that gets stuff flying.
Because a previous poster dislikes certain weapons he wants to use words like juvenile and other baseless remarks. Again Gracie I appreciate your position,I really do. I wish more people were as graceful as you when stating a position. They could learn a lot from you. I know I have.

Also for a previous poster ......
everyone I know that target shoots with an assault riffle is a police officer and no they don't use them in the line of duty, just for target practice.

[Figmo Bohica]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Few have argued that we should ban all firearms. The argument seems to be against guns that have very little practical use for either hunting, home protection (a 12 gauge would probably be as efficient in home protection as an assault rifle), concealed carry, etc. Maybe, it is fun to use an assault weapon for target practice but it seems rather juvenile when compared with what kind of message allowing these weapons to be sold sends.

First off the 2d Amendment is NOT about hunting. Everyone should read and understand the United States Constitution. Nothing in the 2d Amendment mentions or hints at hunting.

Second, yes a 12 gauge is a good home defense firearm, but really here in the Villages. You need to come to our "Cool Gun Club" meeting, Mulberry Grove Rec Center, Jan 4, 7 PM, and find out about home protection, concealed carry and how to be a responsible firearm owner and most importantly, how to keep yourself out of having to use any force, up to and including deadly force by being aware of your surroundings.

Third, define "assualt weapon?" Then we will discuss your statement above.

Fourth, please state the message that "we" are sending by allowing these weapons to be sold.

Thank you, have a Happy New Year.