Another Mass Shooting in Texas

 

I have no idea what the solution is.

I mean, I do: intact Families and a culture that does not promote despair and rage.

But since that is not on the table, I have no idea. Taking away guns from citizens has never been shown to work in this nation. That seems to be all that is ever proposed.

Guns have always been in the hands of the people. Mass shootings are a sign of sickness in America as much as theft of AC parts. In the great depression, people did not rob infrastructure. We are sick and dying as a society.

Not enough people believe in anything but getting what is good for themselves or in hurting others because of their pain. It is the Republic of Rome in its last days.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 233 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    …the attachment of people to what they see correctly recognize as fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

    Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.

    Why do we have to explain a human right?

    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    I have made a simple point – that a society where guns are rare is safer than one where they are plentiful and easily obtained. I know the USA and Ireland are different. I know that Ireland has gun crime, but at a vastly lower level, and mostly involving criminals killing other criminals. When an innocent is killed or injured, it is seen as an enormous outrage, not a trigger for politicking and finger-pointing on all sides. How many people spent time today poring over social media hoping that the shooter was or was not of a particular skin colour? Because that it has come down to – is it “a white supremacist”, an immigrant, or maybe a transgender person? And then the different sides report or do not report the facts, based on their political leanings. And this goes round and round, with a heightened siege mentality on one side, and an arrogant dismissal of legitimate concerns about safety on the other. And more innocents die.

    If you fail to see a problem, you’re never going to solve it.

     

    It is a human right to defend oneself and one’s family, and arguably, one’s property. This isn’t up for debate. A gun is the most effective way of defending oneself. As a gun owner, I think I’m obligated to know how to use a gun effectively and not to be a danger to others. I take that responsibility seriously, as any gun owner should, and I don’t think I’m different in that regard. 

    BTW, not all problems have good solutions. 

    • #121
  2. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    If you fail to see a problem, you’re never going to solve it.

    Have you recommended how to solve it? I may have missed that.

    Because what I’ve gathered so far is you seem to be suggesting that widespread gun confiscation in America is the solution.

    First off, self defense is a human right (even the Catholic church recognizes it). And, secondly, it’s a big country with lots and lots of responsible, law abiding gun owners. Gun culture is a thing here and it isn’t about mass murder. Mass murder is a values/mental illness problem, not a gun problem. 

    I hear it’s best to stay away from east London due to knife attacks. A mass murderer mowed down people in his vehicle in a Christmas parade in Waukesha in 2021. Leaving law abiding people unarmed doesn’t seem like much of a solution. 

    • #122
  3. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    kedavis (View Comment):

    And isn’t it true that if you exclude large democrat-controlled/mostly-black cities etc, the US actually has a very low death rate from guns?

    I do recall seeing this.

    • #123
  4. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    If you fail to see a problem, you’re never going to solve it.

    Have you recommended how to solve it? I may have missed that.

    Because what I’ve gathered so far is you seem to be suggesting that widespread gun confiscation in America is the solution.

    First off, self defense is a human right (even the Catholic church recognizes it). And, secondly, it’s a big country with lots and lots of responsible, law abiding gun owners. Gun culture is a thing here and it isn’t about mass murder. Mass murder is a values/mental illness problem, not a gun problem.

    I hear it’s best to stay away from east London due to knife attacks. A mass murderer mowed down people in his vehicle in a Christmas parade in Waukesha in 2021. Leaving law abiding people unarmed doesn’t seem like much of a solution.

    The knife attacks followed the acid attacks. 

    BTW, is the shillelagh still legal in Ireland? 

    • #124
  5. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    BDB (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    And isn’t it true that if you exclude large democrat-controlled/mostly-black cities etc, the US actually has a very low death rate from guns?

    I do recall seeing this.

    Way back when Esquire was worth reading, someone wrote that “inner-city blacks and browns, and rural whites are given to offing each other at truly impressive rates . . . the rest of us are more likely to be hit by lightning than by a stray bullet.” But it was a long time ago when that was written. 

    • #125
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    If you fail to see a problem, you’re never going to solve it.

    Have you recommended how to solve it? I may have missed that.

    Because what I’ve gathered so far is you seem to be suggesting that widespread gun confiscation in America is the solution.

    First off, self defense is a human right (even the Catholic church recognizes it). And, secondly, it’s a big country with lots and lots of responsible, law abiding gun owners. Gun culture is a thing here and it isn’t about mass murder. Mass murder is a values/mental illness problem, not a gun problem.

    I hear it’s best to stay away from east London due to knife attacks. A mass murderer mowed down people in his vehicle in a Christmas parade in Waukesha in 2021. Leaving law abiding people unarmed doesn’t seem like much of a solution.

    The knife attacks followed the acid attacks.

    BTW, is the shillelagh still legal in Ireland?

    Gotta keep an eye on those foreigners, like Apu!

     

    • #126
  7. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such. 

    I think the right to self-defense is a human right.  Probably the most primary human right. 

    • #127
  8. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such. 

    It is a human right no matter where it’s written.  The Constitution does not give us our rights — it protects them.

    • #128
  9. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    It is a human right no matter where it’s written. The Constitution does not give us our rights — it protects them.

    The Declaration: 

    . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . 

    Surprising how many don’t grasp that. 

    • #129
  10. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    I live in a country where it is very hard to acquire a gun legally. If a constitutional amendment equivalent to the Second Amendment were to be proposed here, I would vote against it. I might even campaign for a No vote. Thankfully, one of the things I don’t have to worry about in any meaningful way, is a risk that my kids’ school or college, or workplaces (or my workplace) will be shot up by some freak. I like that.

    I agree with almost every GOP core principle. But the refusal to recognise the connection between ready access to guns and “mass shootings” (in the proper sense of the phrase) leaves me at a loss.

    I’ve lived in Japan for decades. Japanese gun laws work because they are in Japan. They also have an annual visit by the police to verify household lists, and they have the right to enter and look about as they please.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

    I never woke up in the morning wishing I owned a gun. I never went to bed at night worrying that some randomer might decide to empty his gun in a school or shopping mall. I wouldn’t want to change that.

    That’s your country, and I’m happy for you, that you can live in a way you feel blessed. I sincerely mean that.

    But that’s not the country we hear in the States live in.

    My country knows only too well the damage caused by gunmen. Our strict laws derive from bitter experience.

    You sure that things didn’t get better possibly due to some other political accord? Or are the same gunman-inspiring tensions still simmering, but with loads of angry terrorists kicking rocks and moaning about how very ‘ard it is to get a gun? Nobody knows how to build a bomb? Will no one rid me of these inturbulent laymen!

    Flippancy is a poor form of debate about serious matters.

    So is ducking the question.

    Consider that the very recent history of stomach-churning violence is one of the things which keeps violence in check (as you claim) these days, not to mention a general acceptance of the resolutions to The Troubles.

    Your low levels of gun violence would probably be right where they are today, gun ban or no.

    • #130
  11. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Django (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    It is a human right no matter where it’s written. The Constitution does not give us our rights — it protects them.

    The Declaration:

    . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .

    Surprising how many don’t grasp that.

    Not really. Our founding documents are pretty unique in human history — appealing to the God-given, natural rights and constraining the power of government to infringe on them. I don’t think many countries are set up that way, if any. It’s more normal I suspect for “constitutions” to set up positive rights requiring lots of government action to “provide” for them.

    • #131
  12. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    It is a human right no matter where it’s written. The Constitution does not give us our rights — it protects them.

    The Declaration:

    . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .

    Surprising how many don’t grasp that.

    Not really. Our founding documents are pretty unique in human history — appealing to the God-given, natural rights and constraining the power of government to infringe on them. I don’t think many countries are set up that way, if any. It’s more normal I suspect for “constitutions” to set up positive rights requiring lots of government action to “provide” for them.

    Making them serfs at best.  But some people like it that way, including a distressing number of ignorant or defective Americans.

    • #132
  13. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    BDB (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    It is a human right no matter where it’s written. The Constitution does not give us our rights — it protects them.

    The Declaration:

    . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .

    Surprising how many don’t grasp that.

    Not really. Our founding documents are pretty unique in human history — appealing to the God-given, natural rights and constraining the power of government to infringe on them. I don’t think many countries are set up that way, if any. It’s more normal I suspect for “constitutions” to set up positive rights requiring lots of government action to “provide” for them.

    Making them serfs at best. But some people like it that way, including a distressing number of ignorant or defective Americans.

    Indeed.

    • #133
  14. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    …the attachment of people to what they see correctly recognize as fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

    Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.

    Why do we have to explain a human right?

    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    I have made a simple point – that a society where guns are rare is safer than one where they are plentiful and easily obtained. I know the USA and Ireland are different. I know that Ireland has gun crime, but at a vastly lower level, and mostly involving criminals killing other criminals. When an innocent is killed or injured, it is seen as an enormous outrage, not a trigger for politicking and finger-pointing on all sides. How many people spent time today poring over social media hoping that the shooter was or was not of a particular skin colour? Because that it has come down to – is it “a white supremacist”, an immigrant, or maybe a transgender person? And then the different sides report or do not report the facts, based on their political leanings. And this goes round and round, with a heightened siege mentality on one side, and an arrogant dismissal of legitimate concerns about safety on the other. And more innocents die.

    If you fail to see a problem, you’re never going to solve it.

    I think you have a false sense of being safer based on our sensational news. Remember, we are a country with 360 million people, open borders that let criminals waltz in, and a problem with black youth from fatherless homes who engage in gun violence in the cities.

    The difference between Ireland and the US re gun murders is <3/100,000. We don’t cede our right to self defense for such a puny advantage. In fact, armed civilians stop more crimes in progress than do police. I checked 2018 numbers, last year in FBI tables, and the difference in number of perps killed by cops and civilians that were ruled justifiable homicides (self-defense, for example) was only 109. We are a very large country with many areas not densely populated. People must defend themselves because cops are at least 10 minutes or more away. Most murders are in cities with strict gun control.

    Half of murders happen in 2% of the counties.  Blacks (13%), mostly young black males, commit 52% of murders. We have a culture problem, not a gun problem.

    • #134
  15. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    It is a human right no matter where it’s written. The Constitution does not give us our rights — it protects them.

    The Declaration:

    . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .

    Surprising how many don’t grasp that.

    Not really. Our founding documents are pretty unique in human history — appealing to the God-given, natural rights and constraining the power of government to infringe on them. I don’t think many countries are set up that way, if any. It’s more normal I suspect for “constitutions” to set up positive rights requiring lots of government action to “provide” for them.

    You are probably right. Every time I hear from some fool say that “it is time to declare [name it] a basic right” I want to spit up. Take health care. That is not a right but rather a service provided by specially trained people. What gives anyone the “right” to the time and labor of another person? The answer is: “Nothing”. 

    • #135
  16. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Django (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    It is a human right no matter where it’s written. The Constitution does not give us our rights — it protects them.

    The Declaration:

    . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .

    Surprising how many don’t grasp that.

    Exactly. And what the government gives you, the government can take away. Rights become permissions.

    • #136
  17. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    It is a human right no matter where it’s written. The Constitution does not give us our rights — it protects them.

    The Declaration:

    . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .

    Surprising how many don’t grasp that.

    Not really. Our founding documents are pretty unique in human history — appealing to the God-given, natural rights and constraining the power of government to infringe on them. I don’t think many countries are set up that way, if any. It’s more normal I suspect for “constitutions” to set up positive rights requiring lots of government action to “provide” for them.

    Besides, our founders didn’t want the type of governance they had escaped from.

    • #137
  18. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    It is a human right no matter where it’s written. The Constitution does not give us our rights — it protects them.

    The Declaration:

    . . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .

    Surprising how many don’t grasp that.

    Not really. Our founding documents are pretty unique in human history — appealing to the God-given, natural rights and constraining the power of government to infringe on them. I don’t think many countries are set up that way, if any. It’s more normal I suspect for “constitutions” to set up positive rights requiring lots of government action to “provide” for them.

    Besides, our founders didn’t want the type of governance they had escaped from.

    #YGDR!

    • #138
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    MWD B612 &quot;Dawg&quot; (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    I live in a country where it is very hard to acquire a gun legally. If a constitutional amendment equivalent to the Second Amendment were to be proposed here, I would vote against it. I might even campaign for a No vote. Thankfully, one of the things I don’t have to worry about in any meaningful way, is a risk that my kids’ school or college, or workplaces (or my workplace) will be shot up by some freak. I like that.

    I agree with almost every GOP core principle. But the refusal to recognise the connection between ready access to guns and “mass shootings” (in the proper sense of the phrase) leaves me at a loss.

    I’ve lived in Japan for decades. Japanese gun laws work because they are in Japan. They also have an annual visit by the police to verify household lists, and they have the right to enter and look about as they please.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

    I never woke up in the morning wishing I owned a gun. I never went to bed at night worrying that some randomer might decide to empty his gun in a school or shopping mall. I wouldn’t want to change that.

    That’s your country, and I’m happy for you, that you can live in a way you feel blessed. I sincerely mean that.

    But that’s not the country we hear in the States live in.

    My country knows only too well the damage caused by gunmen. Our strict laws derive from bitter experience.

    You sure that things didn’t get better possibly due to some other political accord? Or are the same gunman-inspiring tensions still simmering, but with loads of angry terrorists kicking rocks and moaning about how very ‘ard it is to get a gun? Nobody knows how to build a bomb? Will no one rid me of these inturbulent laymen!

    Flippancy is a poor form of debate about serious matters.

    So is ducking the question.

    Consider that the very recent history of stomach-churning violence is one of the things which keeps violence in check (as you claim) these days, not to mention a general acceptance of the resolutions to The Troubles.

    Your low levels of gun violence would probably be right where they are today, gun ban or no.

    If only because there’s not a lot of ethnic diversity in Ireland.

    • #139
  20. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    + the decline of institutions that foster family and community +

    Gee, how did this happen? We could fix it at gunpoint, so to speak.

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    + availability of guns

    What does this mean?

    Just that the availability of firearms is a factor in the frequency and deadliness of these incidents. If it were more difficult for these people to get guns, there would be fewer mass shootings. Not zero, of course, but fewer. And if they can’t get a gun and are still bent to kill a bunch of people, they’re less likely to kill as many with whatever other weapon they can find.

    There would also be more victims of criminals and wild animal attacks, not to mention the accelerating serfdom of the citizenry in the face of an increasingly fascist political climate.

    Besides, I suspect that budding psychos would quickly notice that all you need is a car (not to mention common fertilizer and the internet); a gun makes it easier to kill specific people trapped in ‘gun-free’ zones, not more people, so that last sentence is incorrect. 

    • #140
  21. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    …the attachment of people to what they see correctly recognize as fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

    Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.

    Why do we have to explain a human right?

    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    A lot of people don’t recognize free speech, religious freedom, or equality under the law as human rights, either.

     

    • #141
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Django (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    And isn’t it true that if you exclude large democrat-controlled/mostly-black cities etc, the US actually has a very low death rate from guns?

    I do recall seeing this.

    Way back when Esquire was worth reading, someone wrote that “inner-city blacks and browns, and rural whites are given to offing each other at truly impressive rates . . . the rest of us are more likely to be hit by lightning than by a stray bullet.” But it was a long time ago when that was written.

    Violence is concentrated in 2% urban counties, and usually 10 blocks or so within those counties. Also within counties dominated by Scotch-Irish dissent. We are way less violent than Europe if you throw those out.

    • #142
  23. W Bob Member
    W Bob
    @WBob

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    W Bob (View Comment):

    Psychiatric meds are the likely culprit. Both SSRIs and benzos have suicide warnings on them. And for SSRIs the suicide warnings are for the age group that usually commits these massacres. If you’re suicidal or homicidal, what holds you back from acting on your urge is fear, which is lessened by these meds. If you research all the info on these shootings, buried deep down in the footnotes you’ll usually see the shooter was on one of these type of meds. The shooting the other day in that hospital was done by a guy who was in withdrawal from lorazepam. These massacres really got rolling in the 90s after SSRIs became widely used.

    So maybe restrict these medications further ?

    That is stupid.

    It is like noticing that people in seatbelts die in car crashes therefore we should eliminate seatbelts

    We give people who are unstable medications. The more we do that, the more likely it is someone who is unstable will be on meds.

    While there is an important point there (equivalent to survivorship bias), the selection bias argument is weakened to the degree that SSRIs and such are overprescribed, particularly among youth.

    Seeing as how I believe that ADD/ADHD etc is ridiculously overdiagnosed by our feminized youth apparatus, you can see how I also believe the meds are overprescribed.

    Overprescribed? I have seen SSRIs help a lot of people over the years. I have 30 years of experience in the field.

    There’s a suicide warning on the FDA label for SSRIs. So I don’t think the analogy to seatbelts holds up. 

    • #143
  24. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    …the attachment of people to what they see correctly recognize as fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

    Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.

    Why do we have to explain a human right?

    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. That doesn’t make it a human right and I don’t recognise it as such.

    A lot of people don’t recognize free speech, religious freedom, or equality under the law as human rights, either.

     

    Actually, our Government is currently passing very draconian “hate speech” laws at the moment, laws which have full support of every meaningful political party across the (narrow) political spectrum and the media – who barely report on the issue, other than to support the proposed laws. The resistance comes mainly from a small number of politicians, and a large enough number of concerned citizens. The opposition is gaining a little traction, but is doomed to failure because of the stifling homogeneity of politics in this country. The government plan could be seen as tyrannical, but we won’t be organising militias yet. 

    • #144
  25. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    kedavis (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    MWD B612 &quot;Dawg&quot; (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    I live in a country where it is very hard to acquire a gun legally. If a constitutional amendment equivalent to the Second Amendment were to be proposed here, I would vote against it. I might even campaign for a No vote. Thankfully, one of the things I don’t have to worry about in any meaningful way, is a risk that my kids’ school or college, or workplaces (or my workplace) will be shot up by some freak. I like that.

    I agree with almost every GOP core principle. But the refusal to recognise the connection between ready access to guns and “mass shootings” (in the proper sense of the phrase) leaves me at a loss.

    I’ve lived in Japan for decades. Japanese gun laws work because they are in Japan. They also have an annual visit by the police to verify household lists, and they have the right to enter and look about as they please.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

    I never woke up in the morning wishing I owned a gun. I never went to bed at night worrying that some randomer might decide to empty his gun in a school or shopping mall. I wouldn’t want to change that.

    That’s your country, and I’m happy for you, that you can live in a way you feel blessed. I sincerely mean that.

    But that’s not the country we hear in the States live in.

    My country knows only too well the damage caused by gunmen. Our strict laws derive from bitter experience.

    You sure that things didn’t get better possibly due to some other political accord? Or are the same gunman-inspiring tensions still simmering, but with loads of angry terrorists kicking rocks and moaning about how very ‘ard it is to get a gun? Nobody knows how to build a bomb? Will no one rid me of these inturbulent laymen!

    Flippancy is a poor form of debate about serious matters.

    So is ducking the question.

    Consider that the very recent history of stomach-churning violence is one of the things which keeps violence in check (as you claim) these days, not to mention a general acceptance of the resolutions to The Troubles.

    Your low levels of gun violence would probably be right where they are today, gun ban or no.

    If only because there’s not a lot of ethnic diversity in Ireland.

    There’s a lot more now than the last time you looked. And it has brought some serious problems, but no gun crime yet. 

    • #145
  26. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    If you fail to see a problem, you’re never going to solve it.

    Have you recommended how to solve it? I may have missed that.

    Because what I’ve gathered so far is you seem to be suggesting that widespread gun confiscation in America is the solution.

    First off, self defense is a human right (even the Catholic church recognizes it). And, secondly, it’s a big country with lots and lots of responsible, law abiding gun owners. Gun culture is a thing here and it isn’t about mass murder. Mass murder is a values/mental illness problem, not a gun problem.

    I hear it’s best to stay away from east London due to knife attacks. A mass murderer mowed down people in his vehicle in a Christmas parade in Waukesha in 2021. Leaving law abiding people unarmed doesn’t seem like much of a solution.

    There’s an old joke in Ireland, about the tourist slowing down his hired car and asking a local man  for directions to some destination. The local man says-

    Well if I was going there, I wouldn’t start from here”

     

    Maybe everyone here (with a very few exceptions) is happy with the prevalence of guns in their society and does not see any connection between that prevalence and any  mass shootings – no problem no solution necessary.

    I’m addressing the very basic  point that a society without guns is a better place – in that sense- than one where they are too prevalent. It follows that I believe that working towards a reduction of guns in America would be a good thing.

    Obviously my opinion is not too popular here. I’m happy to have expressed it anyway. It’s time for work now.

    • #146
  27. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    Just that the availability of firearms is a factor in the frequency and deadliness of these incidents. If it were more difficult for these people to get guns, there would be fewer mass shootings. Not zero, of course, but fewer. And if they can’t get a gun and are still bent to kill a bunch of people, they’re less likely to kill as many with whatever other weapon they can find.

    Using that logic there must have been a real spate of these kinds of shooting in the 1920s when there were no gun control laws and guns were even more available than they are today. But there were fewer. Instead the worst massacre of that period was a bombing. Which by the way killed more people than the shootings in Nashville, Louisville, Allen – and today’s automobile mass killing in Brownsville – combined.

    Is it good for a lunatic to have access to guns or is that bad? That’s all I’m saying. Im all for non-lunatics having as many guns as they want. Again, if you have these other factors, as we do now but perhaps didn’t in the 20’s or other eras, easy access to guns is not ideal.

    No one has any specific policy solutions.

    Lock up lunatics?

    That is a very interesting subject. Supposedly, in 1960, we had 500,000 people locked up for mental problems. The country was much smaller then. Now it’s like 100,000.

    Democrats turned them loose- said it was cruel to lock them up.

    I’ve heard it was a bipartisan deal. I’ve also heard people blame Reagan. 

    • #147
  28. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    TBA (View Comment):
    I’ve heard it was a bipartisan deal. I’ve also heard people blame Reagan. 

    Didn’t Geraldo Rivera do an expose on mental institutions that got the whole thing started?

    • #148
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    W Bob (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    W Bob (View Comment):

    Psychiatric meds are the likely culprit. Both SSRIs and benzos have suicide warnings on them. And for SSRIs the suicide warnings are for the age group that usually commits these massacres. If you’re suicidal or homicidal, what holds you back from acting on your urge is fear, which is lessened by these meds. If you research all the info on these shootings, buried deep down in the footnotes you’ll usually see the shooter was on one of these type of meds. The shooting the other day in that hospital was done by a guy who was in withdrawal from lorazepam. These massacres really got rolling in the 90s after SSRIs became widely used.

    So maybe restrict these medications further ?

    That is stupid.

    It is like noticing that people in seatbelts die in car crashes therefore we should eliminate seatbelts

    We give people who are unstable medications. The more we do that, the more likely it is someone who is unstable will be on meds.

    While there is an important point there (equivalent to survivorship bias), the selection bias argument is weakened to the degree that SSRIs and such are overprescribed, particularly among youth.

    Seeing as how I believe that ADD/ADHD etc is ridiculously overdiagnosed by our feminized youth apparatus, you can see how I also believe the meds are overprescribed.

    Overprescribed? I have seen SSRIs help a lot of people over the years. I have 30 years of experience in the field.

    There’s a suicide warning on the FDA label for SSRIs. So I don’t think the analogy to seatbelts holds up.

    There are all sorts of warnings on medications. 

    The Suicide Warning is specifically for the fact that when very Depressed, one may not have the energy for suicide. There is a window where an antidepressant can give you more energy but your mood has not followed. Thus the warning. 

    I do, actually know what I am talking about. 

    • #149
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    TBA (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    Just that the availability of firearms is a factor in the frequency and deadliness of these incidents. If it were more difficult for these people to get guns, there would be fewer mass shootings. Not zero, of course, but fewer. And if they can’t get a gun and are still bent to kill a bunch of people, they’re less likely to kill as many with whatever other weapon they can find.

    Using that logic there must have been a real spate of these kinds of shooting in the 1920s when there were no gun control laws and guns were even more available than they are today. But there were fewer. Instead the worst massacre of that period was a bombing. Which by the way killed more people than the shootings in Nashville, Louisville, Allen – and today’s automobile mass killing in Brownsville – combined.

    Is it good for a lunatic to have access to guns or is that bad? That’s all I’m saying. Im all for non-lunatics having as many guns as they want. Again, if you have these other factors, as we do now but perhaps didn’t in the 20’s or other eras, easy access to guns is not ideal.

    No one has any specific policy solutions.

    Lock up lunatics?

    That is a very interesting subject. Supposedly, in 1960, we had 500,000 people locked up for mental problems. The country was much smaller then. Now it’s like 100,000.

    Democrats turned them loose- said it was cruel to lock them up.

    I’ve heard it was a bipartisan deal. I’ve also heard people blame Reagan.

    95% less beds. 

    Started in the late 60’s

    • #150
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.