The silence from the Gun Cult after the SECOND Fort Hood shooting has been deafening and it's now clear why.
Military personnel who are not police officers are not allowed to carry privately owned weapons on Army bases. Soldiers on post must register their firearms, which Army officials said Specialist Lopez failed to do with the handgun he used in the attack. Fort Hood’s rules rely in large part on the honor system, and require all personnel bringing a privately owned firearm onto the base in a vehicle to declare that they are doing so and state why.
So, the idea of less regulation doesn't seem to be working well at all. In addition, this is yet another example of how the gun free zone lie is completely FUBAR. Obviously, there are plenty of guns on the base and no one is really checking for weapons. It is Texas, after all, so one would think this would deter psychos, right?
But it didn't and Specialist Ivan Antonio Lopez, 34, killed three people and wounded 16 others at Fort Hood before taking his own life on Wednesday. Lopez was being treated for mental health issues and was on SSRI medications. Ironically, he bought the gun that he used at the same gun store where Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan bought his weapon. He passed the background check just fine.
Once again, we are left with a clear illustration of how just how poorly our nation is dealing with the issue of mental health. Politico has an interesting piece about how the conversation about these incidents should shift from gun control to threat detection. I completely agree. If someone voluntarily submits themselves for psychiatric treatment, especially if they are suffering from PTSD and in the military, they should lose their ability to obtain a firearm.
Consider this horrible statistic: 22 veterans kill themselves every day. That's right around one death an hour. Clearly, we are not doing enough to help the mental health of our veterans. This is indeed a difficult task considering we have been at war for the last 13 years.
Mental health in our nation as a whole needs to be vastly improved. We have to begin by removing the stigma associated with it and encourage everyone to see a therapist on a regular basis. I have no doubt that if gains were made in this area, we would see less gun violence, especially in the arena of spree shootings.
37 comments:
So, the idea of less regulation doesn't seem to be working well at all. In addition, this is yet another example of how the gun free zone lie is completely FUBAR. Obviously, there are plenty of guns on the base and no one is really checking for weapons.
Less regulation? Like the fact that they have to register the privately owned weapons?
Gun free zone? Did you miss the part of your own link where is says "Military personnel who are not police officers are not allowed to carry privately owned weapons on Army bases." ? That's pretty much the definition of a gun free zone there buddy.
Plenty of weapons? Proof? Cite? Make a legitimate point?
If someone voluntarily submits themselves for psychiatric treatment, especially if they are suffering from PTSD and in the military, they should lose their ability to obtain a firearm.
You want to rethink that one? Do you want people to stop voluntarily seeking help?
How about if someone voluntarily seeks treatment they should lose their license to teach? How would that impact your decision to seek counselling?
Slippery slope again, GD?;)
And apparently you missed the part about how the gun regulations at Fort Hood were basically the honor system. Isn't that what you want?
And apparently you missed the part about how the gun regulations at Fort Hood were basically the honor system. Isn't that what you want?
Apparently you are just now recognizing the fact that unless you completely harden a site then the only people who can't bring a gun into a 'gun free' zone are those who obey the law on the honor system.
Oh, and identify for me the supposed slippery slope.
But the site is the exact opposite of being hardened. No one really enforces the regulations and they are just window dressing. Only someone as deeply brainwashed by the Gun Cult would somehow twist this into the gun free zone lie.
Your analogy of losing a teaching license is classic slippery slope. Do you really want someone who is having mental problems owning a gun? It seems to me that the answer is yes.
Bullshit on both counts Mark.
I asked what you would do IF you would lose your teaching license for voluntarily seeking treatment. Would that change your actions?
If you took away things - ANY THING from people who sought treatment that would modify people's actions.
On gun free zones - no fucking shit asshole - a sign out front of a school declaring it a gun free zone is not hardened either. That's the lie of a gun free zone - it is only free of guns that people who follow the law carry - in other words only the good guys don't have guns.
Just when you think that M can't possibly be more stupid - he proves you wrong.
Once again... Do you really want someone who is having mental problems owning a gun?
Once again...Do you want to encourage people to seek mental health help...or do you want to discourage it?
Second point. Since by your own definition (voluntarily sought mental treatment) you are too unstable to be trusted with a gun. It doesn't matter that you don't want one. What matters is if you really are too unstable to be trusted with a gun, what makes you think (or why should I not think) that you are also too unstable to be trusted alone in a roomful of school kids?
So your answer is no, then?
So your answer is to be a deliberate fuckwit?
Just answer the question, GD. Yes or no. Do you want someone with mental and emotional problems owning a gun? One word is all you need to type.
Do you really want someone who is having mental problems owning a gun?
There are plenty of people I would be very happy if they didn't own guns, or procreate, or ever say something stupid that irritated me.
Can't we just round them up and exterminate them?
Mental or emotional problems?
That is a very broad swath of possibility there. Vaguely described and apt to different interpretation depending upon whether you or I do the interpreting.
Define exactly what you mean.
So, the idea of less regulation doesn't seem to be working well at all.
Only a complete fuckwit could draw a conclusion like that from this tragedy. Military bases are among the most regulated places in the country, even if they don't actually meet the ever so high standards of our fervidly controlling resident bloggers. Maybe there are some morons that think all base security is at the same level as at a nuclear weapons storage site. It's not, nor is it even remotely possible. I suppose the gate guards could've asked him if he had a weapon. Of course, he wouldn't dare lie, would he? Maybe this will surprise Markadelphia, but they don't send you through metal detectors to get on (most) bases (as if that would work with either privately-owned or military vehicles, anyway) any more than they make you take a breathalyzer test at the gate to drive on base on the theory that driving while intoxicated is also against regulations, and doing anything less is effectively not doing anything at all. And "obviously" there are a lot of guns on base because ... massive gunfights involving illegal weapons broke out? Or Moronadelphia believes that there is mass disregard by military personnel of regulations that if caught disobeying, will result in serious consequences, including likely separation from service following punishment? Based on what? Two homicidal freaks out of a constantly changing population of 50,000 in how many years? A lot more than 5, at any rate, because the current regulations are older than 5.
M: Mental or emotional problems?
GD: That is a very broad swath of possibility there. Vaguely described and apt to different interpretation depending upon whether you or I do the interpreting.
Well, of course, Markadelphia and All His Widdle Fwiends get to do the interpreting, because you are self-evidently Not With The Program.
Besides, vagueness is a feature, not a bug, to the controlling mindset. Having to be specific means accepting all sorts of limitations on the scope of possible action by the State. And we can't have that.
Well, that's a good point, GD and I'm happy to see that you have now embraced the gray areas of life.
Given this realization, doesn't it seem ridiculous that there should be a one size fits all approach to mental instability and owning guns? Simply saying that everyone has a right to own a gun or no one has a right to own a gun if they have any sort of mental or emotional problem won't work. That's why we need detailed regulations (more than we have right now) that spell this out.
I don't think it's such bad thing, if someone voluntarily submits themselves for therapy, to ask them if they would take a break from owning a weapon. All a therapist has to do is ask, "Do you think it's a good idea for you to have a gun?" Sure, there would be some people that might get turned off and leave but there would be some that would do it. What if those one or two that do it would have gone on a spree? That's lives saved.
I don't pretend to think this is a perfect solution or think it's even viable. It may not be. But we have to start thinking outside of the box in terms of mental health and access to guns.
BTW, Larry's second comment is a fine example of why the "Voices in My Head" theory is complete BS. The controlling mindset? What does that even mean? Do the rest of you agree with this?
But when you make a law it is, by definition, going to be one size fits all.
That's why we need detailed regulations (more than we have right now) that spell this out.
We already have detailed regulations that spell out which people with what mental problems can't own guns.....
Are you under the flawed impression that we don't?
All a therapist has to do is ask, "Do you think it's a good idea for you to have a gun?
How about - if the therapist, in their professional assessment, determines that the person is a danger to themselves or others?
The controlling mindset? What does that even mean?
That's an allusion to you and your desire, repeatedly shown by your commentary in favor of pretty much any law or regulation that tells people what they can or can't do. Even your 'adolescent power fantasy' spiel is an example of how you prefer people be controlled and that you perceive acts of freedom to be some sort of rebellion by a juvenile ward against his properly authorized controlling adult - or in this case, the state.
But when you make a law it is, by definition, going to be one size fits all.
Not true at all. Look at the tax laws alone!
Are you under the flawed impression that we don't?
No. The ones we have right now don't work and they need to change.
How about - if the therapist, in their professional assessment, determines that the person is a danger to themselves or others?
Agreed. And there needs to be new parameters for this. Does the person meet all the criteria of a a spree shooter (male, young, mental problems, SSRI, violent video games, divorced parents)?
That's an allusion to you and your desire, repeatedly shown by your commentary in favor of pretty much any law or regulation that tells people what they can or can't do. Even your 'adolescent power fantasy' spiel is an example of how you prefer people be controlled and that you perceive acts of freedom to be some sort of rebellion by a juvenile ward against his properly authorized controlling adult - or in this case, the state.
Yeah, I don't want to read any more BS about voices in my head after this straw man:)
But you have hit upon a key difference between conservatives today and everyone else. Conservatives will never admit that someone in the government might actually know more about what's in their best interests then they themselves do. This isn't true all of the time but it is sometimes. This feeling conservatives have is rooted in deep insecurity and problems with authority that are likely the result of bad parenting.
No. The ones we have right now don't work and they need to change.
The ones we have now have reduced firearms murder rate by about half since 1992. And continuing to improve even as number of firearms sold soared, and concealed carry rates are orders of magnitude higher than in 1992. And those rates are continuing to move in the right direction even as controllers wail that nothing's working... Uh huh. Pull the other one.
The ones we have now have reduced firearms murder rate by about half since 1992.
Actually, a big reason why the murder rate is going down is modern medicine is improving so people don't die.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812
70 school shootings since 1994, Larry. 1 is too many.
Yeah, I don't want to read any more BS about voices in my head after this straw man:)
But ...someone in the government might actually know more about what's in their best interests then they themselves do.
Oh man! That's why I keep coming back here. You can't get that kind of comedy gold elsewhere.
You see it don't you?
You realize that in the first paragraph you told me that my characterization of you desiring people telling other people what to do is false.
Then, in the very next breath you go on to try to explain why it's necessary for people to tell other people what to do.
Christ, I don't know how your head doesn't explode with all the matter/anti-matter trying to coexist at the same time in there.....
Not true at all. Look at the tax laws alone!
Wow, that is just stunningly stupid. I guess you really do believe your own bullshit.
after this straw man
Normally I would have to grant you the point on the basis of your familiarity with the construction of straw men, but I think this really just strikes a little too close to home for you to weasel out.
Agreed.
Good, we already got that....
And there needs to be new parameters for this. Does the person meet all the criteria of a a spree shooter (male, young, mental problems, SSRI, violent video games, divorced parents)?
Oh wait....
For fuck's sake - what kind of pre-crime bs are you talking about? You do realize that we are talking about TAKING AWAY FROM SOMEONE A RIGHT - THIS IS NOT A RIGHT THAT OUR CONSTITUTION RECOGNIZES AS SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT GIVES TO PEOPLE, BUT RATHER WHAT ALL PEOPLE HAVE BY THEIR VERY EXISTENCE?
Of course you don't recognize that.....
What's really sad and funny at the same time is that while you are more than willing to take rights away from people based upon 'likelyhoods', 'probabilities' and 'possiblies' so that they don't do something that is statistically just random noise - at the same time you would pillory anyone who called for the same treatment of the people who are statistically likely to commit a statistically probable action.
GD, do you know everything about everything?
Is that an insult? Because I engage you in debate about differing subjects?
Shall we look a little closer at that?
If you are insulting me because I engage you in debate about various different subjects...
That is because I am replying to things you write about various different subjects....
And since I don't debate you on every subject upon which you write....
You therefore write about more subjects than I engage you upon....
Therefore you appear, by your own insult, to think you know everything about everything.
Is that clear enough of an argument, you can understand it? It's not that, 'all the time', I cannot present an argument?
Funny that. If it was just my arguments that you couldn't understand, then you would, by default, be able to understand others arguments. (Which by the by, is what I was pointing out - that you don't understand the arguments of others not myself)
Is that an insult? Because I engage you in debate about differing subjects?
Is that clear enough of an argument, you can understand it? It's not that, 'all the time', I cannot present an argument?
Actually, it was a demonstration of how ridiculous your point of view is regarding your best interests. The fact is that you don't know everything about everything. No one does. I know I don't. Sometimes there are people out there who know more than you do in some areas. Sometimes those people work for the federal government (or state or local) that makes decisions on YOUR best interests...decisions that are more informed than yours...because they have more knowledge and intelligence than you do. Other times (and because they are human), they make mistakes and do not act in your best interests. The latter are what you are obsessed with and you ignore the former and that's why I call you an adolescent.
Either way, there is not this giant, all controlling monolith of an entity that liberals worship and who strives to dominate your life. That's your problem with authority and issues with mommy and daddy rearing their ugly head. In your snarky glee, you are missing the nuances (again) and are that full of hubris that you fail to even admit that there are people more intelligent than you and that some of them work for the federal government.
Think about the people that are in the military, the people that inspect our food, or the ones that build our roads. Do you honestly think that you know more than they do about your best interests in these areas? I'm humble enough to admit that I don't but that doesn't mean that I serve Big Brother. It simply means I'm an adult that recognizes that although the federal government isn't perfect, they do some good things....many more than you are willing to give them credit for and far more than your (and Larry's) paranoid bullshit will allow.
Compare this...
http://news.yahoo.com/shutdown-not-epa-employees-volunteer-hands-dirty-162016825.html
to Larry's comment...
Besides, vagueness is a feature, not a bug, to the controlling mindset. Having to be specific means accepting all sorts of limitations on the scope of possible action by the State. And we can't have that.
Who looks like a paranoid asshole now?
Ahhh.
It simply means I'm an adult that recognizes that although the federal government isn't perfect, they do some good things....many more than you are willing to give them credit for and far more than your (and Larry's) paranoid bullshit will allow.
Actually I and probably Larry would give them a lot more credit for doing good than you would expect....
The problem is - you have yet to ever see an increase in government power that you don't like.
And here's the BS to your argument - neither a food inspector nor a soldier nor a guy building a road IS TELLING ME WHAT TO DO - so your entire spiel doesn't even address ....well anything.
Actually, it was a demonstration of how ridiculous your point of view is regarding your best interests.
So if you don't know everything about everything you don't know what is in your own best interests.
Wow.
Just wow.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my remark, you blithering nincompoop. I have great difficulty imaging how you think it does. Are any of those people lawmakers or writers of regulations? No, they're just ordinary people on a paid furlough doing something good. Only according to the voices in your freaking head does anything any of your commenters say mean, "Everybody who works for the government is bad, m'kay?" Nobody here says that.
And while better medical technology is helping with the murder rate, as Pew notes, non-fatal firearms victimization rates dropped
even faster than the firearms murder rate (think armed robbery and other assaults). That's got nothing to do with better medical technology.
Actually I and probably Larry would give them a lot more credit for doing good than you would expect....
How about a few examples?
The problem is - you have yet to ever see an increase in government power that you don't like.
Straw man.
My issue is with the continual rag on decreasing governmental power where it's necessary to simply maintain the level we are at. That's not a pro increase, it's anti decrease.
neither a food inspector nor a soldier nor a guy building a road IS TELLING ME WHAT TO DO
Of course they are. The food inspector decides what is healthy for you to eat and not eat. He or she decides what is in your best interests. The soldier decides how it is best to protect you from danger. The guy the building the road uses the best materials so your car is at its safest. THEY all decide this, not you.
Of course they are.
Let's go back and refresh what the ACTUAL items we are discussing are:
Larry: "vagueness is a feature, not a bug, to the controlling mindset. Having to be specific means accepting all sorts of limitations on the scope of possible action by the State. And we can't have that."
M: "The controlling mindset? What does that even mean?"
GD: "an allusion to you and your desire, repeatedly shown by your commentary in favor of pretty much any law or regulation that tells people what they can or can't do. "
(BTW - Since that is the argument - it isn't a strawman when I bring it up later....)
M: "Conservatives will never admit that someone in the government might actually know more about what's in their best interests then they themselves do,"
There's the strawman! That isn't the argument - It isn't that there are people or instances that the government knows more about something - or that it is appropriate for it to do something. It is that you - YOU - and others like you default to more power and more control over others.
My issue is with the continual rag on decreasing governmental power where it's necessary to simply maintain the level we are at. That's not a pro increase, it's anti decrease.
So, you are saying you are in actuality a conservative?
"Everybody who works for the government is bad, m'kay?" Nobody here says that.
Silly, that is what every voice in his head says any time one of us real people actually speaks.
Straw man.
I take back my comment about your familiarity with straw men.
You have been asked repeatedly what is "too much" for govt to do - to the best of my knowledge, you have failed to answer every time.
Post a Comment