more gun control

Trump is calling for more gun control, he's calling on congress to pass stronger background checks. He says the victims of the recent shooting shouldn't die in vain. This makes three times after a big shooting that he's made a knee jerk reaction to call for more gun control. Just sayin.

Yep

Nope. I'm not wrong. Lemme guess....At least he's not Hillary right? You'd be correct, he's not Hillary. So let's just give up our freedom in small chunks, and tell ourselves "hey, at least we're not giving up our freedom in big chunks*, huh?


Do you agree with trump? Does you think that congress should pass stronger background checks?

He will have to do something or lose the election.
No matter what he does implement it wont be enough for the lefty libs.

Oh look, now you have the Canadian troll cheer leading for you!

What he should do is say something to the effect of "no more gun control", "no gun free zones", people need to carry to protect themselves", etc etc.

You don't want to use that attitude here Boco. You know better than that.

Lugnut, do you agree with Trump? Should congress pass a stronger background checks bill?

Describe "stronger background checks". The background check already checks mental health, felons, domestic abuse yadda yadda.

That news link really chopped up and put its own perspective into the speech, from my view.

I saw the speech , and one of the first things he specified in clear, accentuated tone, was that it was the hand of the shooter that did the damage, "NOT the gun."

The context to background checks was in connection with a proposed list of obvious evidence of hate expressions on social media, and other things as red flag warnings . A list to address mentally volatile individuals .

Just my observation .

After listening to the President's speech, my take-away was the same as yours Sharon.

Thanks Sharon and Lugnut, I missed the speech.

But you are smarter than the average listener.

Yes sir, lugnut. If that is reviewed in video, unedited , one of the first things he mentioned, shortly into the speech, was that short but firmly stated sentence that really stood out with me.

NICS is not working as intended. The output is only as good as the inputs and the necessary info is not always being input. So yes, I think it is a situation that needs to be fixed and the fix could be referred to as "stronger background checks." In some cases the government (military and others) did not provide info for input that was required to be provided. In other situations our changes over the past few decades in how mentally ill people are treated has created a huge loophole in NICS. Many of the mass shooters were being treated with psychoactive drugs. If physicians were required to report when long term use of psychoactive drugs is prescribed AND additional background investigation was performed before firearms purchase was approved, the background check system would be "stronger." Alternately, perhaps being under a Dr's care involving certain psychoactive drug therapies should disqualify a person from firearms ownership. Many of these people would have been institutionalized 50 years ago and not able to own firearms.

We have relied heavily on NICS for the elimination of waiting periods and other restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights and we need it to work better than it is currently.
Universal background checks is what the liberals want and something that I see as completely different from "stronger background checks."

Let me re-phrase it then.
Lugnut,if you are unable to participate intelligently in a relevant discussion because of some cerebral deficiency,just move on to another topic that is more suited to your level of intelligence.
Personal attacks one ones nationality are uncalled for and an indicator of your obvious lack of ability to engage in academic discussion.
My apologies White,it was a knee jerk reaction to reply on the same level,so he would understand.

"stronger background checks" meaning anything more than what we already have. Does anybody think we need stronger background checks than what we already have? ( Keep in mind only around 25%of mass shooters have been diagnosed with any sort of mental condition prior to their shooting). And we can't go around Denying people their rights because they're weird or "crazy". Crazy isn't a mental diagnosis of any sort, not to mention that mentally ill people on the whole are commit crime at a lower rate than non mentally ill people. Denying people the right to purchase a gun based on hateful speech on social media would be obviously unconstitutional. Hate speech, while disgusting, has no real definition, and in any case is protected under the first amendment. You can't deny someone a right based on their practicing another right. Specific threats of violence are a completely different thing of course, and that where red flag type laws come into play.

Trump's record on red flag laws is already abysmal. He said "I say take the guns away first. Go through due process second."

So lugnut, you agree with the President then?

You see also how the media is turning things around or word it to there own like. Just like I was watch the local morning news and they said that there was men that had done the shooting.They did not say lone man or just one person . Then on the great NBC morning news they said the lone gunman did the shooting . If you look at the links make your own mind on it all ahttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1157781637658292231.html?fbclid=IwAR04Lvlwz39TX4MzaGJNCDRxoVmMzD2bBXZ08PazLBm5YfpgbOgOC6In7A0nd https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ay-theres-active-shooter-local-mall.html as for what he wrote this is it WALMART SHOOTER MANIFESTO
https://drudgereport.com/flashtx.htm

Mental Illness and Mass Murder
The FBI found 70% of shooters had ‘stressors’ or ‘concerning behaviors’ prior to the attack.


By E. Fuller Torrey
Aug. 4, 2019 5:46 pm ET


Based on the increase in the U.S. population, there are now some one million people with serious mental illness living among the general population who, 60 years ago, would have been treated in state mental hospitals. Multiple studies have reported that, at any given time, between 40% and 50% of them are receiving no treatment for their mental illness. With the best of intentions and the worst of planning, America has emptied out its public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring that the released patients would receive the necessary treatment to control their symptoms. What did we think would happen?

Now we have two more mass shootings, committed over a 13-hour period. In El Paso, Texas, 20 people were killed in what authorities have called a hate crime, while in Dayton, Ohio, the death toll is nine. One database claims these were the 21st and 22nd mass killings in the U.S. in 2019. Such databases vary depending on the number of dead required to meet the definition.

They also vary according to other factors. If, for example, they only count gun deaths, then they don’t include Adacia Chambers, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, who in 2015 killed four and injured 48 by driving her car into a parade crowd in Stillwater, Okla. What is clear from all the databases is that these mass killings are increasing in frequency and have been since the 1980s. Not coincidentally, that was when the emptying out of state mental hospitals was at its peak.

So what role does mental illness play in these mass killings? Multiple studies done between 2000 and 2015 suggest that about a third of mass killers have an untreated severe mental illness. If mental illness is defined more broadly, the percentage is higher. In 2018 the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report titled “A Study of the Pre-Attack Behavior of Active Shooters in the United States Between 2008 and 2013.” It reported that 40% of the shooters had received a psychiatric diagnosis, and 70% had “mental health stressors” or “mental health concerning behaviors” before the attack.

Most recently, in July 2019, the U.S. Secret Service released its report “Mass Attacks in Public Spaces—2018.” The report covered 27 attacks that resulted in 91 deaths and 107 injuries. The investigators found that 67% of the suspects displayed symptoms of mental illness or emotional disturbance. In 93% of the incidents, the authorities found that the suspects had a history of threats or other troubling communications. The results were similar to those of another study published by the Secret Service on 28 such attacks in 2017.

It thus seems clear that untreated mental illness is playing a significant role in the rising incidence of mass killings. The widespread availability of guns obviously also plays a role. It should be emphasized that mentally ill patients who are receiving treatment are no more at risk for violence than the general population. Yet it is also clear that without treatment some seriously mentally ill people are at greater risk for violent behavior than the general population.

For those who are seriously mentally ill but who, because of their brain disease, are unaware of their illness and refuse treatment, it is sometimes necessary to require them to accept treatment as a condition for living in the community. This is often done under a program referred to as assisted outpatient treatment. Such treatment may involve injectable antipsychotic medication that can be effective for as long as three months. This should always be accompanied by a judicial process and legal protection of individual rights.

We know what to do to reduce the number of mass killings associated with mental illness. The question is whether we have the will to do it.

Dr. Torrey is founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center and author of “American Psychosis.”

Copyright ©2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the August 5, 2019, print edition.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mental-illness-and-mass-murder-11564955203?mod=hp_opin_pos_2