Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

In doing more research I have come across a very disturbing entry in an article that sheds new light upon my initial OP as well as other posts within this thread...

Are there any warning signs that a person maybe getting ready to commit an atrocity such as this?

There are always countless warning signs observed by nearly everyone who has had contact with the person and often for years. Unfortunately, those warning signs are not very specific and so they apply to many people who will never be violent toward anyone but themselves and they apply to many people for short term reasons that will go away. In order to be able to catch in your net, everyone who will do a mass murder, you need to err on the side of catching hundreds or thousands of people with similar behaviors who will never commit a mass murder no matter what you do. When prediction suffers form that problem, it is necessary to be very thoughtful about what you do to the false positives who you identify as having some of the warning signs. This is easy to prevent among employees or students on a campus or patients in hospital, and very difficult to prevent in society at large under our system of law.

emphasis mine

Source

Now, though this article is a few years old, it does support the concept of generalized removal of rights, group classification, and scrutiny that we've discussed. Please allow me to restate one partial sentence to reiterate and let you read it as it stands alone...

you need to err on the side of catching hundreds or thousands of people with similar behaviors who will never commit a mass murder no matter what you do.

Does that not scare anybody else? We need to err towards "precrime"? Am I reading this correctly and in context?

Another really interesting read I found is from a police related site, discussing the psychology of a mass shooter. I recommend reading it here.

One of the statements made in this article ( out of context to the rest of this post ) did strike me as it directly addresses the argument that too many guns are the problem. Read carefully:

He explains the difference between the suspects whose goal is to kill from suspects who just have an affinity for guns. For example, Welner says in a very security-conscious country such as Israel, where heavy arms proliferate, mass shootings of this kind do not happen. Welner attributes this to the differences in a person's sense of identity, accomplishment and masculinity, one that does not derive from the capacity to destroy others for the sake of destroying.

From above source and emphasis mine

I look forward to seeing the discussion tabled by these articles. And allow me to take a moment to thank everybody who has participated in this thread. This has been a very enjoyable debate for me. I hope for you all as well. ( That's not implying I'm nearly done - so don't smile! )

~Heff

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I had forgotten about the Battle of Athens...that is actually a good example.

However, I am a bit uncomfortable with guns and elections mixing, no matter what side it is on. And I also don't think we would ever see something like this in today's society...if people used guns to try to solve "voter fraud" today...they would be seen as the enemy.

I cannot believe any of us are comfortable with even the thought of that. I have not heard or read on any discussion forum so much as even a hint of anyone even thinly suggesting, much less any veiled threats, of such a thing.

So why are they preparing for it?

From the article:

As the brief explains, “the objective of this effort is to procure riot gear to prepare for the 2012 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the 2013 Presidential Inauguration and other future similar activities.”

Any sources I find for this lead back to the linked article and to the notice posted on fedbizopps

So, we know that it is a fact straight from the horse's mouth that it seems rioting ... of some sort ... IS being prepared for. However, if it were a real potential, don't you think we would have heard about it on some forum, some thread, some site, comments beneath articles .... something? .... anything?

Does it seem like yet another manufactured crisis to anyone other than me?

Or, in keeping with the thread title ~ yet another opportunity taken and/or designed to strike fear into the hearts of Americans? Feeding opinion to the public?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
To pretend there hasn't been the opportunistic use of events on both sides is disingenuous

NRA Sought Donations in Days After Colorado

Shootings

Three days after a gunman calling himself the Joker from the Batman series shot dead 12 people in a suburban Denver movie theater, the National Rifle Association sent out a letter asking for money.

www.bloomberg.com...

edit on 13-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Um I get those NRA letters every month....Have for years prior to the shooting and I would assume they would continue to come. Using something they do every month in an effort to show them as money grubbing or exploiting the situation is really disingenuous on your part... I would figure someone like yourself who usually does a lot of research prior to posting would have figured this out.....

reply to post by Hefficide


The impression I got from your first link wasn't a trend toward rights violation. It discussed the approach being taken by large businesses to prevent shooting candidates from reaching the breaking point.

We began looking at ways to involve human resources and the law department and other managers/supervisors in responding to workplace misconduct so that not only would we catch all of the cases early before there was violence risk, but we would also simultaneously be improving supervision, improving management, improving the participation of security or loss prevention in managing the business and the day-to-day operations. The consequence of that, when properly applied, turns out to be not just violence prevention, but also reducing costs from workers comp claims, from various types of fraud, accidents on the job, excess sick time, absenteeism, and a host of other problems employers face.

If applying this concept to government/society, I don't see it leading to an increase in institutionalization in the name of violence indicators, but more toward a stronger mental health establishment that is more accessible and involved than it is currently. I'm all for strengthening local institutions and introducing some sort of interaction with government beyond public schools. Mental health might be good a good place to start, and the increased presence and priority of healthier mind states could also go along way toward eliminating the stigma that seeing a psychologist or spending a few days in a mental health unit somehow makes a person less able.

The article, as I read it, argues for the establishment to involve itself in more minor conflicts in order to have a better feel for the potential of major conflicts.

In a better world, we'd have more psychologists and less cops...

From the 2012-2013 NYS budget report

Mental Health, Office of State Operations (S.6250-B) • The Senate denies the Executive’s recommendation to allow for outpatient capacity restoration of felony defendants or restoration at psychiatric units of local jails, or hospitals. Aid to Localities (S.6253-C) • The Senate modifies the Executive’s recommendation to specify funding for community mental health non-residential programs.

The Executive Budget recommends $3.5 billion in All Funds appropriations for the Office of Mental Health (OMH). This is a net decrease of $41.3 million (-1.2 percent). (Division of Budget site

Funny how in bad times cuts are made to society building institutions like mental health and education..

reply to post by MassOccurs


Unfortunately the running "in joke" these days is "We have mental health units... They're called jails". Here is a fairly good CNN article that hits some key points.

How does this relate to gun control? Easy...

Right now I, personally, have a mental health diagnosis. I am not considered a risk to myself or others so I take medication ( voluntarily ) and retain all of my rights - including my right to bear arms.

But take away my access to mental health care? Well then maybe I get sketchy... Maybe I don't necessarily go on a shooting spree... Maybe I just write an angry letter to the President or something like that - and find myself facing either Felony or Federal charges.

Bingo... I've lost my rights.

This all intertwines and becomes a self-sustaining beast. It's something of a perfect storm regarding the removal or all rights - not just gun issues.

~Heff

ETA: And Thanks for that link and your participation here Mass Occurs! Good stuff.

reply to post by Hefficide


I'm also diagnosed and feel I've benefited from health care...so many don't have insurance..these problems just stack up on top of each other and multiply. The government is becoming less efficient with a longer task list. Daunting stuff.

This thread has provided a great opportunity to talk and learn about two of my favorite topics, violence and mental illness, in the context of politics. Hope I haven't over responded.

Here's to hoping that none of the disaster scenarios play out and instead the potential for crisis inspires people to build better a society where freedom is the vehicle of progressive prosperity.