reynolds357
New member
And your "facts" are all messed up. You either poorly comprehended or poorly remember the details of the case.
Guns / ARs not driving gun crime, but mental health & social media are.
- Thread starter Pistoler0
- Start date
The straw purchase case against Dominick Black was so poor that the prosecutor settled for a non criminal citation of contributing to delinquency and a fine.
At the Rittenhouse trial, Black testified about how the rifle was kept in possession of the Blacks and used by Rittenhouse when he came to visit. Since a federal transfer pertains to a transfer in possession, and everyone agreed that Black retained possession, the evidence supported the idea that Black was the true transferee and it isn't clear that that transfer from Hardware store to Black was a straw purchase.
Maybe no federal charges have been filed to this day because there were no violations of federal law.
At the Rittenhouse trial, Black testified about how the rifle was kept in possession of the Blacks and used by Rittenhouse when he came to visit. Since a federal transfer pertains to a transfer in possession, and everyone agreed that Black retained possession, the evidence supported the idea that Black was the true transferee and it isn't clear that that transfer from Hardware store to Black was a straw purchase.
Maybe no federal charges have been filed to this day because there were no violations of federal law.
Spats McGee
Administrator
And let's also be clear: I don't know about the US Attorney in WI, but the one in AR has about a 95% conviction rate. The USAtty here just does not pick up cases unless they're really solid. I doubt it's different in WI, but I'll do a little searching and come back here if I find anything. Anyway, given all of the publicity surrounding it, had that case been a lock for the gov't, I believe the USAtty would have brought the charge. Clearly, it wasn't.
next football to kick around...
Mental illness/moral decay...
Besides the ever present problem of how do you define them, and is your definition the "correct" one, (for anyone but you), are the terms mutually exclusive? mutually inclusive? co-related? OR just simply a label used to identify absence of desired behavior? Bit of all? None??
The terms and phrases we use in everyday conversation can, and often do have different meanings in different contexts. Same words, but different meanings.
Tell your friends over coffee that you pulled up to the stop sign, stopped, looked both ways, waited a minute, then pulled out to cross the intersection...
Means something to them, everyone understands you.
Use the exact same words under oath in court and they mean something else. You have just testified that you waited "a minute" (which is a full 60 seconds) to the court. IF it is shown that you did not wait a full 60 seconds before pulling out then, you have (technically) lied under oath, so ALL your testimony and your credibility is now suspect. And you might possibly even fact charges for lying under oath....
Its a simple matter, the choice of a single word, saying minute (60 seconds), instead of moment (a brief, but unspecified amount of time) can make a huge difference in certain circumstances.
Someome who goes out and shoots people because they feel like it must be crazy, right?? So, that makes them mentally ill...right??
Such behavior is so deviant from the norms that they must be amoral (moral decay)...
But, are they? really?? and, from whose point of view?
Don't think for a moment that I am advocating or approve of shooting people for fun or profit, what I am talking about is using huge blanket labels to cover specific cases, and using those same terms/labels when crafting laws and regulations to HOPEFULLY control/eliminate problems.
I often hear people say "No one who is mentally ill should be allowed to buy (or have) a gun". We agree with this, because it is sensible, right?
It is sensible because we automatically assume that what is meant is that no one who could be criminally irresponsible with a gun due to mental illness should have one.
But, that is an assumption, one we make all the time in casual conversation. When you attempt to codify that into a law, things...change...
How about all those people who are NOT "mentally ill" but choose to be criminally irresponsible with a gun?
Is "Moral decay" something real, something for which there can be a set standard? Or is it just a convenient label to stick on people who don't believe what you or I believe??
A lot of the world spent most of man's history believing it was morally right and just to kill people who believed differently than they do. Some of the world STILL DOES!
My point here is that I feel that there is a difference between "ill" and "immoral" and a deliberate concious choice to do what others (meaning us) consider evil.
We have spent the last couple generations teaching everyone is/should be allowed to "march to a different drummer" if they so choose.
Some people choose evil. That doesn't make them ill, or absolve them of the responsibility for their actions. It just makes them evil.
No one can know what someone will do, with certainty until after they do it. The most we can know is what they say they will do. And that isn't a certainty that they will do what they say they will do.
If you accept the concept that we have free will, then you also have to accept that some people will choose poorly (by the usual standards) and some will intentionally choose to do evil.
Lots of people claim they have solutions, things that will prevent people from making those bad choices. Haven't seen any that worked as claimed, and all must impose restrictions on our freedom of choice, by their very nature.
Seems the most common theme with proposed "solutions" is to prevent "bad" choices, they remove/restrict the ability to choose... sometimes by law, sometimes by peer pressure.
Pick an issue, and say something "unpopular" on social media, and you get slammed. HARD. Sometimes even to the point of losing your job, because you hold the "wrong" views....
Welcome to the 21st century and tyranny by the masses, at the speed of electricity...and a few keystrokes...
thoughts?
Mental illness/moral decay...
Besides the ever present problem of how do you define them, and is your definition the "correct" one, (for anyone but you), are the terms mutually exclusive? mutually inclusive? co-related? OR just simply a label used to identify absence of desired behavior? Bit of all? None??
The terms and phrases we use in everyday conversation can, and often do have different meanings in different contexts. Same words, but different meanings.
Tell your friends over coffee that you pulled up to the stop sign, stopped, looked both ways, waited a minute, then pulled out to cross the intersection...
Means something to them, everyone understands you.
Use the exact same words under oath in court and they mean something else. You have just testified that you waited "a minute" (which is a full 60 seconds) to the court. IF it is shown that you did not wait a full 60 seconds before pulling out then, you have (technically) lied under oath, so ALL your testimony and your credibility is now suspect. And you might possibly even fact charges for lying under oath....
Its a simple matter, the choice of a single word, saying minute (60 seconds), instead of moment (a brief, but unspecified amount of time) can make a huge difference in certain circumstances.
Someome who goes out and shoots people because they feel like it must be crazy, right?? So, that makes them mentally ill...right??
Such behavior is so deviant from the norms that they must be amoral (moral decay)...
But, are they? really?? and, from whose point of view?
Don't think for a moment that I am advocating or approve of shooting people for fun or profit, what I am talking about is using huge blanket labels to cover specific cases, and using those same terms/labels when crafting laws and regulations to HOPEFULLY control/eliminate problems.
I often hear people say "No one who is mentally ill should be allowed to buy (or have) a gun". We agree with this, because it is sensible, right?
It is sensible because we automatically assume that what is meant is that no one who could be criminally irresponsible with a gun due to mental illness should have one.
But, that is an assumption, one we make all the time in casual conversation. When you attempt to codify that into a law, things...change...
How about all those people who are NOT "mentally ill" but choose to be criminally irresponsible with a gun?
Is "Moral decay" something real, something for which there can be a set standard? Or is it just a convenient label to stick on people who don't believe what you or I believe??
A lot of the world spent most of man's history believing it was morally right and just to kill people who believed differently than they do. Some of the world STILL DOES!
My point here is that I feel that there is a difference between "ill" and "immoral" and a deliberate concious choice to do what others (meaning us) consider evil.
We have spent the last couple generations teaching everyone is/should be allowed to "march to a different drummer" if they so choose.
Some people choose evil. That doesn't make them ill, or absolve them of the responsibility for their actions. It just makes them evil.
No one can know what someone will do, with certainty until after they do it. The most we can know is what they say they will do. And that isn't a certainty that they will do what they say they will do.
If you accept the concept that we have free will, then you also have to accept that some people will choose poorly (by the usual standards) and some will intentionally choose to do evil.
Lots of people claim they have solutions, things that will prevent people from making those bad choices. Haven't seen any that worked as claimed, and all must impose restrictions on our freedom of choice, by their very nature.
Seems the most common theme with proposed "solutions" is to prevent "bad" choices, they remove/restrict the ability to choose... sometimes by law, sometimes by peer pressure.
Pick an issue, and say something "unpopular" on social media, and you get slammed. HARD. Sometimes even to the point of losing your job, because you hold the "wrong" views....
Welcome to the 21st century and tyranny by the masses, at the speed of electricity...and a few keystrokes...
thoughts?
stagpanther
New member
Something is different with people today!
Double Naught Spy
New member
Every new generation diverges from the previous generation and the previous generation finds fault with it, often describing it as being irresponsibility or moral decay. The older generations seem to suffer a lot from the mental disability of rosy retrospection.
If there is a problem with the next generation, then it is on the previous generation for being such cruddy parents. Most people will claim that they raised their kids right, so it is the fault of other parents, but that really doesn't hold water as their kids are part of the next generation. However, strangely, nobody gives kudos to the parents of the Greatest Generation who were apparently amazing people to have the Greatest Generation, but the Greatest Generation gave birth to and raised a bunch of scoundrels and miscreants. How great is that?
Mental illness? Spent a lot of time reading up on Howard Unruh. Most folks have no idea who he is, but he is sort of the father of modern day mass shootings. In 1949, the former combat veteran took a war trophy Luger and shot 15 people, killing 13 of them, all people in his neighborhood. After his arrest, he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia by psychologists and found to be insane, making him immune to criminal prosecution, though the schizophrenia part seems rather dubious by today's standards as he didn't exhibit the traits we typically associate with the issue today. However, he must have been crazy, it was argued, because no sane person would do what he did. Was he really crazy? Probably not. Did he have some issues? Undoubtedly. Who doesn't?
Mental health issues have always been a part of society. These aren't new, but they are operational in a different society than they were 50 years ago or 100 years ago. We have a LOT more people now. The issue may not be so much one of mental illness in society but of society around mental illness.
Have mass shootings really gone up? Probably, but strangely all that we seem to care about are the public sorts of mass shootings that aren't drive-bys, gang, or drug related. Familial mass shootings which are more common really aren't even of consideration about what is perceived as such a terrible problem. The myth of 'stranger danger' permeates this thinking when in reality you are more likely to be injured or killed in a familial mass shooting than a public mass shooting, but nobody talks about that. The notion that a medical doctor is basically diagnosing what is going on based on an artificial set of sampling criteria to a purported problem is just plain stupid, unless he can show cause where things like social media ONLY are affecting public mass shootings, but he doesn't.
People here have said that the media promotes mass shootings. Well, apparently the media also promotes everybody fixating on the wrong part of the problem. We do it as well, but maybe for politically motivated reasons. We want familial and private mass shootings to remain under the radar as much as possible, lest the public realizes this might be a problem.
That's a verified phenomenon. The media turns these guys into folk heroes, and others take note. Social media tells them any publicity is good publicity, and it gives them a platform for their manifestos.
Doc Intrepid
New member
While it may not be the predominant motivating factor, there is no escaping the conclusion that social media plays a huge role in the lives of most young people - TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, Tinder, and many, many other apps and platforms. In terms of modifying their behavior it would be difficult to argue that social media has only moderate to low influence. I'm convinced that social media is one of the more critical and overlooked contributors to violent behavior throughout US society, but especially among young Americans. Social media certainly facilitates and enables factionalization, the demonization of "Others", and anti-social behavior in all their various manifestations.
Don't forget the entire "social media" thing is structured to be ego games. Likes, followers, influencers, what ever the latest buzzwords and names are, its all about ego boosting. Does that have an effect on behavior? oh hell yes.
Get 10,000 people telling you that you're right, does have a confidence building aspect. Whether you're actually right, or not.
Look at the stupid and dangerous stuff people have been convinced to do, to earn social status in the social media world. Eating laundry soap (Tide Pods), doing dangerous and risky stunts like lying on the centerline of a highway at night, and a whole host of other things.
The fact that there are some people who actually do those things is a bit scary too, but what does that say about the people who TALK THEM INTO IT???
Nothing good.
TFL is as social as I get, and I'm not all that "social" here.
I think the people influenced by social meda are idiots, but that, sadly doesn't change the fact that it is REAL and its influence for good or evil is a real thing.
Get 10,000 people telling you that you're right, does have a confidence building aspect. Whether you're actually right, or not.
Look at the stupid and dangerous stuff people have been convinced to do, to earn social status in the social media world. Eating laundry soap (Tide Pods), doing dangerous and risky stunts like lying on the centerline of a highway at night, and a whole host of other things.
The fact that there are some people who actually do those things is a bit scary too, but what does that say about the people who TALK THEM INTO IT???
Nothing good.
TFL is as social as I get, and I'm not all that "social" here.
I think the people influenced by social meda are idiots, but that, sadly doesn't change the fact that it is REAL and its influence for good or evil is a real thing.
reynolds357
New member
A couple forums like this are the closest thing to social media I am on. IMO, social media is narsocistic. I don't think anyone cares that I am eating food at restaurant x and with whom I am eating it. I don't think anyone, other than burglars, care what I am doing on vacation. I could be wrong, but I don't care about that stuff and I assume everyone else is like me and could not care less what I am doing. If anyone wants to know where I am and what me or my kids are doing, oh well, outta luck.Don't forget the entire "social media" thing is structured to be ego games. Likes, followers, influencers, what ever the latest buzzwords and names are, its all about ego boosting. Does that have an effect on behavior? oh hell yes.
Get 10,000 people telling you that you're right, does have a confidence building aspect. Whether you're actually right, or not.
Look at the stupid and dangerous stuff people have been convinced to do, to earn social status in the social media world. Eating laundry soap (Tide Pods), doing dangerous and risky stunts like lying on the centerline of a highway at night, and a whole host of other things.
The fact that there are some people who actually do those things is a bit scary too, but what does that say about the people who TALK THEM INTO IT???
Nothing good.
TFL is as social as I get, and I'm not all that "social" here.
I think the people influenced by social meda are idiots, but that, sadly doesn't change the fact that it is REAL and its influence for good or evil is a real thing.
stagpanther
New member
Maybe...but you might be surprised. Even on this forum a google analytics tracker is sending data back to a data warehouse during your browse time. Like everyone else, you probably have no idea what that data is used for.
There are few "justifiable homicides" The criteria for "justifiable" is in part,determined by the "reasonable person" clause.
Many may disagree, but I suggest that nearly anyone who chooses to kill or shoot another Human Being is SOME form of mentally ill.
This is NOT to suggest the Mentally Ill are potential killers.
I'm just saying that if you can choose to kill another person for any reason but self defense,at least in that moment, You are adding 2+2 and getting 5.
Now,it MIGHT be you decided to do it for $500, or you don't like their music,
but its still crazy.
There are few people who are mentally ill enough to not know right from wrong. Some,but few.
For the rest,I do not buy the "Mental Illness" excuse. The rest made a choice.
Maybe a bad choice,but they could have chosen different.
Many may disagree, but I suggest that nearly anyone who chooses to kill or shoot another Human Being is SOME form of mentally ill.
This is NOT to suggest the Mentally Ill are potential killers.
I'm just saying that if you can choose to kill another person for any reason but self defense,at least in that moment, You are adding 2+2 and getting 5.
Now,it MIGHT be you decided to do it for $500, or you don't like their music,
but its still crazy.
There are few people who are mentally ill enough to not know right from wrong. Some,but few.
For the rest,I do not buy the "Mental Illness" excuse. The rest made a choice.
Maybe a bad choice,but they could have chosen different.
44 AMP said:
It certainly is. I have a friend who teaches at-risk middle schoolers. Covid already dented their social development (and we're going to see the results of that for a long time).
One day, the students were taking a quiz. They had to dump their phones in a bucket at the beginning of class. One student had an actual panic attack, with sweats and shaking and all the symptoms. The teacher asked if she was OK, and the student responded she was "freaking out" because she hadn't yet received 100 "likes" on Instagram for the dress she wore that day.
It didn't matter if people told her in person it was pretty. What mattered, above all else, was accruing arbitrary internet points. And her mental health was affected by this.
Social media has made us a culture of narcissists, and it profits by feeding that. It allows people, even with the most reprehensible views, to find peer groups that will reinforce their prejudices. Everyone can (and seems to want to) live in a bubble of confirmation bias.
TS said:
There is a larger generation shift about which I might not know if I didn't have children.
Kids under 20 or 25 consider it aggressive to call someone on a telephone. They have friends and need their cell phones, but they use them as computers and text devices, not phones.
I live in a world in which the friendliest thing I can do for an adversary is pick up the telephone (the big square thing on my desk) and call him to describe a problem and how we can resolve it. The world kids inhabit is difficult for someone like me to understand.
stagpanther
New member
Every generation thinks their kids are screwed up. The real issue is the world itself is changing fast under their feet and they don't understand what's happening.
My kids at 12 and 10 do not have access to social media yet and do not have their own phone. All their friends do.
Inevitably I will have to provide them with a phone pretty soon (maybe the coming school year). When I do, I will restrict all social media apps and block the downloading and installing of them so they only have access to the phone as a communication, limited (time wise) texting, and directions/mapping device.
I am blocking all Instagram, TikTok, and all that nonsense.
Parents cannot not abrogate the responsibility of putting limits and monitoring their kids! Why are kids set free with their phones? I do not understand that. When I was a kid, my parents would limit the kind of tv programming that I could watch, and the time I could do it at: "Kids! Go outside! " How many times have I hear that? With the phone, there is no disconnecting from it.
The tools to supervise and limit what a kid does with their phone do exist and they are not expensive. Very often you just need to password protect the downloading of apps on the phone.
Inevitably I will have to provide them with a phone pretty soon (maybe the coming school year). When I do, I will restrict all social media apps and block the downloading and installing of them so they only have access to the phone as a communication, limited (time wise) texting, and directions/mapping device.
I am blocking all Instagram, TikTok, and all that nonsense.
Parents cannot not abrogate the responsibility of putting limits and monitoring their kids! Why are kids set free with their phones? I do not understand that. When I was a kid, my parents would limit the kind of tv programming that I could watch, and the time I could do it at: "Kids! Go outside! " How many times have I hear that? With the phone, there is no disconnecting from it.
The tools to supervise and limit what a kid does with their phone do exist and they are not expensive. Very often you just need to password protect the downloading of apps on the phone.
stagpanther
New member
Unless you home-school your kids--no way you can control them these days.
These days or any days in the past, since the first kid left the cave or the tree, and got out of their parent's line of sight.
Once they are out of your direct physical supervision, they make their own decisions, right, AND wrong. You teach them what's right, and you hope for the best. Beyond that, its ALL up to them.
stinkeypete
New member
But then how is it that kids can learn more than their parents know, especially if the parents base their lives on the “facts” believed by ancient primitive tribesmen?