It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

page: 16
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

What mental illnesses are covered?

Obviously those with a pathology that leans toward violent behavior.

I disagree that no true psychopath would fail unless they wanted to. That's just self defeatism (it won't work cause i say it won't)

If something fails, it doesn't mean give up immediately, it means examine the data, find the fault, come up with a solution, and retry.

I'm still not seeing any solutions to this problem by the pro gun crowd, am i to assume that means they see no problem with mass shootings? The lack of any ideas by the other side seems to suggest so.




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
But we are talking about firearms legally purchased by people who often have mental health problems. The core of the problem.


Any how would it have prevented the last shooting where the perpetrator developed mental health issues after purchasing his firearms?

The insurance i proposed is for the victims, and the families of these tragedies. I realize we can't prevent all of these events, but the public shouldn't have to foot the bill for the actions of a gun owner gone off his nut.


That is what civil court is for, to sue for damages. Should people have hammer or knife insurance since more people are killed by those than rifles?

It would also help pay to get illegal guns off the streets.


And this could be done by enforcing the massive volume of laws already in place .



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: XTexan

What mental illnesses are covered?

Obviously those with a pathology that leans toward violent behavior.

I disagree that no true psychopath would fail unless they wanted to. That's just self defeatism (it won't work cause i say it won't)

If something fails, it doesn't mean give up immediately, it means examine the data, find the fault, come up with a solution, and retry.

I'm still not seeing any solutions to this problem by the pro gun crowd, am i to assume that means they see no problem with mass shootings? The lack of any ideas by the other side seems to suggest so.


I think you underestimate a true psychopath, they are highly intelligent. You should research them, it's a very fascinating topic. No one is saying to give up, just that we are limited in the tools available to us.

I am the pro gun crowd, and I was under the impression we were discussing possible solutions, am I to assume you have no interest in this discussion?

The lack of ideas comes from the lack of a conversation. Connecticut's gun laws didn't prevent Sandy Hook, nothing the Democrats screamed in our faces after Sandy Hook would have prevented the incident in Houston, or the incident in California, or the countless incidents in Chicago. There is no clear cut solution. Both sides need to talk, but honestly, the anti gun crowd doesn't want to talk. They want to run the show and call the shots. Mental illness screening and treatment is a great idea, but it has problems and is not going to solve it by itself.
edit on 14-7-2014 by XTexan because: left out a word



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel

There is no such thing as natural rights.

All rights are bestowed by society upon the individual.

You see, a right is something you do not need to continually fight yourself to preserve. But rather the rest of society overwhelmingly respects voluntarily. And willingly fights on your behalf to preserve for you against the occasional deviant from social norms who begs to differ with regard to said right of yours.

If you have to keep fighting to exercise a right, that right is de facto non existent.

Rights which are consistently broken are as good as no rights at all.

Also, you clearly do not have a 'natural' right to life as you are mortal and can die of illness, cold, malnutrition etc. Or from an infection or predation by wild animals.

So, clearly, nature, as well, begs to differ with regard to even your 'natural' right to life, for instance.


your worldview is at odds with my world view.

I believe that morals and values and rights are universal, objective and absolute.
You believe that morals values and rights are subjective, derived from the society, and not absolute but rather situational and relative.

You are probably a post modern or new age believer.

theistic versus atheistic.

as such, your philosophy relies 100% on the foundation that is laid by the theistic world view that I enjoy. You cannot make sense of your world view without the thought processes that theistic believe.

so you are wrong on all counts because the thought processes of your world view are unsupportable in the absence of my world view.
welcome to reality.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Any how would it have prevented the last shooting where the perpetrator developed mental health issues after purchasing his firearms?


Are you certain of that? Perhaps the pathology was already present prior to the purchase of the gun.


That is what civil court is for, to sue for damages. Should people have hammer or knife insurance since more people are killed by those than rifles?


Who do you sue if the perpetrator killed himself? And we aren't talking hammers here, we are talking guns, deflection isn't helping the issue and its not a solution to the problem.


And this could be done by enforcing the massive volume of laws already in place .


Obviously it hasn't adequately addressed the issue. Those laws are enforced but it isn't helping the issue of legally obtained firearms being used by people that are crazy.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok



Great thread. I hate trolls, don't you?



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

the current laws on the books are not being enforced.
to quip that they are being enforced is a lie.

the best plan is to enforce the laws that have already been created written and passed.

you want a dialogue and a conversation, yet you ignore anything and everything that does not sprout from inside your own head.
it is very easy for pro 2a people to spot a phoney when they interact with them for a short while.

the disingenuous emits an obvious odor. it alerts the hearer that the disingenuous individual is lying and discounting their opinion even though from their mouth they say something different. you speak out of both sides of your mouth, or you speak with a forked tongue, as the Indians would have said.

that being said, i will not waste any more of my God given breath on a person who has ears but refuses to hear, has eyes but refuses to see. it is called willful ignorance and it is impossible to deny when it is entrenched so deeply.


edit on 14/7/2014 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Are you certain of that? Perhaps the pathology was already present prior to the purchase of the gun.


I can only go by the reports that show he had his weapons prior to his first domestic abuse report.

Who do you sue if the perpetrator killed himself? And we aren't talking hammers here, we are talking guns, deflection isn't helping the issue and its not a solution to the problem.


The estate.

It is not deflection, more people are murdered every year by hammers and knives than rifles. Are you not concerned about these stabbing and bludgeoning victims? Why are they not entitled to the same recourse you would like to see made available for firearms violence victims?


Obviously it hasn't adequately addressed the issue. Those laws are enforced but it isn't helping the issue of legally obtained firearms being used by people that are crazy.


Gun crime has been declining for decades, imagine what would happen if the stupendous volume of laws was more stringently enforced.

You still have not provided a detailed explanation on how to prevent this if someone deceptively answers the test and has intentions of homicide. How do you prevent that?

I already hear the answer, 'tougher testing'.

You have not fully addressed the fact that this test could be influenced by an outside source. You claim you want an 'independent agency'. There was supposed to be an independent agency checking political action campaigns, how has that worked out. All people have an agenda, the more involved with the process the more our rights are abrogated.

Additionally, the breach of privacy between the purchaser and his doctor (by informing the seller) is unacceptable. Are you going to honestly try and convince us the when Citizen X attempts to purchase a firearm and is arbitrarily denied that the seller, if so inclined, cannot leak that Citizen X has been deemed 'crazy'? This totalitarian approach to crime is despicable.





posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: spirited75

So, your avatar is a lie?

Interesting.

Those laws are being enforced, what the issue is, are the guns being legally purchased by the mentally ill.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok


Just keep in mind the 2nd can be repealed. All it takes is two thirds of the states to ratify a new amendment and legal guns go bye bye.


I would LOVE, just love to see that proposed by you and every other Anti-2nd Progressive.

Would LOVE it!!!!!!!!

I also love your mentality that people should capitulate to the bed wetting wants of Anti-2nd people, and allow further restrictions on a right.

Please, I beg you with all the sprinkles and sugar you can find.........push for the repeal. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.


I will relish this sight.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's where the confusion lies, the weapons used in these mass shootings are normally legally purchased.


America’s latest mass shooting took place just over a week ago when a 22-year-old college student with a history of mental illness killed three people with a knife in his apartment before going on a shooting spree through Santa Barbara, Calif. By the time he took his own life, six people were dead and 13 wounded.


www.washingtonpost.com...

As I said before, the gun isn't the problem in these mass shootings, it's the lunatics behind the gun.


He used a knife and a vehicle to kill people as well.
Where is your fake outrage for those killings?


Oh, I forgot, as pointed out by others here. Since the method was not with a firearm, you gloss over it.

All style and no substance.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

So yet another infringement on a right.

I ask again. When will you propose such infringements on other rights?



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Can you hammer with a gun? Can you chop an onion with a gun? No, you can't, you shoot to kill things with a gun.

Please stop deflectimg the issue.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Geez, you can kill with a hammer or a knife.


Guess you just don't have any better response.

Again, all style and no substance.


You care more about how someone is killed, then the fact they were killed.

The truth really does hurt.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Can you hammer with a gun? Can you chop an onion with a gun? No, you can't, you shoot to kill things with a gun.
Please stop deflectimg the issue.


Can you kill a human with either a hammer or a knife? Have more humans been killed by other objects than rifles in the last ten years?



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The subject is guns, not knives, not hammers, guns. Anything else is deflection.

Guns being legally bought by people with mental health problems that later end in a mass shooting.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
The subject is guns, not knives, not hammers, guns. Anything else is deflection.
Guns being legally bought by people with mental health problems that later end in a mass shooting.


So people with mental health issues should be allowed to get other weapons? Where is your outcry for the stabbing victims in California? The amount of people killed in mass shootings is small compared to the ones stabbed and bludgeoned to death by knives and hammers.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Wait so now its not just the mentally ill but anyone with the "pathology"

You realize that there are NO WAYS to diagnose mental illness

No test. No interview. None

Psychology is a psudoscience theres a thread around here about it ill see f I can find it

So what you have is a criteria for ownership that can be denied arbitrarily

If I dont like you?

Mentally ill

Dont like our government acions?

Metally ill (authority defiancd syndrome or some such bs . I forget the name j t can be looked up)

This thread needs closed



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The subject is guns, not knives, not hammers, guns. Anything else is deflection.

Guns being legally bought by people with mental health problems that later end in a mass shooting.


So, your okay with the mentally ill killing people, so long as it isn't with a firearm.


All style man.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What part of this is unclear?

You cannot kill as fast with a hammer or a knife as you can with a gun.

Not on the scale of a mass shooting.

This subject is guns, that's it. Deflect all you like, you are only doing so to not answer the question of what to do about people with mental illness who legally purchase firearms and then carry out a mass shooting.

You cannot ever carry out a mass shooting with a hammer.

You cannot carry out a mass shooting with a knife.

You carry out a mass shooting with a firearm.

What is the solution? How do we reduce the frequency, and severity of these mass shootings while respecting the rights of people that legitimately should have firearms?

Is obvious you don't like my solutions, come up with one of your own that isn't "enforce the laws we already have". That plan doesn't work as obviously the man in the op was able to get a gun legally and had a serious mental health problem.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join