Why I left the Democratic Party

@Lash,

That'd be super but I seriously doubt it will be enough. Some ammos and gun types need to go the way of the dodo. There need to be a very strong commitment to change. It has to cost the nation something, or it won't earn the nation anything. Minute, incremental changes affecting 1% of the population won't work.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

The good thing is that small percentage that it affects is also the small percentage that commits the great majority of the killing.

I wouldn’t blanket punish an entire class for the antics of one or two students, nor would I disarm a country due to the psychotic behavior of a small group.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I’d probably vote against the bill too if I were In the position. All I’m saying is that this bill is pretty much a nothing burger. Nothing to get worked up over. Nothing worth attacking democrats in red states over. If you vote in more democrats into office and they win a majority you’ll never see a bill like this hit the floor.

And the bill isn’t law, it’s got a long way to go and the house could still make changes that will lose democratic support.

1 Reply

@Lash,

I'm not speaking of 'disarming a nation', just banning some ammo and gun types. And it's not a punition either. It's a choice the nation has to make for itself obviously.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I’d like to see the results of the changes. I’m confident the ridiculous numbers of dead would plummet.

They wouldn't plummet. If murderers are unable to use guns, they will just use knives instead.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Some ammos and gun types need to go the way of the dodo.

You can only restrict a right in America if you can justify the restriction with a good reason.

It is very unlikely that you can justify banning any type of gun or ammo.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

I wouldn’t blanket punish an entire class for the antics of one or two students, nor would I disarm a country due to the psychotic behavior of a small group.

No you would rather stigmatize the mentally ill.

From what I read, it is only about 4% of the 20% of those with mental illness who have serious mental illness which would make more them likely to commit violence.

Mass Shootings and Mental Illness: Almost Everything You’ve Been Told Is Wrong

1 Reply

@revelette1,

I see your article and raise you this one:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.html%3foutputType=amp

Excerpt:

Repeat after me: Mass shooters are not disproportionately mentally ill."
This is the opening line of a meme that's been circulating in the aftermath of the shooting in Parkland, Fla.

But this and other efforts to downplay the role of mental illness in mass shootings are simply misleading. There is a clear relationship between mental illness and mass public shootings.
At the broadest level, peer-reviewed research has shown that individuals with major mental disorders (those that substantially interfere with life activities) are more likely to commit violent acts, especially if they abuse drugs. When we focus more narrowly on mass public shootings — an extreme and, fortunately, rare form of violence — we see a relatively high rate of mental illness.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Takes a lot longer and gives the intended victim a fighting chance.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I’ve said this previously—if other less restrictive measures were tried first, enforced, given a chance, and didn’t work, I’d be open to what you’re suggesting.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

There is a clear relationship between mental illness and mass public shootings.

You must not have read my article since it said basically the same. The four percent figure is still correct.

I looked up the source for their claim of "we see a relatively high rate of mental illness."

https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10979-006-9018-z?no-access=true

They seem to have an agenda.

In any event their figures are based on signs of mental illness as well as people diagnosed with mental illness. So their figures would naturally be subjective.

Quote:

According to our research, at least 59% of the 185 public mass shootings that took place in the United States from 1900 through 2017 were carried out by people who had either been diagnosed with a mental disorder or demonstrated signs of serious mental illness prior to the attack

0 Replies

Democrats, women candidates score big in Texas primaries

0 Replies

Since you are not going to stop having mentally ill citizens any time soon, I believe gun control is the proper first step. Not a total ban, but thorough checks, no gun show loopholes and no high capacity guns.

0 Replies

@Lash,

When you talk about guns it's like talking to someone from a really weird cult. It doesn't matter how many times you try to explain your position it just sounds unhinged. Anything but accept the real reason for mass shootings. I'm not surprised you believe your cosmetic measures will cause shootings to plummet, you also believed Trump would stand up to the NRA.

Don't worry, I have no say in your laws or government. I'm just relieved that you have no say in ours, and that our children are safe.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

She’s soooooo Progressive though.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I hope for the day that you can maintain an argument without insult or personal digression.

I hope for the day you can represent your position honestly.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

I’d probably vote against the bill too if I were In the position. All I’m saying is that this bill is pretty much a nothing burger.

It's politically a very bad idea, and economically a very risky idea. It's another chip taken off Dodd-Frank, at least symbolically. I understand there's some way to go for the Hpuse and Senate to agree on a bill on the dismantling of Dodd-Frank, but make no mistake: this is a Republican victory in that general direction.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I’ve said this previously—if other less restrictive measures were tried first, enforced, given a chance, and didn’t work, I’d be open to what you’re suggesting.

I see you've become a very cautious reformist, another incrementalist... :-)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

When reducing people’s rights, yes—not when, for instance, deciding if the people who pay for my Gold Standard healthcare deserve their own healthcare.

That kind of ‘incrementalism’ like King mentioned in Letter from Birmingham Jail, still sucks today.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

She reminds me of the person who phones me up with a very English name and a very Indian accent claiming to be from my internet provider, or my computer's technical support, or my phone company or whatever scam they think I'll fall for.

I honestly don't know why she bloody bothers, she's not fooling anyone.

0 Replies

Why I left the Democratic Party

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know