At least 20 people killed in shooting at Texas church

[csb]

Has anyone else watched the show "Active Shooter" on Showtime? Two of the episodes/incidents featured a shooter who was mentally ill and in each case the family knew about it. It's interesting to watch, because even though THE PARENTS™ knew that their sons were ill, they were helpless to get them "fixed."

What happens when you realize your child is severely mentally ill? Who do you call? Do you know right now? Where do you send them? Do you keep them at your house forever? 

This isn't a matter of Timmy's a little spoiled and he's acting out by shooting people. Many of these are instances of people crippled by mental illness. 

 

[Dleg]

True, but I don't know the answers to your question. Because there aren't very many resources. Decades ago, the mentally ill were locked away in institutions where they couldn't hurt anyone, but these were awful places and society rightfully shut them down. Unfortunately they weren't really replaced with anything, and the general populace apparently doesn't agree to paying to even continue the current, minimal public mental health programs that are in existence. 

 

[NJmike PE]

I believe the treatment of the mentally ill is the greater of the solutions here though. I can imagine that families become so overwhelmed with the regular, day in and day out situations that they begin to overlook some bigger signs in changes of behavior

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

This isn't an either-or situation, it's both.  Too many guns available to a population with too many people dealing with mental health issues. Both need to be addressed. Considering the current administration has absolutely no intention of creating any semblance of a responsible healthcare system (and also tearing up whatever little there is), perhaps we look at the gun side of things.

To me, the US is one big childhood playground. Kids get into fights, don't have the mental capacity to handle it, look around for the easiest weapon and then unleash. Meanwhile, the "adults" are off drinking coffee in the other room. "Didn't involve me or my kid, why should I care?"

 

[leggo PE]

Ugh.

"Red Bluff shooting spree leaves 5 dead, including gunman, multiple others injured at 7 locations in Tehama County": http://abc7.com/2647030/

CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/california-tehama-county-shootings/index.html

 

[P-E]

Is there no end to this.   Why children?

 

[leggo PE]

I normally dislike putting too much stock in opinion-based articles, but these words struck a chord with me (sorry in advance for the funky formatting):

Until gun violence impacts your family directly, you won't care enough to do something about it. There's a ton of research to explain this apathy.
 
[SIZE= 12px]After World War II, the famous Cambridge psychologist J.T. MacCurdy studied an interesting phenomenon about the bombings in London in 1940 and 1941.[/SIZE]
 
He found that people affected by the bombings fell into three categories: those who died, those who were a "near miss" (who closely witnessed the horror of the bombings but lived), and those who had a "remote miss" (people who may have heard the sirens, but were removed from the direct scene of the bombing).
 
Here's what's interesting. MacCurdy found the people who witnessed a "near miss" were deeply affected by the bombing -- while the "remote miss" group felt invincible and even excited.
 
They were far enough away from the event and had survived, leading them to feel invulnerable and no longer scared.
Until you've experienced a "near miss," it's easy for your mind to compartmentalize mass shootings that you hear about -- thinking they will never affect you.


 



A great example of this is country musician Caleb Keeter, who performed at the concert in Las Vegas and experienced a near miss. He now cares:
 
"I've been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night... We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn't realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it."
 
For Keeter, it became directly personal. The brutal question we all face is this one -- when will gun violence become personal for a majority of Americans?
 
Twenty children and six adults killed in Newtown wasn't enough to make us change. They weren't our kids or relatives.
 
Forty-nine young adults dancing at Pulse wasn't enough to make us change. Those weren't our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters.
 
Fifty-eight country music fans in Vegas weren't enough to make us change either. We weren't in the audience.
 
And the 26 churchgoers in Texas won't be enough to make us change either.

From this CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/opinions/why-we-dont-give-a-****-about-mass-shootings-robbins/index.html

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

@leggo PE, this is the one that struck a chord with me (yes, I know it's Huffington Post):

Another Mass Shooting and More Prayers. America has officially given up.

 

[Road Guy]

The news seems to be dancing around the story of the killer But it sounds like he had a restraining order out and he was not supposed to be in possession of weapons and also had an auto theft conviction? Looks more like the republic of Kalifornia not doing its job and continuing its stance that the inmates are the victims - maybe there is more to the story but that's what I read from the CNN article...

Around 800 people were murdered in Chicago last year but people only seem to care about these killings that have "shock value". I don't know why that is.

As far as those opinion pieces - I had a relative shot and killed in the front doorway of his home- while his kids were having friends over.

6 rounds from a revolver to the chest- they say that is done so that the victim doesn't die immediately and is told why he was killed.

The only suspect is his wife's brother and his wife's other brother is a Houston police officer where the murder occurred, it's been 6 years with no "leads" - imagine that... so I am not going to jump on the only the police should have guns line anytime soon. & I think most of left America had the same opinion a year and half ago.....

 

[leggo PE]

Here is an interesting piece from the NYT that I feel is pretty relevant to the discussion of number of guns in this country:

https://nyti.ms/2hODjP5

 

[Supe]

Which is my whole point - what makes you think that we're at the "ideal" point where assault-style weapons and high capacity magazines are OK?

I personally believe we've reached the point of diminishing returns.  Someone can unload 100 10 round magazines before police show up, just like they can unload 67 fifteen round magazines before police show up.  My point is, it's not a hardware issue that can be readily addressed at this point, creating a need to focus on it as a mental health issue.  The former has so many laws we don't enforce them as it is, and the latter is drastically lacking in attention.  

I have no problem with stiffer background checks, but I think they're moot anyways.  You're only going to get flagged if you have a criminal record, at which point you're not obtaining them legally to begin with.  

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

Here is an interesting piece from the NYT that I feel is pretty relevant to the discussion of number of guns in this country:

https://nyti.ms/2hODjP5

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

 

[leggo PE]

Yep, it's pretty depressing.

 

[Dleg]

I personally believe we've reached the point of diminishing returns.  Someone can unload 100 10 round magazines before police show up, just like they can unload 67 fifteen round magazines before police show up.  My point is, it's not a hardware issue that can be readily addressed at this point, creating a need to focus on it as a mental health issue.  The former has so many laws we don't enforce them as it is, and the latter is drastically lacking in attention.  

I have no problem with stiffer background checks, but I think they're moot anyways.  You're only going to get flagged if you have a criminal record, at which point you're not obtaining them legally to begin with.  

Same argument applies to giving up on regulating drugs. So why do we continue to outlaw most narcotics?

 

[leggo PE]

Here is an interesting piece from the NYT that I feel is pretty relevant to the discussion of number of guns in this country:

https://nyti.ms/2hODjP5

I should also stress that this article seems to do a pretty good job. using several references, of debunking other reasons for the high rate of gun related deaths in the U.S. compared to other countries.

 

[Dleg]

Yeah but it's from the Lying NY Times, so no Republican will even read it. 

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

Yeah but it's from the Lying NY Times, so no Republican will even read it. 

It also uses "statistics" and "facts". Everyone knows the only numbers worth learning are bible verses.

 

[leggo PE]

Yeah but it's from the Lying NY Times, so no Republican will even read it. 

Unfortunately, you're probably right. I should do some research and see who else out there has put together a similar comparison, but by someone that those who refuse to read the NY Times will actually give a chance.

 

[Dleg]

Won't happen.

 

[Supe]

So why do we continue to outlaw most narcotics?

Because they are a perceived detriment.  However, saying we outlaw "most" narcotics is untrue.  There are far more prescription drugs on the market than there are banned substances.  Much like guns, there are already class systems in place for those which are "outlawed" based on how they are perceived as "unhealthy".  Yet interestingly enough, despite increases in "illicit" drug use, we are looking to decriminalize some of them (e.g. marijuana).