Jim Jefferies talks about gun control:
VA shooting suspect was raised a JW! He mentions it on his Twitter account
by WingCommander 324 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
The Rebel
Obama on the election trail "The Bitter Speech" 2004" why Americans " Cling to guns"
" But the truth is....you get into some of these small towns in Pennsyvania and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest the jobs have gone, and nothing's replaced them they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.......
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, that they cling to guns or religion...."
So ok this was 4004, but from that speech the President of the United States, believes or at least claimed to believe people turn to guns when they loose jobs?
Was this staggering ignorance from the top?
Or do people turn to guns when they lose jobs?
The Rebel.
-
Boeing Stratofortress
Yeah, I suppose that Obama's remarks were a bit simplistic, but...
Or do people turn to guns when they lose jobs?
...the out-of-work Vester Flanagan sure as hell grabbed HIS gun, didn't he??
-
The Rebel
My sympathies to the victims friends and family.
In my opinion Flanagan was a coward and he wanted to kill. People can find any ecsquse to kill if that's what they want to do.
The Rebel.
-
freemindfade
As far as 'celebrity maniacs,' I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. I think that, you might be referring to well-known people who don't share your views. But, I'm not sure.
What I am talking about is the uniquely american "shoot your way to infamy"
You see, the psychology of gun ownership and even typical gun violence is very different. How so?
Lets take this Vester mess. Lets say he cracks, wants revenge, and has a gun. He waits outside the station, these two walk out, he gets his "revenge" they are dead. The story floods local headlines and then maybe , MAYBE, gets a small footnote reference on national news feeds, but most likely not. No this is whats happened. Vester Flanagan was delusional, for what sees to be most his life. He was a narcissist, paranoid, angry, if he thinks the desert god was talking to him, he most likely has some schizophrenia. So what did he do?
Well he admired those who have become infamous american sociopath monsters. Household names, they insight fear and terror. They achieved "evil" celebrity status. Again I think you guys are way simplifying this that this was just some asshole that wanted revenge, again thats only a piece. This coward wanted fame. His revenge came with a desire to be known, to be a monster to achieve infamy.
Again this problem is uniquely american. Yea sure we have more guns than other places, the makes it EASIER to find one I am sure. How many countries have no guns at all? There are guns that can be got, especially illegally. Still it remains these stomach turning shooting stories remain an american problem. I have no problem associating gun violence in america with volume of guns. But these theatrical attention grabbing killings, are a deeper issue america has.
Think about Colombine, they had so sadistically planned it out, Erick and Dylan became immortal which is what they wanted. The media helped for sure. These assholes were Deified by the media, not for good but evil, but immortalized none the less. The day before Colombine they were nobodies, the day after they were all anyone was talking about. Vester Flanagan. He WAS a nobody, now we know his name, we know his life story, and we saw the monster he was capable of being.
Again these attention seeking mass murders are really an american phenomenon and the stakes get higher and higher, each one idolizes the last and tries to up the anti on savagery or shock value. In Vesters case, live TV, also he filmed it and streamed it. The church shooting, newton ct if you go back through you see these things get more and more twisted because someone wants to be the next Erick and Dylan. The pattern has been set with the gun, and yes it is an efficient killing tool. But its become a part of the theatrics, especially in the media.
So you change gun laws, ok, great. It will probably contribute to the already declining numbers of gun related crime in America that no one likes to acknowledge. Thats great. Here is a good question thought, is it going to stop the next person that wants to be the next Erick and Dylan? I highly doubt that, because their motive is not revenge, its revenge on steroids. They are determined to become and immortal monster even if they have to die doing it. Its sick. This problem is next level.
The husband of the surviving woman who was being interviewed at the time said the following about it:
Mr Gardner told Fox News that he doesn't think the gun was the issue in the attack against his wife.
'He was bound and determined to try to make a name for himself on live TV because he failed at it so many times,' Mr Gardner said. 'So no, I don’t blame the gun, I blame the guy that was holding the gun.'
Mr Gardner says if he was barred from getting a gun, Flanagan could have killed with a knife or machete.
Gun violence in America is a problem, these "Infamy" shootings, are a more complex problem.
I think the discussion about gun violence is a good one, but when newton Ct, or something like this happens, to use it as the reason WHY we need more controls, is stepping over bigger issues to get to the easy one.
There are 320 millions people in America, there is nearly 300 million guns. What do you believe is going to happen to all of those if a new law is passed? They will just magically disappear? unfortunately those are here probably to stay. An outright complete ban on guns would not stop someone bent on destruction from finding one, it may make it more difficult, but they are going to find a way.
-
SAHS
Simon: [on pg. 12 herein] “No amount of mental health changes would have affected this or many other cases because these people did not have mental health issues.”
I’m just wondering how you can specifically confirm this. An evaluation and diagnosis of mental health issues must be done by a trained and qualified physician in that field. Conclusions about a person’s medical condition have to be more than mere superficial guesswork to have any kind of veracity or efficacy. Even the experienced professionals must take the time for a thorough investigation, as there are so many factors involved between the physical brain (i.e., chemistry and health of the neural tissues and networks), as well as the cognitive mind and experiential history.
I can understand your stance that a shooting cannot occur if there is no gun around for a particular individual to use. You can’t shoot someone if you don’t have a gun. That part makes sense, and the government needs to at least be very discriminating and thorough in monitoring who can and should possess firearms, just like they ensure that automobile drivers are properly licenced and vetted for dangerous infractions before being allowed on the roads. But as for mental health, I believe that it is extremely important for the government to maintain vigilance with respect to providing the necessary infrastructure to serve the mental health needs and safety of society. The proper red flags should be taken seriously and addressed, because even if someone should happen to acquire a firearm, he or she is less likely to end up shooting someone as an act of aggression if he or she simply doesn’t have the desire or compulsion to do so in the first place – and that is why their mental health issues should be properly addressed and remedied. Mental health is extremely important. A person won’t commit an act of extreme violence if they simply don’t want to in the first place – and a person more likely wouldn’t have such a desire or compulsion if he or she received the help they needed for their mental health needs.
So, as to whether or not any particular individual has “mental health issues,” and if so, what is the exact nature of such issues, should be left to the trained and competent professionals in that field. And let’s hope and pray that the infrastructure to facilitate proper care for mental health is given due importance and priority. A lot of terrible results could be avoided if people get the proper intervention, care and support they require. As they say, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Indeed, mental health is very important!
-
Finkelstein
I wonder if the long standing indoctrination of god destroying all mankind that are not associated with his earthly organization namely the JWS and that ingrained assertion makes people degrade or show a lack of respect of other non Jws,
JWS are the most special people and they are deserving of more than worldly people.
I have been around JWs who think by virtue of their arrogance and self realized stature, should be placed above
non-JWS.
-
Simon
I’m just wondering how you can specifically confirm this. An evaluation and diagnosis of mental health issues must be done by a trained and qualified physician in that field. Conclusions about a person’s medical condition have to be more than mere superficial guesswork to have any kind of veracity or efficacy.
Well we'll never know for sure. The fact is though he was never diagnosed with any mental health issues AFAIK and he just seems to be a very obsessive and ugly person who wanted to blame everyone else for being a failure.
What we can't do is have this circular-type religious reasoning by the gun lobby where every time there is a shooting they claim the real issue is mental health and the proof they give for it being mental health is that the person shot someone.
"He must be mad because he shot someone, that's not what normal people do". Very convenient - it means they always avoid guns being the issue (which is why this claim is so common). Sorry, I don't buy that BS..
Of course anyone shooting someone is 'crazy' at some level but hiding behind a label and stigmatizing genuine and usually non-violent mental-health sufferers in the process is not fair.
The guy seemed to have a giant chip on his shoulder about race and saw racism where is didn't exist in the most innocuous of statements. Maybe he was brought up with a warped view, I don't know. Maybe all this "black lives matter" propaganda really flipped a switch for him. But that is not mental health issue. He also had anger management issues and a poor work ethic. Again, some failure of upbringing perhaps but not a mental health issue.
-
LisaRose
What we can't do is have this circular-type religious reasoning by the gun lobby where every time there is a shooting they claim the real issue is mental health and the proof they give for it being mental health is that the person shot someone.
I don't think they believe it's a mental health issue only because he shot someone, but because of the reason he shot someone. If he shot his wife's lover, or someone who harmed his child, that would be somewhat understandable but it just seems crazy to shoot someone because of being disrespected at work. This guy probably did have mental issues of some sort, but I agree that doesn't make him insane, either legally or otherwise. By what we know about him at this point it seems he was just a miserable human being, narcissistic, petty and self absorbed, possibly he was a sociopath.
-
Boeing Stratofortress
Here is a good question thought, is it going to stop the next person that wants to be the next Erick and Dylan? I highly doubt that, because their motive is not revenge, its revenge on steroids.
Ok, so you've identified a root cause. According to your 'root cause analysis,' it's revenge (on steroids) which motivates killers like Dylan and Erick of Columbine Infamy. Maybe they wanted to be like the Luby's shooter before them, or the Postal shooter prior to that. Fine. Now let's say, that as someone in the aviation field, I wanted to find a root cause as to why planes crash. By applying similar logic as you have, I deduce that gravity is to blame. Therefore, I ask the manufacturers to design an anti-gravity device. Then, I'll see about getting ejection seats installed in all passenger seats. You see where I'm going with this? It's obviously impossible to address this root cause directly. So, you do it indirectly, by devising cockpit procedures, checklists, technology, and legal penalties enforced by the FAA if these procedures are not complied with. It won't eliminate crashes altogether, but will mitigate them. Air safety stats over the last 30 years bear that out.
Look at the Watchtower abuse issues. There are certainly root causes there, but the Royal Commission can't just walk inside the headquarters in New York and push a button to make things right. They have to force change indirectly, from the OUTSIDE, by way of finacial penalties, and law enforcement.
Now, back to Dylan and Erick. Their motivation was revenge. On steroids, as you say. Fine. Now, what solution do you propose? Now that you've identified a cause. Do you want to develop a device that flies around and measures peoples' 'motivation for revenge?' Should we come up with 'thought police' as in "1984." Hmmm, a bit impractical as I see it.
You want to blame sensationalist media? Then I assume you're ok with trashing the First Amendment.
Earlier in this thread, someone with extensive military and security experience pointed out how guns & rifles were tools. Tools which obviously make the job of killing much easier, than say...a club, or knife. In Australia, some 650,000 of these 'tools' were bought up in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre of 1996. Prior to this massacre, there had been others, though not as large. Since the buyback program, there have been no such massacres at all, in Aussie land since '96. NONE. Now, keep in mind, that there have likely been people there, who were 'motivated by revenge on steroids.' But it's a but hard to act out these motivations if you have no, or at least restricted access to the tools that make this possible. And please, spare us the nonsense about how..."they can use a machete." Or, " they can get a can of gasoline and start a fire." Yes, there have been very isolated incidents like this here and there, but you can't even BEGIN to equate that with the chronic mass shooting problem as it exists in the US.
Mr Gardner says if he was barred from getting a gun, Flanagan could have killed with a knife or machete.
Of course. No disagreement there. If you saw the video, it's obvious that Mr. Flanagan had his gun drawn, as he was walking towards the young lady, Ms. Parker. She was focused on her broadcast, and completely unaware of what was coming. So yes, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, due to his close range and element of surprise, Mr. Flanagan could have successfully thrust a knife blade into her, if he were so determined. Here's one problem I have with that, however. A knife thrust like that requires some skill and knowledge. A Navy SEAL, for example, could no doubt execute such a kill with speed and precision. He'd know exactly how to plant the blade so as to avoid bone, and sever vital arteries/organs. Compare that with the virtually brainless act of squeezing the trigger on the very lightweight 9mm Glock, at close range. Chances are, that a knife attack might have resulted in a nasty stab wound, but no loss of life. Also, the camera man would've had time to distance himself from the attacker, had he only used a knife, possibly bashing Flanagan in his skull with the large camera. As pilots, we cover a lot of 'what ifs' in our training, as it relates to hijacking. Believe me, edged weapons, in general, are much easier to defend against, or evade, than rifles/shotguns/handguns. I've never heard of a drive-by stabbing anyway. Have you?Ok. Now for solutions. We have an idea of the causes. What do you do about it? I say
A) Imitate the Australian example. Which is heavy restriction to gun access. Part of the reason this has worked in Australia is geography. It's more difficult to smuggle illegal weapons onto an island. Hence, US borders would need some major beefing up.
or
B) Follow the Swiss example. Which is an expansion of regulation, over not just guns, but ammo as well. Perhaps expand the idea of National Guard, or IRR (ready reserves) to allow for assault weapons to be kept at home, but with strict rules on training, procedures, and weapon securing. Also include strict penalties for non-compmiance. So, your kid gets hold of your weapon, and shoots up his school, then your irresponsible ass is going to Leavenworth for a looong time.
Besides the mental health aspect, that we've talked to death, and that the NRA likes to include in it's brain-dead talking points...do YOU have a solution?