Mass Shooting

[Skywalkre]

There's no one answer and many options aren't even getting a moment of thought. We're a society that glorifies solving differences through violence. We have a growing generation of people who crave the "blaze of glory" ending because they have no purpose in life nor any ability to stand against the vicissitudes of life. We have dismantled the mental health system with absolutely nothing to replace it, which also impacts the homeless problem. If we banned the sale of all firearms tomorrow, we'd have to launch a massive house by house search for the rest, which would be fruitless and cause an explosion in this country.

 

Well said.

 

The last sentence is something I've struggled to get across to my friends on the Left who advocate for any sort of gun control push. There's what they claim they want and then there's the reality of what it would take to achieve it. While the majority of gun owners are not a threat and would turn in their weapons those same people were never the issue. To ensure you get the ones that possibly pose a threat would require a massive, expensive, right-infringing invasion of every square inch of this country. It's simply not feasible.

 

Tackling the other issues at root here that you mention (the isolation of individuals, feelings of worthlessnes, mental health issues) are likely cheaper and more beneficial given the help they'd achieve outside of just the scope of these mass shooting incidents.

[Chris Werb]

There are no simple answers to this problem.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Quite right.

 

Tanknet agrees on something, there is hope!

[rmgill]

Needs to be broken down into prevention and response.

The response part is something I've covered before. Once someone starts shooting at random folks (or at specific folks but in an illegal manner) there's really only one response to stop them. You can return fire or try to not be hit. The former is more satisfactory from the basic efficacy of such. Though, if you're not close, beating feet is possibly also better for you at least.


The prevention seems to be...tricky.

Just spit balling here....feel free to shoot holes in it

1. Mental health care has focused on prevention and failed to deal with treatment. (The US shifted from Mental Health Institutions decades ago to mental health wellness which fails to deal with those who are manifesting mental illness).
2. Identifying folks about to have such an imminent break.
3. Reasonable steps to both deal with such an imminent break AND deal with the necessary false positives in a lawful and rights insuring manner (red flag laws with no response or appeal are a BAD idea).
4. Treatment of such individuals that are true positives if identified prior to such breaks.
5. Treatment of the mentally ill in such a way that deals with the realities of their needs.


We have a VERY large problem with mentally ill in the US. The system shifted over the past 30 years or so from a containment and treatment system to a release and prevention system. The end result is that people who are mentally ill tend not to get treatment unless they're aware they have a problem and can do so OR if they're such a danger they're committed against their will.

Otherwise they present in three forms.

1. Mentally ill homeless, at least 25% based on some surveys.

2. Mentally ill prison inmates, about 15-20% based on surveys.

3. Mentally ill who have a violent break and which a very small number manifest as mass murderers.

These are of import for largely two reasons. They're a danger to others or to themselves (arguably someone who is mentally ill and can only live as a homeless person probably is a modest danger to themselves).


Here's Aydin Paladin's post that is rather relevant to at least PART of the problem.

[Roman Alymov]

My condolences. I hope USians would find solution one way or another.

[rmgill]

This is also relevant.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Needs to be broken down into prevention and response.

 

The response part is something I've covered before. Once someone starts shooting at random folks (or at specific folks but in an illegal manner) there's really only one response to stop them. You can return fire or try to not be hit. The former is more satisfactory from the basic efficacy of such. Though, if you're not close, beating feet is possibly also better for you at least.

 

 

The prevention seems to be...tricky.

 

Just spit balling here....feel free to shoot holes in it

 

1. Mental health care has focused on prevention and failed to deal with treatment. (The US shifted from Mental Health Institutions decades ago to mental health wellness which fails to deal with those who are manifesting mental illness).

2. Identifying folks about to have such an imminent break.

3. Reasonable steps to both deal with such an imminent break AND deal with the necessary false positives in a lawful and rights insuring manner (red flag laws with no response or appeal are a BAD idea).

4. Treatment of such individuals that are true positives if identified prior to such breaks.

5. Treatment of the mentally ill in such a way that deals with the realities of their needs.

 

 

We have a VERY large problem with mentally ill in the US. The system shifted over the past 30 years or so from a containment and treatment system to a release and prevention system. The end result is that people who are mentally ill tend not to get treatment unless they're aware they have a problem and can do so OR if they're such a danger they're committed against their will.

Otherwise they present in three forms.

1. Mentally ill homeless, at least 25% based on some surveys.

2. Mentally ill prison inmates, about 15-20% based on surveys.

3. Mentally ill who have a violent break and which a very small number manifest as mass murderers.

These are of import for largely two reasons. They're a danger to others or to themselves (arguably someone who is mentally ill and can only live as a homeless person probably is a modest danger to themselves).

 

 

Here's Aydin Paladin's post that is rather relevant to at least PART of the problem.

 

Do you not think there needs to be better awareness of people who get to purchase firearms? I cant see any problem with you, or anyone that is sane and well grounded owning a firearm. The problem to me seems preventing the insane, the potentially unbalanced, or the kind of people you wouldn't even want to sell a car to, buying a firearm.

 

Clearly mental health is a core of this. But as you point out, the problem is not the ones you know are mentally ill, because they usually are receiving treatment. The problem is those that are becoming mentally ill, and you dont know about it. Which suggests either a high degree of surveillance and interrogation before getting a gun than Americans would be comfortable with, or they have an endorsement from a member of the public to own a gun, and make them legally accountable for how the weapon is used.

And no, I cant see either of those being popular.

 

 

The Gilroy shooting shows an apparent problem with state laws. The Shooter brought guns into California, which has strict gun control laws, from Nevada, which is less so. Unless everyone has the same laws, it makes an individual states laws somewhat irrelevant I would have thought.

 

 

And once again, you solve the gun problem, you still have someone with a van, pipe bombs, truck bombs, Anthrax, big foxtrot oscar knives....

Edited August 5, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

Do you not think there needs to be better awareness of people who get to purchase firearms? I cant see any problem with you, or anyone that is sane and well grounded owning a firearm. The problem to me seems preventing the insane, the potentially unbalanced, or the kind of people you wouldn't even want to sell a car to, buying a firearm.

To what cost? And to what return?

 

And once again, you solve the gun problem, you still have someone with a van, pipe bombs, truck bombs, Anthrax, big foxtrot oscar knives....

Does limiting firearms stop the mass murderers switching tools? If no, then it's of dubious efficacy.

Does it hinder victims responding to attacks? Efficacy of the 1st responders? Then it's an actual hinderance in that case.

 

I think it's a negative return and makes the problem worse, not better. I can fight back against a guy with a gun. Harder to take down a guy driving a truck trying to run 50 people down on a street.

 

 

The Gilroy shooting shows an apparent problem with state laws. The Shooter brought guns into California, which has strict gun control laws, from Nevada, which is less so. Unless everyone has the same laws, it makes an individual states laws somewhat irrelevant I would have thought.

Well, they can be imported from Mexico too. Which fails the test still. Also California has notionally strict laws on guns but it is terrible at enforcing them where it really matters.

 

There's an added component in that criminals are ALSO poorly housed and dealt with. Which is another problem that's parallel to the mentally ill attacking folks en masse.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Do you not think there needs to be better awareness of people who get to purchase firearms? I cant see any problem with you, or anyone that is sane and well grounded owning a firearm. The problem to me seems preventing the insane, the potentially unbalanced, or the kind of people you wouldn't even want to sell a car to, buying a firearm.

To what cost? And to what return?

 

And once again, you solve the gun problem, you still have someone with a van, pipe bombs, truck bombs, Anthrax, big foxtrot oscar knives....

Does limiting firearms stop the mass murderers switching tools? If no, then it's of dubious efficacy.

Does it hinder victims responding to attacks? Efficacy of the 1st responders? Then it's an actual hinderance in that case.

 

I think it's a negative return and makes the problem worse, not better. I can fight back against a guy with a gun. Harder to take down a guy driving a truck trying to run 50 people down on a street.

 

 

The Gilroy shooting shows an apparent problem with state laws. The Shooter brought guns into California, which has strict gun control laws, from Nevada, which is less so. Unless everyone has the same laws, it makes an individual states laws somewhat irrelevant I would have thought.

Well, they can be imported from Mexico too. Which fails the test still. Also California has notionally strict laws on guns but it is terrible at enforcing them where it really matters.

 

There's an added component in that criminals are ALSO poorly housed and dealt with. Which is another problem that's parallel to the mentally ill attacking folks en masse.

 

 

Come on Ryan, that only happens in Hollywood movies. Oh, the vehicles are used often enough. From the occasions when its happened here (and in New York when it happened) they are usually stopped when the vehicle hits a bollard or some other obstruction. Ive yet to read of a Lethal Weapon style headshot to take a driver down in mid flight, and even if you did, you still have an out of control vehicle which is going to anywhere it likes.

 

I said earlier, I dont mind you owning a gun. I do mind the neighbour who might go off on one for not trimming the hedge owning one. Which suggests to me there needs to be better oversight of, and better supervision of who owns guns. That doesnt say nobody should have them. It does mean there certainly ARE some people who should not have them, which are not identified early enough to do any good.

 

A gun to kill a man with a gun is too late. Particularly as the majority of these people are already being dispatched inside of 6 minutes. You want to make sure the guy who wants to use a gun on a crowd is identified early enough to get him off the streets. It was evident a good 20 minutes before the shooting when he posted his manifesto something was going down. Not enough time to do something now, but 10-20 years from now, with intelligent profiling by computers? Perhaps.

 

And yes, im aware thats a contentious view, because Americans are against surveillance as they are against having guns taken away. Im more pragmatic about it, not least because Google and Amazon have those bases covered anyway.

 

I think there are 3 kinds of people doing these things.

 

1 The Criminal. Because yes, its pretty clear from your own history, criminals can create mayhem for those caught in the crossfire.

2 The insane. Which are not being identified in your country or mine anywhere near quickly enough.

3 This is the contentious bit. I think there are those that are not the full ticket, those that are not apparently insane, but have something missing. Whether its empathy, whether its morality, whether its any capacity to understand the things they do. I suppose those would be Sociopaths, not insane but also not really capable of responding normally to those around them. Who dont really care what happens to them or anyone else.

4 And this is going to be contentious too. Those whom are intellectually subnormal. Not necessarily unfeeling, but easily led, easily influenced by culture and broadcasting. Even 8 Chan. Or other people, if you look at the Columbine shootings. It strikes me the el paso shooting, for all the talk of white terrorism, fits number 4 very well. So for that matter do the majority of our muslim terrorists (though obviously not the London Bridge or group attacks, which are more no 1)

 

So even an intelligent targeting of the mental health problems of America or Britain is not necessarily going to make much difference to 3 out of 4 on that pile. I think the vast majority of people that do this are no by any definition insane. But they clearly arent normal either.

 

You said it earlier and I agree, there is no easily solution to the problem.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Murph]

Plus thanks to issues of white liberals and feminazis teaching young men that they are worthless predators, so they decide that the left must be right, and they are predators, so why not go out in a blaze of glory, get your 15 minutes of fame, and social media clicks.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lFSTl0RziA

[seahawk]

 

A soldier who did the right thing and saved a dozen children in El Paso (Armed citizen soldier with his Glock): https://taskandpurpose.com/el-paso-shooting-glendon-oakley

Not to diminish the positive spin, but the mall is posted so technically he was carrying illegally despite having a permit.

 

Tennessee has a Safe Harbor statute that basically says if you have a carry permit and are carrying where you weren't supposed to (past a no guns sign), and were justified in using your firearm in an incident, then you won't be charged with carrying where you weren't supposed to. However, if you get caught carrying under any other circumstances in these places (ie, reaching up to the top shelf for something at the store) despite your permit, they'll nail you for it with a Class B misdemeanor.

 

Other places like New York has no such protections (hence the 60+ year old resident who fought off some home invaders got crucified because he used a revolver registered in his Dad's name and neglected to re-register it in his name after his dad died).

 

Not sure if Texas has those sorts of protections, but I hope the state doesn't try and nail him for it even though the left would be foaming at the mouth to under any other circumstances.

 

 

It's ironic because rational people understand that criminals don't comply with gun free zones, and so there's an unspoken rule among some with a carry permit that "concealed is concealed" and "it's better to be judged by 12 (if you're caught carrying where you weren't supposed to be) than carried by 6" (pallbearers, because you complied with the law as a good responsible law abiding citizen and got shot and killed by a criminal who didn't). It's a hell of a choice society puts people in a position to have to make, and they don't really have any sense of humor if you say it's a matter of civil disobedience.

 

 

So the problem is that there are areas in which a citizens is denied his right to carry. Those areas should disappear and people should be free to carry everywhere,

[Stuart Galbraith]

That may well frame HOW some of the 4th group go out, but I dont think that influences them to go out. In the past we had Charlie Manson basing mass murder on his theory of Helter Skelter, but nobody accused him of being a white nationalist. A predatory fuckwit, yes, which was surely closer to it.

 

Of course, the difference here is the guy surrendered to police. So either he decided not to go through with it, or its more appropriate to put him in the criminal category and label him a terrorist. Time will tell I guess.

[Rick]

Men have been killing man since Cain killed Abel. We will see this only becoming worse as men enlarge their belief in the secular and diminish their belief in Jesus Christ.

 

Psalm 1:1-2 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.

 

E5M in an earlier post asked what is a man? Apostle Paul has the answer, Corinthians 16:13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Being strong not so much in the physical but in the mental and especially the spiritual. The body will only do what the mind tells it. The mind will only command by what guides it.

[Murph]

Well our LT. Governor has told Antifa to stay the F**k out of Texas, however I expect them to show up and start problems:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arDjsLZ5IGc

[Murph]

Ohio Shooter, leftists, Warren backer, and this is what the identitarian Left is coming too: https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2019/08/04/twitter-suspends-allegedly-ohio-shooter/ He is Flowers for Atomsk.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUpADf_F4so

 

 

 

[Murph]

Well George P. Bush, Land Commissioner of Texas just lost a LOT of votes, mine and Lupe's included. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/456076-george-p-bush-denounces-white-terrorism-after-el-paso-shooting Since he is calling out "White terrorism"

[Murph]

More on the Ohio Shooter:

 

 

The shooter Connor Betts was pictured with satanic patches on his jacket in a previous photo — via Robby Starbuck.

The patches he’s wearing are from a known satanist apparel company. One of them reads “against all gods". This is a culture problem. A godless culture of death with no respect for life.

https://t.co/IsOSdFHSqy

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck)

August 4, 2019

The patch “against all gods” is a blackcraft cult product.

Connor Betts was not a Trump fan.

Ohio mass shooter Connor Betts is a self-described "leftist" and "atheist" who praised Antifa, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and wrote "Kill every fascist" on his Twitter media page.

https://t.co/rjlYkDJdk4

— Chris Menahan (@infolibnews)

August 4, 2019

Here is what he tweeted on election night 2016.

The Twitter profile of Ohio Mass Shooter Connor Betts included: “he/him / anime fan / metalhead / leftist / i’m going to hell and i’m not coming back.”

Via The Heavy:

In his Twitter profile, Connor Betts, the 24-year-old suspected gunman in the Dayton mass shooting, wrote, "he/him / anime fan / metalhead / leftist / i'm going to hell and i'm not coming back."

https://t.co/mSIxB1NZLE

pic.twitter.com/gdokY6ShsY

— Heavy.com (@HeavySan)

August 4, 2019

Now this…

Betts was a self-described leftist and Antifa fan.

BREAKING: The Dayton terrorist was a self-described "leftist" and Antifa supporter – The Post Millennial

https://t.co/vyTSor6Wy4

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec)

August 5, 2019

He retweeted antifa accounts.

The suspect retweeted Antifa accounts

pic.twitter.com/pJH1mkR00F

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra)

August 5, 2019

Ohio gunman described himself as pro-Satan 'leftist' who supported Elizabeth Warren

https://t.co/KgnDW9aTbk

pic.twitter.com/Bmbm04AAzA

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes)

August 4, 2019

[seahawk]

As expected, Antifa is biggest danger to America at the moment.

[Murph]

As expected, Antifa is biggest danger to America at the moment.

The scare me since they are escalating the violence.

[Jeff]

 

It's a shame that the ideological split in the US prevents any level-headed discussion of any ways to deal with this type of occurrence.

 

It's a shame that the ideological split in the US prevents and level-headed discussion about anything.

 

 

It's hard to have a discussion with people screaming that you're a murderer and care more about your guns than children's lives. So far we've been able to avoid that in this topic. If it were easy to identify future shooters, that would be easy, but it's not.

[Jeff]

Needs to be broken down into prevention and response.

 

The response part is something I've covered before. Once someone starts shooting at random folks (or at specific folks but in an illegal manner) there's really only one response to stop them. You can return fire or try to not be hit. The former is more satisfactory from the basic efficacy of such. Though, if you're not close, beating feet is possibly also better for you at least.

 

 

The prevention seems to be...tricky.

 

Just spit balling here....feel free to shoot holes in it

 

1. Mental health care has focused on prevention and failed to deal with treatment. (The US shifted from Mental Health Institutions decades ago to mental health wellness which fails to deal with those who are manifesting mental illness).

2. Identifying folks about to have such an imminent break.

3. Reasonable steps to both deal with such an imminent break AND deal with the necessary false positives in a lawful and rights insuring manner (red flag laws with no response or appeal are a BAD idea).

4. Treatment of such individuals that are true positives if identified prior to such breaks.

5. Treatment of the mentally ill in such a way that deals with the realities of their needs.

 

 

We have a VERY large problem with mentally ill in the US. The system shifted over the past 30 years or so from a containment and treatment system to a release and prevention system. The end result is that people who are mentally ill tend not to get treatment unless they're aware they have a problem and can do so OR if they're such a danger they're committed against their will.

Otherwise they present in three forms.

1. Mentally ill homeless, at least 25% based on some surveys.

2. Mentally ill prison inmates, about 15-20% based on surveys.

3. Mentally ill who have a violent break and which a very small number manifest as mass murderers.

These are of import for largely two reasons. They're a danger to others or to themselves (arguably someone who is mentally ill and can only live as a homeless person probably is a modest danger to themselves).

 

 

Here's Aydin Paladin's post that is rather relevant to at least PART of the problem.

 

Well said.

 

It will be a tricky thing to identify those who are a threat to themselves and others and need strong intervention while not allowing that to be used to deny innocent people of their rights. What kind of due process can we set up to achieve both ends?

[Jeff]

Stuart, I'm genuinely interested. You've made it clear that you feel your leaders and government couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag and yet it seems that you are willing to hand those very people rather large portions of your personal liberty to decide for you what you can and can't do, for the greater good. How do you square that circle? It's a balance that we all struggle with and is central to this discussion since one side is pushing control and the other is concerned about losing liberties.

[Jeff]

An added wrinkle in the Dayton shooting, one of the victims was the shooter's sister. That is either a HUGE coincidence or there is an added component to this that we don't know yet.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Stuart, I'm genuinely interested. You've made it clear that you feel your leaders and government couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag and yet it seems that you are willing to hand those very people rather large portions of your personal liberty to decide for you what you can and can't do, for the greater good. How do you square that circle? It's a balance that we all struggle with and is central to this discussion since one side is pushing control and the other is concerned about losing liberties.

 

Id argue first and foremost for competence in Government. That has happened in the past, and whilst the past 20 years has been a bit of an up and down, I remain optimistic after Brexit a lot of very incompetent MP are going to be exposed for the charlatans they are. Well, im an optimist.

 

You have to separate Government from functions of Government. I might despise most of what goes on in Whitehall, but I do respect the Military, and I do respect the police. Its not the fault of either that they have no budget to fulfill the functions they have traditionally been tasked with.

 

Here is the problem. You Americans trust INDIVIDUALS to solve problems. What you cant square is that Government is also made up of individuals. If they cant solve big problems, why do you think joe blow is going to be any better equipped to deal witht he problems of dealing with domestic terrorism? And he isn't. Even Wyatt Earp went into OK Corral with a team.

 

 

 

I support individualism, and I dont think we do enough of it as we should in this country. I just dont see it as a panacea for all problems is all. If it was, we wouldn't have armies.

[seahawk]

 

As expected, Antifa is biggest danger to America at the moment.

The scare me since they are escalating the violence.

 

 

If you look into the European experience, they must be exterminated with maximum force or the USA will become a socialist Utopia like Europe today.