How do we prevent these mass shootings?

I posted 2 other sources with it, claiming the same thing. Whenever I posted it, it's been completely ignored by grabbers with no commentary at all. Denial is not debunking. I know it rips your grabber myths apart. Less guns = more violent crimes and more victims.

 

Well I wouldn't conclude thought itself would constitute a threat, but the actions of someone with bad thoughts might raise that red flag. Someone who is prone to violence, or flies off the handle for no reason, or abuses small animals etc... Take the movie theater shooter for example. His psychiatrist admitted she thought he was unstable and prone to violence, and a threat to himself and/or others, but in her opinion could not share this information due to the individuals right to privacy. By her own admission she knew he was a ticking time bomb, a threat, but wasn't allowed to intervene. That to me is nuts.

 

Ok... So where would people that practice religious sacrifice of things like Goats, chicken, dog, etc end up on there?

What constitutes violent tendencies? If someone gets In a drunken bar fight, they are not essentially a "violent" individual.

There's just way to many ways terminology can be twisted to benefit a political purpose, so I do believe in doctor-patient confidentiality.

What we should be doing is executing the pharmaceutical boards that keep pushing more and more anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, Atypical Anti-psychotics, etc (I would almost guarantee you more people have died because of the effects of abilify than they have from firearms, I deal with them on a monthly basis and the full strap down is REQUIRED.).

Stop putting kids that don't listen on Ritalin, Adderall, vyvance, abilify, etc. This coddling business is not helping. "Spare the rod, spoil the child."

We need to fix our mental health system, instead of feeding our children and the disturbed pills that they do not need.

 

In the absence of effective mental health care, all that is true, and will continue to be true.

Effective health care is possible, but we must demand it. To justify that, we need to be aware of what it is, and that courts and government have unethically and illegally denied it, then we demand they develop it.

Basically, all criminal offenders, violent or not, have a sociopathic tendency, and such is mostly treatable IF the unconscious mind is treated. Upon the first arrest, they could all be given an option, for OWN RECOGNIZANCE release, sentencing consideration etc. to take treatment. The idea is to get an understanding out into the public that this method works, and it does.

Media has to have a role in publicizing it.

When it is commonly known that treatment dealing with very difficult issues is readily available, and it has none of the BS drugs etc. of current treatments, we will al be surprised at how many people will elect to be treated.

No one like being unhappy, depressed, frustrated, anxious, afraid, addicted, angry, resentful, or violent. And if they do, they will eventually end up in jail and the first thing they must decide is whether they want to end the behavior or continue as an inmate.

 

The problem is mental illness, not guns. The Boston Marathon terrorists used pressure cookers! I've heard it said, although I haven't checked the data, that more people are murdered by hammers than by guns. All three of your scenarios are representative of mental illness. There needs to be much done to identify and treat the young, and to identify the cultural changes and community and family breakdown that creates such an overwhelming detachment from other humans and the deep isolation that is common in all mass shootings.

Supposedly, once diagnosed with mental illness, an individual is not allowed to purchase a firearm. I've hear that those who are registered medical marijuana users may not purchase a firearm. There certainly needs to be a more thorough background check. But, anyone can steal.

 

And most of the recent massacres have been committed by individuals who, rightly or wrongly, were able to pass background checks, multiple times, without any issues. Therefore nothing would have changed even if background checks could be mandated, and enforced, on all private transfers.

Explain how there is no truth to it then. If you were to succeed in implementing universal background checks, would you not be incarcerating individuals who failed to perform mandatory background checks before selling firearms to prospective buyers?

And yet it is apparently not an overwhelming consensus. Otherwise the majority of the people of the united states who disagree with the national rifle association would be able to outspend them with ease.

Eighty either percent of the united states population is approximately two hundred and seventy five million, four hundred and forty thousand individuals. If this amount of people truly believed that the national rifle association was in the wrong, even a five dollar donation from each of them would be more money than the national rifle association could ever hope to utilize. What is being discussed is funding in the amount of more than one and a third billion dollars.

If the vast majority of the united states does not agree with the national rifle association, what reason do they possess for not rising up to crush them outright? Let the people speak as one, and flex the full strength of their might in overwhelming fashion.

- - - Updated - - -

The point being raised is that you focus obsessively on regulating private ownership in the desperate hope of some measurable good coming about, while failing to realize that theft renders these efforts null and void.

 

The nation of Australia is a closed system, with far fewer firearms, and far fewer people, that must be taken into consideration. You have approximately twenty four million people to account for, as opposed to an excess of three hundred million. You also have less than five percent the number of firearms the united states possesses to account for. Any measure of success your nation may theoretically enjoy, is due simply to not having overwhelming numbers that must be accounted for daily. The smaller the amount, the easier it is to control. The larger the amount, the greater the potential for loss of control, and inaccuracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Then let each of them donate five dollars per individual to the cause, and use the accumulated one and a third billion dollars to obliterate the authority of the national rifle association. Otherwise they should remain silent, as they simply do not care enough to take meaningful steps toward success.

 

And who gives two sh&%$ what Australia does. I don't eat kangaroo.

 

Compulsory maintaining of paperwork under threat of felony conviction is not personal responsibility. Personal responsibility would be more along the lines of not going out and committing murder.

 

Right there

HUGE logical fallacy - HUGE

A lot of shootings are spur of the moment which is why you do not and cannot easily identify them beforehand

- - - Updated - - -

Or ensuring your gun is secured when not in use or ensuring it does not fall into the hands of felons

 

1) based on strawman - we never expected gun reform to have an effect on pub brawls - just to reduce the number of gun related crimes
2) sources are NRA astroturf - especially the NCPA - right wing pseudointellectual pile of redolent redundant reeking faeces
3) Since this myth (which has even been debunked by Snopes http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp) is so supported by faux sites on the net it sort of proves my point that Australia's gun reform left wet marks on LaPierre's pants
4) Correlation does not equal causation - cannot be repeated often enough
5) Would rather be punched in the face than shot in the face in any event

- - - Updated - - -

You should - lowest level of cholesterol of any meat

 

"How do we prevent these mass shootings"? We don't, as long as existing conditions remain as they are.

 

The best way to do that is to allow it to be always with the owner. The laws YOU advocate force carriers to leave their gun someplace.

 

a silly suggestion because Eurosocialist nations have had a tradition of preventing "the peasants" from having the same weaponry as the lords. we don't want that sort of fascism in our nation. And your beloved gun control laws played a major role in close to a 100 million people being killed by gun banning governments in Europe over the last 100 years

 

Game, set & match!!

 

The strident avocates for persisting in permissiveness need to allow the American people to take sensible measures to protect themselves.

The political mandate for closing loopholes that allow homicidal maniacs and criminals to easily obtain their killing instruments is also supported by law enforcement professionals charged with insuring public safety.

The few who wring their hands and bleat "We are all impotent! There is nothing we can do but passively endure our children being shot to death!" need to stop whining and allow representative democracy to be representative, not perverted by a powerful political lobby radically opposed to the public consensus.

 

A good start would be requiring Psychiatrists to get an MD's approval when prescribing psychotropic drugs. It's the one thing in common with the recent mass shooters.

 

Psychiatrists are MDs. and Psychologists (PhDs) cannot prescribe such medicines

 

Come & take them. We won't cave in like the Limeys & Aussies. Remember Lexington & Concord!!

 

Usually agree with you dude, but there isn't even correlation over time. Look at European countries - did the murder rate significantly drop when gun rights were weakened? The answer is a resounding no. They have dropped pretty much along international trends. The UK, for examples, has had a much lower murder rate than the US for well over a century - the gun ban didn't do anything to accelerate that. In fact in recent years, the US has strengthened gun rights and seen murder rates drop at a faster rate than most countries which weakened gun rights.

The simple fact is that guns are not the problem. It is cultural.

 

Goodo for the British and Australians spanking the gun fetish pantywaists into sensibility!

I'm just hoping that the American public gets its way and the background check loopholes are closed.

The militiamen who gave their lives as Lexington and Concord did so in order that such democratic governance might prevail, not so that some well-funded special interest lobby could thwart the will of the people.

 

Not necessarily - but CCW would be problematic unless there was some form of biosecurity

- - - Updated - - -

I see there is no validation of this

 

A gun culture is a gun culture.

 

That and teach kids to have better table manners.

 

I know Psychiatrists are M.D.'s, they should require a second opinion with another doctor signing off prescribing the psychotropic drugs are necessary.