NBC says mental illness isnt a major factor for gun violence

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, you think that "hate" is the problem. (I don't. Personally, I think the fear is the under lying problem)

Okay...
So...How do you solve it? Elect Marianne Williamson?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I just want to clear something up....

Red flag laws. You don’t support them?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

What about brainwashing (remember the YouTube video of Stephen Frye getting "assassinated" on stage by a previously hypnotized triggered individual...if true that was enlightening).

a reply to: Shamrock6

No, not generally. No.

Do you have an example of a new red flag law that isn't a slippery slope, that I might support?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, I sure don’t. I just wanted to be clear on who was getting bent out of shape over semantics and who wasn’t.

Mental illness needs to be addressed. Red flag laws are not the mechanism to do it. It baffles me the gymnastics people are willing to go through to try and make his support of red flag laws out to be a good thing.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hate and fear are both problems. Most people have brakes in their brain that stop them from killing people. Those impulses get controlled. When someone with those impulses no longer has those brakes I think we can all agree it makes it more likely they will act on it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

only theory i got for why trump is supporting it is he thinks it wont survive a constitutional challenge and while im not exactly happy hes tossing a group under the bus i think what hes doing with the federal courts is more important now in defending the second long term then getting upset at him for one of his many statements that i may not agree with personally

a reply to: Sillyolme

only one amendment was ever removed and good luck convincing enough states to call for a consitutional convention constitutioncenter.org...

Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. Including the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1789, the Senate historian estimates that approximately 11,699 amendment changes have been proposed in Congress through 2016. Only one amendment, the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition, was later repealed by the states. In simple odds, the chance of any constitutional amendment being repealed would be roughly the same as a person living to 80 years old being struck by lightning during their lifetime, according to National Weather Service data. And for the Second Amendment, which was rooted in the English Declaration of Rights a century before the Bill of Rights was ratified, the odds would likely be steeper. In recent years, three other amendments have been subject of repeal talk: the 17th Amendment (the direct election of Senators), the 16th Amendment (the federal income tax), and the 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits). None of that talk came close to fruition. The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.

too many red states to try, not enough blue states even if some purple states flipped either way too

en.m.wikipedia.org... look at that map neither red nor blue gets a 2/3rds majority and some of the blue states are pretty pro gun like nevada for example. as much as you want it to it wont be happening any time soon the best you can hope for is state gun control proposals . and as ca has been loosing the last few cases on its fire arm restrictions as well as NY but refusing to challenge the ruling to higher courts due to fears that they would loose at scotus and then have it be applied nationally, see California magazine size restrictions if they challenged the ruiling that went against them it could be applied to all 50 states which would irk NY and ca to name a few

a reply to: roadgravel

in the wide historical context people are less violent now then they were in the past but there are More people now then in ye old medevil times of bash each other in the face with clubs and swords , in the context of warfare very rarely are entire populations put to the sword as they were in the past

a reply to: matafuchs

because its an easy cop out to avoid any legislation that would be a death sentence as far as the bulk of the Republican electorate is concerned and even some red state democrats, pay attention to the montana govenor in future debates he wont be calling for gun control as that is a pretty big no from most of the people in montana , so it creates the illusion of doing something to quiet the masses but not actually doing much and i honestly dont see red flag laws surviving a constitutional challenge at scotus

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I'll be back later to respond to your twisted thought process...in detail. My girlfriend comes first.

Haha progressive mindset example here.

Completely pointless post other than posturing. 👌

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There you go again, blaming me for your paranoia.

It's not paranoia if its true. When has the government passed a law that can be abused without abusing it? We're not talking about some abstract, intellectual discussion... we're talking about an issue where red flag laws are being proposed. Red flag laws are ripe with potential for abuse.

What I tried to do, and apparently failed to do as it seems to have gone over your head, is give you the logic that is preventing us from agreeing. You seem unable to grasp the concept that someone might have a different viewpoint than you do. That's not how discussions work; that's how arguments work.

You actually make a good point with the poisoning. That's another way to kill a large number of people, and while it likely wouldn't have the same initial impact as "BANG! BANG!" the lasting effects would likely be much worse.

The President is suggesting taking guns away from the mentally ill, not me. I have never advocated that the government take away anyone's guns. I have never suggested that guns are anthropomorphic, and pull their own triggers.

You're going to sit there and tell me you do not support getting rid of guns?

OK, Sookie, I'm not going to take the time to go back through all you posting history to show you wrong; you get the benefit of the doubt this time. Given your position on other issues, I tend to doubt you deserve that benefit, though.

As for the anthropomorphic suggestion, I already explained that to you.

And... again, you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that I oppose red flag laws. Who are you trying to convince? Certainly not me; I'm already there!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: xuenchen
Many in the MSM and many politicians are worried stiff they will be exposed as sociopaths and psychopaths and the medical boards will classify those as mental illnesses and bingo, they get locked-up tight never to be heard from again !! 😎🎯😎

Hmm... RED FLAG Laws , 25th Amendment , the President is on their Agenda as Usual . Never Happen . He who Determines Insanity has to be Insane ..........

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

That's something I don't agree with in principle, and quite a risk as well. Even a hand-picked Supreme Court can rule opposite to the way one thinks they might... the whole point of the lifetime appointment is that no one, not the President who appointed them or the Congress, can exert undue influence on the courts.

That's also not Donald Trump's "style"... one thing I respect about him is he speaks his mind. It would bother me as well if he were to be feigning support for red flag laws in order to get political points, expecting anything passed to be overturned. If he changes his mind, I'll be left with a nagging concern about him at this point; if he doesn't, like I said, that's a major promise broken that will be considered on election day. It doesn't discount the good he has done, but it is a concern and a big one.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

That's something I don't agree with in principle, and quite a risk as well. Even a hand-picked Supreme Court can rule opposite to the way one thinks they might... the whole point of the lifetime appointment is that no one, not the President who appointed them or the Congress, can exert undue influence on the courts.

That's also not Donald Trump's "style"... one thing I respect about him is he speaks his mind. It would bother me as well if he were to be feigning support for red flag laws in order to get political points, expecting anything passed to be overturned. If he changes his mind, I'll be left with a nagging concern about him at this point; if he doesn't, like I said, that's a major promise broken that will be considered on election day. It doesn't discount the good he has done, but it is a concern and a big one.

TheRedneck

True , the President is Playing 4D Chess here Again .........

a reply to: TheRedneck

You're going to sit there and tell me you do not support getting rid of guns?

That absolutely true. I do not support the government taking away anybody's guns, unless they are guilty of committing a violent crime or a judge has issued some kind of credible protective order.

No, I'm not in favor of Red Flag laws. If you go through my posts, you won't find me promoting that the government should take away people's guns, only that they can and do, because of the 2nd Amendment's "well regulated militia" clause.

We've argued over abortion and women's rights....maybe some Trump policies and rhetoric on immigration and foreign relations. But you won't find me in a gun rights thread advocating for the government taking guns away. Although, I don't recall making the argument here on line, I do have a creeping support some kind of regulation on assault rifles.

The last time I shot a gun was the first time, when they taught us about guns and their use and respect at Camp Fire Girl summer camp when I was a teenager, and it was hella fun!

I don't own a gun, but I've considered buying one many times. I still might. But, I'd have to join a shooting range or something to relearn how to shoot, and all.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I do not support the government taking away anybody's guns, unless they are guilty of committing a violent crime or a judge has issued some kind of credible protective order.

Very well; I will accept that. It's an issue we seem in agreement on, and our agreement on the red flag laws, for me anyway, comes from the same thinking. Red flags are a way to eliminate guns from law-abiding citizens without making them illegal.

We've argued over abortion and women's rights....maybe some Trump policies and rhetoric on immigration and foreign relations. But you won't find me in a gun rights thread advocating for the government taking guns away. Although, I don't recall making the argument here on line, I do have a creeping support some kind of regulation on assault rifles.

Perhaps that's why I thought you were anti-gun. The two policies do seem to go hand in hand quite often, but that doesn't mean they have to in every case. My apologies for the assumption.

I will disagree on the assault rifle thing. There is no actual definition of an assault rifle, so those regulations would fall under the same category as red flag laws. If we don't like that gun, we just declare it as an "assault rifle" and it becomes illegal overnight by the stroke of a pen.

The last time I shot a gun was the first time, when they taught us about guns and their use and respect at Camp Fire Girl summer camp when I was a teenager, and it was hella fun!

Oh, they are fun! Back in my day, JROTC let us fire actual M-16s (locked on semi-auto) at the local VFW Hall. I loved it! A few of us got to see an actual M-60 in action as well. A few months back, a friend pulled his father's firepower out of storage and wanted to target practice, so I got to burn some gunpowder then, too.

I don't own a gun, but I've considered buying one many times. I still might. But, I'd have to join a shooting range or something to relearn how to shoot, and all.

I personally think everyone who is mentally stable enough should own at least one gun (but obviously I think that is a personal decision as well and I respect yours). If you do decide to take the plunge, be very selective in what gun you purchase. Everyone has their favorite gun which simply fits their hand and they like to fire. That's the key. Hold it, sight it (unloaded and safetied of course), heck, ask to fire it a couple times. Gun stores around here often have firing ranges in the back for that very purpose. Once you find that fit, you've found your gun.

Me? I'm a Smith & Wesson revolver guy.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Why would a study like that be needed?

We already know that most people dont shoot up crowds. Now dont we?

Oh, you're just so silly you!

I have the why in the post you responded too. Actually read it so you don't sound so silly next time.

www.congress.gov... well they seem to be going for something a bit more advanced then red flag laws now, they want to use the same tech the secret service has to stop threats to the president and apply it to "risks of violent crime via trucks/guns/bombs/knives etc" by letting local and federal law enforcement access the same tools. above its text to the bill its self

www.rubio.senate.gov... d-safety-act-of-2019-s.-265---one-page-summary.pdf pdf from rubios senate page

The Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety Act of 2019:Establishesthe Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management TaskForce to develop a National Strategy to prevent targeted violence through threat assessment and management, and evidence-based processesto identify individuals that exhibit patterns of dangerous behavior that may precede an act of targeted violence. The TaskForce will be comprised of threat assessment experts frommultiple federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to state and local law enforcement as well asmental health service professionals.Requires the Task Force’s recommendations for the development of theNational Strategy to

Ensure consideration of the different needs and resources of communities across the country, and will not be construed as a national standard. oInclude recommendations for the most effective leveragingof existing Federal, State, local, and Tribal infrastructure, workforce, and experience. oInclude recommendationsto increase collaboration between government agencies and private entities that focus on public safety responsibilities. oInclude recommendations on training programs to disseminate to State and Local entities.oInclude recommendations fora Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management School Violence Prevention Program to train and supporta multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional behavioral threat assessment and management processfor educational entities.Creates a grant programfor states, local governments, tribal organizations, educational entities, and nongovernmental organizationsto help establish community-based behavioral threat assessment and management units.Endorsed by the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP), Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange (GILEE),North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations (NCSBI), Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), San Diego County District Attorney, San Diego County Office of Education, the Association of University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD), and the University of California Council of Chiefs of Police

www.zerohedge.com...

The TAPS Act would encourage law enforcement to give everyone a personal threat assessment (kids and adults) and single out those that they deem as future threats. (Click here to see how our homes a given threat assessments.) "By bringing threat assessment experts together, and utilizing evidence-based behavioral threat assessment and management processes, we can bolster public safety by implementing strategies to identify and stop dangerous individuals before they can commit an act of violence. We have the expertise to combat the targeted violence plaguing our schools, places of worship, and public spaces, but we have yet to fully implement it to prevent attacks." The TAPS Act has all the earmarks of a paranoid police state that considers everyone a potential threat. The TAPS Act will create a "Joint Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Task Force to identify individuals that exhibit patterns of dangerous behavior that MAY precede an act of targeted violence." According to Senators Marco Rubio, Kyrsten Sinemea and Thom Tillis, the TAPS Act will create a national behavioral threat assessment and management process for everyone.

so profiling but to what seems to be a more extensive level then we see already, but hey its the cops who get to assign threat levels to every citizen kind of like china's social credit score but applied to how risky each member of society is based on social media posts,interactions with law enforcement and id assume comments reported by others

www.libertynation.com...

Hunting Down “Threats” The legislative guide released by Rep. Babin’s office, which presents guidance on how to support this act, helpfully offers a “frequently asked questions” section to allay the concerns of citizens who are not yet convinced. When answering the question as to whether threat assessment teams are an invasion of privacy, the document points out that, “[T]hese requests arise because the individual in question has made public statements verbally, in writing, or on social media, that cause concern, with no expectation of privacy.” This should give some indication as to who will be targeted if the legislation passes.It will be aimed at hunting down those on the internet who post “concerning” ideas, profiling them, putting them on a “threat register,” and beginning an investigation into their lives. However, those who pose a genuine danger may simply stop using the internet for such activities, making it more difficult to track people involved in actual criminal behavior.

no idea about this guy or his site but the "concerning ideas" aspect could be miss used by either party

more concerning will this get rid of Hippa? will your doctor have to talk to them or will they just access the records on their own? will school records no longer be sealed? what other records will they go through.