|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 6, 2019 12:07:22 GMT -5
True. Here's the tricky thing. The FBI found that had been diagnosed....meaning that they were actually under the supervision of healthcare professional. How do you quantify those that didn't get diagnosed? How many of the 4/5 of those incidents would've been labeled with having some sort of mental illness, had they gone to a mental health professional for a diagnosis? Do you know how many americans go through life with undiagnosed depression? Last I've seen that figure is that roughly 6-8% of Americans suffering from undiagnosed depressions at once - do that math, which isn't an insignificant number. I was one of them a few years back... and I was really in a dark place. It didn't make me want to go "pew pew" on strangers... but, I can certainly see how it could influence someone else. I had help from my employer's EAP program, which all I need was to talk to a stranger trained to work it out. That's just depression. Trump's rhetoric didn't make that El Paso shooter pull the trigger, nor did Elizabeth Warren make that Dayton shooter, nor should Bernie Sanders be held responsible for the almost massacre on a congressional softball team. Neither is access to firearms is causing these shooters to commit these acts of violence. We need to have a conversation about the fundamentals of what is causing these degenerates to do these evil deeds.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 6, 2019 12:11:20 GMT -5
Edit: what I'm advocating for to curb extremism is tearing off part of the first amendment, which most would think heresy. For example, these people on 8chan pushing each other on and giving advice? Hold them legally responsible as an accessory to murder or for incitement, these people do it together. We already have incitement laws on the books. Are you saying that we'd lower it? Really? The Dayton shooting was expelled from school TWICE for having a Rape list and Kill list. How is that *not* a red flag?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 6, 2019 12:20:05 GMT -5
But here the tricky thing works against you in two ways. 1. If you can't prove the other 4/5ths had mental illness how can you restrict their access to guns? 2. You say these people were the only ones diagnosed, but you have no proof to back up anything for the other 4/5ths. You have as much proof to say for example that aliens made them do it. The FBI report even states that up to 50% of Americans may have suffered or suffers from some form of mental illness at one point. This means by the logic of putting the onus on mental illness that half the population should be kept away from guns!
So then it boils back down to the fact if you think that Americans are uniquely homicidal given the mass shooter incidents?
Also Trump speaks exactly the same buzzwords white supremacists do. Trump normalizes them, brings them out toward the mainstream more, they feel more emboldened. The statistics back this up. Meanwhile there is no link to Dayton and Warren except some tweets, meanwhile the El Paso shooter's manifest could almost be slipped into one of Trump's rallies without batting an eyelash.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 6, 2019 12:28:02 GMT -5
Incitement laws are woefully insufficient in regards to this type of domestic terrorism. Look more toward the approach of fighting jihadist terrorism, it is much more invasive and hard edged towards potential supporters.
The Dayton shooter had multiple red flags and yet here he was with the tools to kill. That problem has existed forever yet even now Trump threatens to veto tighter background checks and Mitch doesn't want to vote on it. Again, they only pay lip service in the aftermath of tragedy. Ban everyone who made such remarks from owning guns? Sure, lets see them pass the legislation.
Again, guns are not the problem, they just present an extremely deadly and easy escalation for the problem. Taking out guns would not solve the problem, it would just dramatically reduce the cost in innocent victims of the problem.
|
|
dusa
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 555
|
Post by dusa on Aug 6, 2019 12:32:35 GMT -5
If guns don’t make a difference, then we don’t need them. What’s even the point of the 2nd if all it does is giving us inanimate objects that have zero impact on the amount of violence we can inflict?
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 6, 2019 12:42:46 GMT -5
But here the tricky thing works against you in two ways. 1. If you can't prove the other 4/5ths had mental illness how can you restrict their access to guns? Strengthen access to mental health resources and carefully crafted red flag laws. Dude, it's simply recognizing that like all other health issues, there is a not insignificant number of mental illness that goes undiagnosed. I think there are a plethora if things that "makes up" the environment which allows for these individuals to devalue life. So does Bernie that inspires his almost-assassin. So does celebrity like Madonna in a freaking speech to blow up the White House. Yes, Trump is a nationalist. But a white supremacist? If so, he's the worst white supremacist on the planet. They're not mainstream anything. They're ridiculed and rightly so. So, I think this is something you really want to believe in while ignoring the root of the problems allowing these shooters to devalue life. That's not "some tweets"... it's literally his whole online profile and anecdote from people in his circle. He's a lefty. Through and through. The nationalism aspect of his manifesto... maybe. But, the rest is pure lefty trope (ie, anti-capitalism, anti-corporatism, eco-facsist). I don't think he's particularly political has his manifesto is all over the map (like the Christchurch shooting). I think he's a copy-cat of Christchurch looking for mayhem rather than to make a political point.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 6, 2019 12:46:19 GMT -5
If guns don’t make a difference, then we don’t need them. What’s even the point of the 2nd if all it does is giving us inanimate objects that have zero impact on the amount of violence we can inflict? You are putting words in my mouth d... I'm not saying that they don't have an impact of the amount of violence. So...what's your plan?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 6, 2019 12:57:30 GMT -5
But strengthening resources gives no certainty of upping that 1/5th number, what if you invest all those resources and find out the number keeps sticking to 1/5th of cases?
Again, for the environment, can you point out what makes the US unique to the rest of Europe besides access to guns? We too have the break up of the traditional family unit/community, mental illness and the other factors you mentioned.
What did Sanders exactly say to inspire his assassin? This is all what aboutism to start on crap like Madonna. Trump is in a unique position to promote this sort of crap even unwillingly. Lets play a game for example, Hitler never directly advocated for the Holocaust. Sure he didn't like the Jews and railed against them but he never said to kill them. Not speaking the exact words means nothing in that context, don't you agree? Trump is somewhere on that line between full blame and no blame, but he certainly is much further along than Sanders or Madonna.
When I hear white supremacism being fought with the same vigor as 'radical Islam'is fought by the Republicans and Trump in speeches and tweets I might believe you on the ridiculed part.
The Dayton argument is laughable, what do you have to point out a political connection? El Paso is crystal clear meanwhile. If you actually want to start engaging on this level I fear that talking about political extremism is pointless.
The anti-capitalism/corporation stuff is no longer just left wing. It was a key platform of Trump: the elites, the free trade agreements and the big companies all shitting on the little guy. Its a populist platform with no ideological leanings, unless you want to argue that the El Paso shooter was a convicted communist? This is just deflecting now, like was said before, this guy drove 650 miles to do it, that isn't copy cat behaviour, he could have done it in his own town...
No, the whole right wing isn't responsible for El Paso. BUT if they don't want to be equated so easily they should rail as hard against it as they do against 'radical Islam'. But they clearly don't. Trump is the shining example of the shit show of hypocrisy on the two types of terrorism and he is the leader of the Republicans. Meanwhile his party is so scared of Trump's base they just meekly nod along because they know that they will get thrown in front of that orange bus if they step out of line.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 6, 2019 13:07:38 GMT -5
I'll point out trump actively spouts white nationalist (or white supremacist, they're interchangeable for the most part). He constantly talks about illegals "invading" and how they're taking over the country, all the while demonizing them by calling them rapists, criminals, and drug dealers or saying how people of color should go back and fix their own country before trying to fix America (ignoring the fact all but one were born in America...)
That's definitely mainstreaming white supremacism, and Trump dressing up in a white hood is not a requirement to promote white supremacy.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 6, 2019 14:05:44 GMT -5
Incitement laws are woefully insufficient in regards to this type of domestic terrorism. Look more toward the approach of fighting jihadist terrorism, it is much more invasive and hard edged towards potential supporters. I agree. The El Paso, Dayton and Garlic Festival shooting should be classified as domestic terrorism, in which should invoke additional police/judicial powers to address these things. Sort like a better crafted "Patriot Act" or the like. That's because most of the plans pushed by gun control advocates wouldn't have STOPPED those incidents from happening. There's no good faith debate about this problem right now. True. But "taking out guns" isn't an option. Be pragmatic about this guys... Does anyone really think that if we took away "military-grade weapons" (whatever that means) and hand guns from the public that the murder rate would drop? Only fools and gun-control advocates believe that. It isn't the tool, it is the lack of respect for human life that drives the carnage that we're seeing, and no amount of the current crop of gun control plans (ie, HR8 passed by the house) will change that.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 6, 2019 14:07:27 GMT -5
What happened to all the "good guys with guns"? I thought they were supposed to stop this kind of thing?
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 6, 2019 14:18:03 GMT -5
Overall I agree that a gun ban isn't an option when being realistic, because a ban simply doesn't stand a chance of passing.
But the murder rate would go down, simply because taking out guns removes a large part of the ease of killing when the impulse hits and makes it harder to inflict many casualties. Of course extremists and criminals might still find other ways, but other ways are harder. Bomb plots require much more work, which gives time to be discovered. People with a mental episode so to speak would have a much harder time killing many people when they can't just get their gun out. The murder rate wouldn't drop one for one, but it would have an effect on these mass shooting events. You basically take out a chunk of the 'casual' heat of the moment murders.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 6, 2019 14:22:41 GMT -5
But strengthening resources gives no certainty of upping that 1/5th number, what if you invest all those resources and find out the number keeps sticking to 1/5th of cases? Why not? Our society has been deplorable about mental health... from piss poor fundings to current laws making it difficult to adjudicate dangerous people's access to firearms to the stigma of mental illness. There are loads of things we can do to improve it. I don't think we're really all that unique. For the record, I'm not arguing that having access to firearms doesn't make it easier to rack up the number of kills. He was a BernieBro who was upset about the direction of this country. Just mentioning that she stood up on stage, after the Trump inauguration, stating that someone should bomb the white house. Don't handwave away rhetoric like these... it only weakens your argument that it's all ORANGE MAN BAD's fault. No. To do so is to absolve agency by those who committed these deeds. You can criticize Trump's rhetoric (I do as well)... you can criticize any group's rhetoric. But, the moment you assign blame to "x person" for the deeds of fucking evil, you're giving cover to the perp. Stop that. You're not listening then. Dude. He's a lefty. There's nothing WRONG with being a lefty. But, his leftist views is NOT THE REASON why he committed murder. Him, and only him, is to blame. I wish you'd apply this logic to the other shooter, rather than trying to score political points. Uh... I didn't disagree that he's a white nationalist. He is. But he's also sprouted that usually litany of leftist views. Or... it's entirely possible that he believed none of what's in his manifesto and wrote it purposely to drum up these sorts of antagonistic debates. Like one big troll act. Huh? Seriously.... wut? Trump is a national populist. Nothing like the anti-capital/corporation stuff seen on the left. As for the El Paso shooter, I'd be careful ascribing anything what he wrote in his manifesto. But, we can agree his actions makes him a white nationalist for sure. Took you long enough. Then you haven't been paying attention...
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 6, 2019 14:24:00 GMT -5
Overall I agree that a gun ban isn't an option when being realistic, because a ban simply doesn't stand a chance of passing. But the murder rate would go down, simply because taking out guns removes a large part of the ease of killing when the impulse hits and makes it harder to inflict many casualties. Of course extremists and criminals might still find other ways, but other ways are harder. Bomb plots require much more work, which gives time to be discovered. People with a mental episode so to speak would have a much harder time killing many people when they can't just get their gun out. The murder rate wouldn't drop one for one, but it would have an effect on these mass shooting events. You basically take out a chunk of the 'casual' heat of the moment murders. In two weeks after a total ban and successful confiscation, the black market for firearms would explode and we'd be right back where we are. See War on Drugs... See Prohibitions.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 6, 2019 14:48:50 GMT -5
When you start with the either/or absolutism about personal responsibility and all other motives be damned there is very little left to discuss on this subject.
|
|