School Shooting in Tennessee (6 killed incl. 3 children) (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that the mental health angle is used because it is easy to point to but impossible to solve.

But more importantly, the mentally ill is a group no one is worried about offending by pinning the blame on them. People with schizophrenia don’t have a very effective lobby. It gives everything else a pass.

My wife is a social worker and currently works with chronically mentally Ill adults who are in supervised, supportive housing via court order or family petition. Criminals who were deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Because one political party (who now scream for mental illness legislation) eliminated the state institutions and privatized them, most criminally insane are not in prison or a hospital - they are in a group home down the street from you right now. Child rapists, murderers and everyone in between.

In other words the exact people we are discussing here that shouldn’t have a gun.

Here in Oregon they can’t buy a gun. In Louisiana, only a handful wouldn’t be able to as most weren’t convicted of anything.

Also, I don’t know if there is enough money; but I am certain there aren’t enough mental health professionals to even begin to address this. And there aren’t more coming.

Requiring a Master’s, while offering $40k, for 60 hour weeks to deal with the lowest rung of society; with no resources or hope of meaningful advancement, isn’t exactly a great job pitch. At least teachers get their summer off.

The fact is, those that work within the system were in it themselves more often than not. The foster care system is basically run by former foster kids. Thank jeebus Dave Thomas of Wendy’s was a foster kid or nationally we wouldn’t even have a program. Literally no national foster program.

Since my preferred method of only allowing flintlocks and muskets for gun owners won’t pass the NRA sycophants, for me, you need to focus on the next best thing - keeping weapons away from these people.

That means much stricter national gun laws. Perhaps use my state as a guide. Once I. Effect, we will have the strictest gun laws in America but we also issue more hunting tags than most other states. Hunting was not affected outside of the safety class

Oregon’s new law (when it goes into effect) : Measure 114 passed in November carried by voters in the state’s urban centers. The new law, will require anyone purchasing a firearm to first take a gun safety course and obtain a permit. It also bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds and closes the so-called Charleston loophole, the federal law which allows a firearms transfer to go forward if a background check is not completed after three days.

Registration at purchase. Closes the Charleston loophole. No straw purchases without background check, limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Anyone want to argue that isn’t reasonable?
 
Maybe go with whatever an "Assault Weapon" was in 1994. Seemed to work pretty well, maybe start there.

DDD39F5C-AECE-4898-BE5E-95649E4D0608.jpeg
I would be good with this. The only thing I disliked about this ban was what they did to the Garand. Beyond that go for it.
 
I believe that the mental health angle is used because it is easy to point to but impossible to solve.

But more importantly, the mentally ill is a group no one is worried about offending by pinning the blame on them. People with schizophrenia don’t have a very effective lobby. It gives everything else a pass.

My wife is a social worker and currently works with chronically mentally Ill adults who are in supervised, supportive housing via court order or family petition. Criminals who were deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Because one political party (who now scream for mental illness legislation) eliminated the state institutions and privatized them, most criminally insane are not in prison or a hospital - they are in a group home down the street from you right now. Child rapists, murderers and everyone in between.

In other words the exact people we are discussing here that shouldn’t have a gun.

Here in Oregon they can’t buy a gun. In Louisiana, only a handful wouldn’t be able to as most weren’t convicted of anything.

Also, I don’t know if there is enough money; but I am certain there aren’t enough mental health professionals to even begin to address this. And there aren’t more coming.

Requiring a Master’s, while offering $40k, for 60 hour weeks to deal with the lowest rung of society; with no resources or hope of meaningful advancement, isn’t exactly a great job pitch. At least teachers get their summer off.

The fact is, those that work within the system were in it themselves more often than not. The foster care system is basically run by former foster kids. Thank jeebus Dave Thomas of Wendy’s was a foster kid or nationally we wouldn’t even have a program. Literally no national foster program.

Since my preferred method of only allowing flintlocks and muskets for gun owners won’t pass the NRA sycophants, for me, you need to focus on the next best thing - keeping weapons away from these people.

That means much stricter national gun laws. Perhaps use my state as a guide. Once I. Effect, we will have the strictest gun laws in America but we also issue more hunting tags than most other states. Hunting was not affected outside of the safety class

Oregon’s new law (when it goes into effect) : Measure 114 passed in November carried by voters in the state’s urban centers. The new law, will require anyone purchasing a firearm to first take a gun safety course and obtain a permit. It also bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds and closes the so-called Charleston loophole, the federal law which allows a firearms transfer to go forward if a background check is not completed after three days.

Registration at purchase. Closes the Charleston loophole. No straw purchases without background check, limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Anyone want to argue that isn’t reasonable?
I find it all reasonable.
 
I believe that the mental health angle is used because it is easy to point to but impossible to solve.

But more importantly, the mentally ill is a group no one is worried about offending by pinning the blame on them. People with schizophrenia don’t have a very effective lobby. It gives everything else a pass.

My wife is a social worker and currently works with chronically mentally Ill adults who are in supervised, supportive housing via court order or family petition. Criminals who were deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Because one political party (who now scream for mental illness legislation) eliminated the state institutions and privatized them, most criminally insane are not in prison or a hospital - they are in a group home down the street from you right now. Child rapists, murderers and everyone in between.

In other words the exact people we are discussing here that shouldn’t have a gun.

Here in Oregon they can’t buy a gun. In Louisiana, only a handful wouldn’t be able to as most weren’t convicted of anything.

Also, I don’t know if there is enough money; but I am certain there aren’t enough mental health professionals to even begin to address this. And there aren’t more coming.

Requiring a Master’s, while offering $40k, for 60 hour weeks to deal with the lowest rung of society; with no resources or hope of meaningful advancement, isn’t exactly a great job pitch. At least teachers get their summer off.

The fact is, those that work within the system were in it themselves more often than not. The foster care system is basically run by former foster kids. Thank jeebus Dave Thomas of Wendy’s was a foster kid or nationally we wouldn’t even have a program. Literally no national foster program.

Since my preferred method of only allowing flintlocks and muskets for gun owners won’t pass the NRA sycophants, for me, you need to focus on the next best thing - keeping weapons away from these people.

That means much stricter national gun laws. Perhaps use my state as a guide. Once I. Effect, we will have the strictest gun laws in America but we also issue more hunting tags than most other states. Hunting was not affected outside of the safety class

Oregon’s new law (when it goes into effect) : Measure 114 passed in November carried by voters in the state’s urban centers. The new law, will require anyone purchasing a firearm to first take a gun safety course and obtain a permit. It also bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds and closes the so-called Charleston loophole, the federal law which allows a firearms transfer to go forward if a background check is not completed after three days.

Registration at purchase. Closes the Charleston loophole. No straw purchases without background check, limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Anyone want to argue that isn’t reasonable?

And then you have places like Texas, where state government has made it easier for people 18 and older to own, possess, and carry firearms. No license, no training required.

The kinds of changes we could have made have been the same for years. Decades. Instead, in our broken, irrational 2A political climate, we have governmental bodies making the problem of gun violence worse.
 
Not my point but yeah... Mine was called Marie Jannet...

My point was, making insurance mandatory only applies to those that would buy it and maintain it legally (I.e. All gun owning law abiding citizens that don't plan to immediately shoot up a place, and immediately off themselves).... Hence having zero impact on these situations, or especially all the other situations (like 99% of the other situations where kids are killed by gun fire and no one seems to care) and kids are killed by guns that were stolen or gotten illegally. Mandating insurance would have one impact... taking more money from citizens that don't break the law... and making huge insurance companies richer. With that said, I am not sure there is an Insurance Company on the planet that would touch this with a 10 ft pole... JMO.

Thats the argument? that mandating insurance is "taking more money from citizens" ?


you know how insurance works, right?
 
Thats the argument? that mandating insurance is "taking more money from citizens" ?


you know how insurance works, right?
it's that along with the flawed argument that if it won't 100% fix the problem, we shouldn't try it. Apparently preventing some child deaths is not worth the effort, as only a few lives will be saved.
 
Thats the argument? that mandating insurance is "taking more money from citizens" ?


you know how insurance works, right?
I think the problem would be the poor. Let’s take the inner city population. How will they be effected when it seems they can barely afford car insurance. I mentioned this in the first few pages when I suggested insurance.
 
you know how insurance works, right?

Does it work? Insurance takes up roughly 25% of my monthly budget or more... and provides almost nothing in return when I most need it... and when it does by some miracle make me whole or provide for what it's supposed to... They drop me, make my premiums unbearable, or simply pack up and leave... not sure how any of that works for anything else... and it sounds nearly laughable in terms of how it'd work for deadly weapons.

Also - someone that buys weapons legally and wants to kills a bunch of kids and off themselves... Isn't paying premiums or buying insurance.... Neither are people who get them illegally and use them to kill the other 99% of kids under 17 that are murdered every year by guns that are not within the walls of a school. Which I have already provided a link to for reference.

I am all for trying different things on many different levels to stop this stuff from happening... but it can't be things that literally only impacts people with no intentions of doing this stuff (I.e. Legal gun owners that pay their insurance premiums), and doesn't provide for some type of earnest effort to ID these Psychopathic people and get them help before they murder kids, and keep weapons specifically out of their reach.... and doesn't address a single thing about what causes 99% of child deaths by gun in the US.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem would be the poor. Let’s take the inner city population. How will they be effected when it seems they can barely afford car insurance. I mentioned this in the first few pages when I suggested insurance.

And?

Im not following the argument that its cost prohibitive.

Shoot, everything is cost prohibitive when you are poor. You buy a car, go to register car, the first thing you must show is proof of insurance. Why does assualt style weapon ownership have to be different?

( and again, to be clear, im not talking about a .22 )

If you are poor and spending $600 ~ on an assault style weapon, the first question is why? $600 goes a long way to pay bills/grocery etc. Yet its being spent on an item of want. a "luxury" item that you shouldnt have to begin with.

Its not discriminitory. Owning an assault style weapon, while its within our constitutional rights, is not a necessity. Its a desirable item that has inherent dangers associated with and if you cannot meet minimal requirements ( aka insurance ) to own, then sorry you dont get to own.

Just like a car

just like a home.

just like anything else that carries "risk".

Responsible folks manage risk. Irresponsible folks take risk. If you want to own, you better be prepared to manage risk.
 
I think the problem would be the poor. Let’s take the inner city population. How will they be effected when it seems they can barely afford car insurance. I mentioned this in the first few pages when I suggested insurance.
To be fair, if you're that poor why are you spending the money on a firearm? They aren't exactly inexpensive.
 
I believe that the mental health angle is used because it is easy to point to but impossible to solve.

But more importantly, the mentally ill is a group no one is worried about offending by pinning the blame on them. People with schizophrenia don’t have a very effective lobby. It gives everything else a pass.

My wife is a social worker and currently works with chronically mentally Ill adults who are in supervised, supportive housing via court order or family petition. Criminals who were deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Because one political party (who now scream for mental illness legislation) eliminated the state institutions and privatized them, most criminally insane are not in prison or a hospital - they are in a group home down the street from you right now. Child rapists, murderers and everyone in between.

In other words the exact people we are discussing here that shouldn’t have a gun.

Here in Oregon they can’t buy a gun. In Louisiana, only a handful wouldn’t be able to as most weren’t convicted of anything.

Also, I don’t know if there is enough money; but I am certain there aren’t enough mental health professionals to even begin to address this. And there aren’t more coming.

Requiring a Master’s, while offering $40k, for 60 hour weeks to deal with the lowest rung of society; with no resources or hope of meaningful advancement, isn’t exactly a great job pitch. At least teachers get their summer off.

The fact is, those that work within the system were in it themselves more often than not. The foster care system is basically run by former foster kids. Thank jeebus Dave Thomas of Wendy’s was a foster kid or nationally we wouldn’t even have a program. Literally no national foster program.

Since my preferred method of only allowing flintlocks and muskets for gun owners won’t pass the NRA sycophants, for me, you need to focus on the next best thing - keeping weapons away from these people.

That means much stricter national gun laws. Perhaps use my state as a guide. Once I. Effect, we will have the strictest gun laws in America but we also issue more hunting tags than most other states. Hunting was not affected outside of the safety class

Oregon’s new law (when it goes into effect) : Measure 114 passed in November carried by voters in the state’s urban centers. The new law, will require anyone purchasing a firearm to first take a gun safety course and obtain a permit. It also bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds and closes the so-called Charleston loophole, the federal law which allows a firearms transfer to go forward if a background check is not completed after three days.

Registration at purchase. Closes the Charleston loophole. No straw purchases without background check, limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Anyone want to argue that isn’t reasonable?
It's all reasonable and all stuff I would consider middle of the road politically speaking.

But it would be labeled as extreme, a slippery slope, and ultimately wouldn't go anywhere.

And that is the issue imo with 'both sidesing' this equally.. yes there are extremes on both sides, as always, however on this particular issue regarding guns there's only one side that is openly and loudly against any sort of compromise.
 
And?

Im not following the argument that its cost prohibitive.

Shoot, everything is cost prohibitive when you are poor. You buy a car, go to register car, the first thing you must show is proof of insurance. Why does assualt style weapon ownership have to be different?

( and again, to be clear, im not talking about a .22 )

If you are poor and spending $600 ~ on an assault style weapon, the first question is why? $600 goes a long way to pay bills/grocery etc. Yet its being spent on an item of want. a "luxury" item that you shouldnt have to begin with.

Its not discriminitory. Owning an assault style weapon, while its within our constitutional rights, is not a necessity. Its a desirable item that has inherent dangers associated with and if you cannot meet minimal requirements ( aka insurance ) to own, then sorry you dont get to own.

Just like a car

just like a home.

just like anything else that carries "risk".

Responsible folks manage risk. Irresponsible folks take risk. If you want to own, you better be prepared to manage risk.
I was under the impression it was for any firearm not just an AR. If we are talking just AR’s sure. But if an older lady has a 38 special for home protection and can’t afford insurance aren’t we kind of circumventing her 2nd Amendment rights?
 
Does it work? Insurance takes up roughly 25% of my monthly budget or more... and provides almost nothing in return when I most need it... and when it does by some miracle make me whole or provide for what it's supposed to... They drop me, make my premiums unbearable, or simply pack up and leave... not sure how any of that works for anything else... and it sounds nearly laughable in terms of how it'd work for deadly weapons.

Also - someone that buys weapons legally and wants to kills a bunch of kids and off themselves... Isn't paying premiums or buying insurance.... Neither are people who get them illegally and use them to kill the other 99% of kids under 17 that are murdered every year by guns that are not within the walls of a school. Which I have already provided a link to for reference.

I knew it.

3/4 of SE LA feels the way you do right now. Ill just say this ( to get back on track )

From a pure numbers standpoint - there is not another product in which you can pay $3000/yr and in an event of a total loss, recoup $300,000 or more.

If there was, we would all have it. If you could afford $300,000 outright, then you arent required to carry insurance. you can self-insure. ( aka home paid for, or afford attorney when you hit someone to defend you from suit )

anyway, i senses the bias when i brought up the idea of insurance. This confirmed it. Sorry you feel the way you do, but insurance works. Every day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom