Another shooting

Randy Wieland wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Black98TransAm wrote:</div>
The only way that happens is if there are concessions on both sides. Are you willing to give anything up as far as guns go? Are you willing to pay more taxes for more and easier access to mental health treatments?

YES AND YES

I say NO and NO.

If those stats that big g posted are remotely accurate, I dont see giving up further gun rights to accomplish very little. If it means keeping guns out of peoples hands that shouldn’t have them in the first place, I’ll lean heavily toward yes.

NO we do not need to pay more taxes to treat mental illness. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East and quit fighting pointless wars we can’t win that only anger other countries and enable more terrorist groups. Spend this money fixing problem at home. The people in Flint Michigan don’t have safe water in 2017 for gods sake.

I better stop there… and get a cocktail.

Randy Wieland wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Black98TransAm wrote:</div>
The only way that happens is if there are concessions on both sides. Are you willing to give anything up as far as guns go? Are you willing to pay more taxes for more and easier access to mental health treatments?

YES AND YES

I think that’s great then. Need more people like that on both sides of every argument

biggill wrote:

Spend this money fixing problem at home.

Adding to this.

Did you know the Dept of Defense spent $41M on Viagra for our troops last year?

biggill wrote:

Did you know the Dept of Defense spent $41M on Viagra for our troops last year?

I’m not even trying to be a d*#k like when some people demand sources, but Gill can you post a source just because i wanna read this article?

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Randy Wieland wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Black98TransAm wrote:</div>
The only way that happens is if there are concessions on both sides. Are you willing to give anything up as far as guns go? Are you willing to pay more taxes for more and easier access to mental health treatments?

YES AND YES

I say NO and NO.

If those stats that big g posted are remotely accurate, I dont see giving up further gun rights to accomplish very little. If it means keeping guns out of peoples hands that shouldn’t have them in the first place, I’ll lean heavily toward yes.

NO we do not need to pay more taxes to treat mental illness. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East and quit fighting pointless wars we can’t win that only anger other countries and enable more terrorist groups. Spend this money fixing problem at home. The people in Flint Michigan don’t have safe water in 2017 for gods sake.

I better stop there… and get a cocktail.

I thought hard about phrasing the second part as allocating more tax dollars towards mental health. By shifting funds from something else. But that’s easy to say yes to. It’s also unlikely to happen.

Overall I’m very pessimistic about anything political/social. With social media and how easy it is to spread false information there is no reason for people to engage with one another. It’s easy to be bold and unwavering when you never have to answer to anyone face to face.

I think our future is going to be a pendulum. One party in control and then voted out for the other party.

Dan wrote:

I’m not even trying to be a d*#k like when some people demand sources, but Gill can you post a source just because i wanna read this article?

You want to join the military now don’t you? Don’t worry I was expecting this request.

Hopefully you find them credible sources.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/26/us-military-blows-millions-a-year-on-viagra-for-its-troops/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/26/the-military-spends-five-times-as-much-on-viagra-as-it-would-on-transgender-troops-medical-care/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/16/defense-department-spends-84-million-year-viagra-similar-meds/23488371/
https://www.menshealth.com/health/us-military-viagra-spending
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40741785

It appears as thoug most is for retirees but I can honestly say that I’d take every penny of that amount and put it toward PTSD instead.

biggill wrote:

You want to join the military now don’t you?

I was in the army just a few short years ago and I don’t remember it being that “hard….”

mplspug wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pool2fool wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>big_g wrote:</div>
Stat

Would you please share a source for this data?

Both of those tables use “per million,” which is statistically more forgiving to countries with larger populations and harsh on small countries who have even a few very isolated incidents.

Per million is actually a more reliable stat. To just go by totals without regards to the population is actually more forgiving to smaller countries.

I didn’t suggest using sum totals. Either method is frought. Perhaps “per million” could be reliable if used when comparing countries with some other common trait, like wealth or population density, as an equalizer. You can’t use it in a vacuum to measure the US against countries like Macedonia. Meaningless.

Jonesy wrote:

You say we must unite to find a solution. The only way that happens is if there are concessions on both sides. Are you willing to give anything up as far as guns go? Are you willing to pay more taxes for more and easier access to mental health treatments?

Yes and yes here as well. and thanks for posing the question. Although I’m sure you’re gonna get jumped on about the taxes thing, with some other hypothetical source of money for fixing this problem.

Jonesy wrote:

I thought hard about phrasing the second part as allocating more tax dollars towards mental health. By shifting funds from something else. But that’s easy to say yes to. It’s also unlikely to happen.

I appreciate the careful thought and stating it how you meant it. I really think this is where we are being lied to the most by our government. Our government spends billions to keep us at war. For what? Freedom? Hunting cave dwellers makes us more free?

Jonesy wrote:

I think our future is going to be a pendulum. One party in control and then voted out for the other party.

Let’s stop the end party dictatorship. You can all officially label me a crackpot now.

Dan wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>biggill wrote:</div>Y
Did you know the Dept of Defense spent $41M on Viagra for our troops last year?

I’m not even trying to be a d*#k like when some people demand sources, but Gill can you post a source just because i wanna read this article?

Yes, it’s very dickish to request a source when someone posts a ridiculous “stat.” It’s 2017. Anyone can create and publish anything instantly. Checking sources remains one of the only ways to discern truth. If that’s being a dick, then so be it.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. However sometimes people say it a d*&kish manner, and I was just indicating to Biggill that I thought it was amusing and would like to have seen an article. I honestly had no one in particular in mind so you don’t need to be so defensive.

Dan wrote:

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. However sometimes people say it a d*&kish manner, and I was just indicating to Biggill that I thought it was amusing and would like to have seen an article. I honestly had no one in particular in mind so you don’t need to be so defensive.

It’s all good, over-reaction on my part since I’m the one demanding politely requesting a source earlier in the thread.

Dude, feel free to think what you want, but that was a random comment directed at absolutely no one in particular.

Have a good one!

I think it’s a very valid question today. I was had last night when I saw the antifa photo which turned out to be a hoax.

Even more troublesome is how heavily the mainstream media is influenced by their own political views.

Dan wrote:

Dude, feel free to think what you want, but that was a random comment directed at absolutely no one in particular.

Have a good one!

Like I said, no worries here. Take care!

I was doing some reading when the news was on tonight. I wasn’t really paying attention while they were talking about a murder but it caught my attention when the reporter announced “our sources said that a gun was not involved”.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard that before when a gun wasn’t involved.
Normally a person was stabbed, choked or whatever, but to come out and say what it wasn’t seemed odd to me.

Example would be “two died in house fire, a knife was not involved”.

Seems fishy doesn’t it Brian? Are they really trying that hard to plant their political views in us? It doesn’t end there that’s for sure.

Don’t grab for your tinfoil hat yet, the fun has only begun.

By the way what the heck ever happened to the investigation in Las Vegas. Have we all forgotten? No motive, really? Seems as though someone wants this to go away.

Guess I didn’t think much deeper then it was just odd.
We aren’t allowed to have tin foil in the house.

BK, along those same lines Fox was falling over themselves this am talking about how a guy with a gun likely saved lives, which is understandable but the way they were going about it I had to turn it off. 26 people freakin died and thats all they were interested in. I thought I heard this am that someone who is dishonorably discharged isn’t allowed to have a gun, can some ex-military speak to that?

Pete S wrote:

I thought I heard this am that someone who is dishonorably discharged isn’t allowed to have a gun, can some ex-military speak to that?

He couldn’t have a weapon because he was dishonorably discharged it was be cause of domestic violence that lead to his discharge.

In other works he was discharge because of a felony.

The air force screwed up and didn’t report his charges to the FBI which allowed him to “legally” purchase the firearm.

That right there will make one heck of a conspiracy theory.

With the border right there getting any kind of gun wouldn’t be to difficult if a person wanted to buy a gun. In fact getting a gun anywhere in this country wouldn’t be to difficult if a person really wanted one. The only thing the gun screening laws do is slow down the spur of the moment guys.

360 million people in this country now, people will die from gun violence and there is no stopping that. Quit making heroes, villains, temporarily famous people out of the shooters and a certain percentage of this goes away.

I’ll say again, other then for ratings nobody in this country needed to see the shooters face, know his name or know the reason or story behind the atrocity. If the media needs fluff pieces they can do stories on the victims.There is enough (26) stories to last nearly a month.

Follow the money. Worst of all, they don’t even need to get it right.

I heard a psychologist on a radio show a month ago say that the sensationalism is a major contributor to these acts. As much as the fame, it’s the families reactions and the pictures of the victims that triggers these things.

One government entity (Air Force) fails to notify another (FBI) that the shooter was discharged for what equates to a felony in the civilian world and more government gun control is needed? I can’t possibly be for more government regulation on freedom when the laws and measures in place now are not properly instituted.

Am I for reasonable gun control? Yes. Do I have a problem waiting 3+ days and passing a background check? No. Do I believe that additional gun control will prevent people with criminal intentions from carrying out what they want to do?No! Do I believe semi-automatic, militaristic style weapons should be kept out of the hands of felons? Absolutely! Do I believe those same weapons should be kept out of mine? No, if you understand the intent of the 2A, you will understand why I feel this way.

On a side note, I have watched all lot of people I am associated with on social media scream out against guns after the Las Vegas and now Texas shootings. However, I did not see one single mention from any of those same people when the guy in New York rented a truck and proceeded to drive into a crowd, killing and injuring many. This to me is evidence that many (all?) of the people I am associated with on social media are sheep and will only cry when main stream media tells them to.

What I am waiting and hoping for is that the media will be able to name the individual government bureaucrat who failed to report this felon to the FBI and therefore, quite literally, allowed this tragedy to happen. I won’t hold my breath however because it seems that there is a level of bureaucrat who can never be named and held accountable despite being on the public payroll. If it was anyone with the title of manager or above, they would have already been crucified in the media, but below that it seems they are never named no matter how many lives their screwup cost.

As we saw last week in New York, I have little faith that somehow limiting access to one tool that can be used for mass killing will in any way stop a perp who is determined to kill many, many people. Also, when low-level bureaucrats can’t even manage to enforce a single law with rigor, adding MORE laws seems totally unlikely to me to make any difference as it’s just more chances for cross-agency and bureaucratic cockups.

The root cause is not guns. The root cause is untreated mental illness and our country’s inability to implement virtually ANY proactive means of confining a mentally ill individual for treatment even if it is against their will. Unless, of course, they harm or kill someone.

Unless we get some kind of universal ability to treat mentally ill individuals for the good of both them and society, nothing’s going to change IMO.

Grouse

jake47 wrote:

On a side note, I have watched all lot of people I am associated with on social media scream out against guns after the Las Vegas and now Texas shootings. However, I did not see one single mention from any of those same people when the guy in New York rented a truck and proceeded to drive into a crowd, killing and injuring many. This to me is evidence that many (all?) of the people I am associated with on social media are sheep and will only cry when main stream media tells them to.

Are you suggesting that those same people should be screaming against truck rentals? Because that would be the logical correlation to your argument – both the gun and truck being the weapon in these cases. I am guessing you are suggesting that they should have been screaming out against…well what? people from certain countries shouldn’t be here? certain faiths? Not exactly sure what they should have been screaming out against in your eyes but if you are attempting to correlate gun control with people control those are different subjects entirely

crappie55369 wrote:

Are you suggesting that those same people should be screaming against truck rentals? Because that would be the logical correlation to your argument – both the gun and truck being the weapon in these cases. I am guessing you are suggesting that they should have been screaming out against…well what? people from certain countries shouldn’t be here? certain faiths? Not exactly sure what they should have been screaming out against in your eyes but if you are attempting to correlate gun control with people control those are different subjects entirely

I think that he was simply suggesting that a huge majority in this country are sheep lead by the media. Nothing more.

More laws will never make a difference, regardless of the tool used for killing.

What could possibly make an impact is the means for people with mental illnesses to actually get in to see a psychiatrist in reasonable amount of time. As an example, a local kid was begging for help and ultimately had self inflicted wounds. Suicide attempt for a generic term. No beds were available at any local hospitals and he was turned over to the state. Then transported to Winnebago, and just ran through “the system”. The staff doctor put this kid on meds strong enough to knock out a horse. Few days later, released to his parents. Parents tried for MONTHS to get him into a psychiatrist. It was 8 or 9 months later.
Just to find out the meds tis kid was put on was way too strong and did more damage than good. It can take 1 to multiple years to get med levels and types prescribed correctly. It takes a huge amount of time. If done correctly, the vast majority of properly treated individuals function just fine and are a great asset to our society.

But there lies the major issue. Way too many go untreated or have no reasonable access to the care they need. Additionally, there is no way to force an adult individual into seeking care. So, why is America in the top 3 for mental health issues, why are we one of the worst countries for treating it, and why do we place blame everywhere else and not address a major issue that is in our face.

I was asked earlier if I would support connsessions in gun laws and taxes/medical expenses. Obvious answer for me is YES. However, it’s not compiling more worthless laws, it’s getting the help out to those that need it. Itsnt that part of living together as a society?

Enjoy!

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer – The New York Times
https://apple.news/AOX9I5Q-nQ8uBJ-6oiHqgQw