I enjoy hearing those words..."Gun Control"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am confident there will be a large event with multiple terrorists one day. However, the argument will not be to restrict arms, but how can we all carry arms. I bet in every church in SC there is someone carrying right now. Thats the only way to truly harden a target.
Click to expand...

I hope there are other ways of promoting RKBA than waiting for mass attacks on such a scale that they will finally sway public opinion your way!! :eek:

That is not the way to approach this, IMHO.
 
I did like your idea of a well done TV show, used to show the TRUTH, (which includes our side), but there is a large problem with that, aside from just affording to make it. And that is getting any major media to actually AIR it.

Free advertising to any and all anti-gun causes is routinely provided, under the mantle of "news".

Pro gun messages have been refused, not just free press, but refused PAID airtime. They are big on so called "fairness" when its their side of an issue is being stifled, but won't even accept our money to let us tell the other side.
Click to expand...

If that is true, then the media situation in the US, in this regard, is pretty propagandised. Perhaps not of the scale of my Eastern Neighbour's news network, but Vlad would probably nod respectfully!!
What happened to a free and fair press, the cornerstone of a healthy democracy?!

If "they" truly have the Media wrapped up, then it does NOT look good!

OK, so don't go through the media channels: go to the internet. More money for production! Print copies in DVD and give them away in train stations, airports, shopping malls etc.
As long as it is genuine material from genuine people and fair (NOT sensationalist), the viewing public will respond and be immediately more open.
 
Originally posted by rightside:

One of the biggest problems, as I see it, was the liberal push in'86? to make sure the people in mental institutions had their rights protected. They were being denied their freedom. So Reagan caved to the libs and signed legislation which basically opened the doors to the institutions and allowed those poor people whose rights had been violated, back on the streets. "Here's some pills, and off you go!" It is very difficult to have someone incarcerated for mental illness.Is it any wonder we have mentally ill people on the streets instead of in hospitals where they belong. Now the libs want to blame access to guns as the problem. JMO
Click to expand...

If you look back on Reagan's stance and policies on Mental Health when he was Governor of California, you see he did not really cave in to any other ideals other than his own. Part of the problems we have with dealing with Mental Health issues today are because of his stance and the policies he instituted back then. It's just easier to blame someone else.
 
The issue with mental health didn't start with Reagan, its much older than that.

The current issue of "mass shootings " is a just a simple case of miss direction. Almost all the individuals involved in these "mass shootings" were disturbed people. This is the real problem. We have essentually allowed mentally disturbed people to run free in the US with a hand full of anti-psychotic pills as a way to deal with overcrowding in the limited number of Mental Health hosptitals. This problem didn't happen overnight.

If you look back in the 1950's when their was 1 psych bed per every 300 Americans to the current 1 bed for every 3,000 Americans, the problem becomes evident.

In the 1970's, the States and Federal psych hospitals began to shut down to save money and they dumped their patients on the US streets, or put them in prisons. This was done by greasing the Psych Doctors at the APA to recommend outpatient treatment. This didn't take much convincing since, around the mid 60's time frame (medicare/medicaid), medical billing changed and Civilian psych doctors figured out that they could make alot more money handing out anti-psychotic drugs, like candy, and weekly "I'm ok you're ok" therapy than practicing in inpatients facilities based on what medicaid allowed fees and greater pier review.
 
Many places a person cannot be institutionalized against their will. Will a person that thinks their beliefs are right go down and voluntarily commit themselves? No they won't.

Yes it many instances the drugs complicate issues
 
The problem with involuntary commitment of psych cases goes along with the issue. Politicians do not want to touch it since it opens a can of worms. What I'm getting at is in the military there is DOD Directive 6490.1 the "boxers law". On the civilian side there is O'Connor v. Donaldson, . Foucha v. Louisiana, Jackson v. Indiana, Riggins v. Nevada, Sell v. United States and a couple other SCOTUS cases that all cause a minefield of problems when it comes to forced inpatient mental health care / involuntary treatment.

One would think that the low hanging fruit is to just ban those with mental health issues from owning a firearms, but its not that simple. The Congress would have to change several laws and even then, I doubt that the SCOTUS would buy it.
 
I was talking to a buddy of mine and we kinda laughed when we noticed that 'Mass Shootings' seem to be more prevalent in the U.S. but not so much in the rest of the world. Could it be simply that what we call mass shootings be what the rest of the world knows as terrorim? Seriously, the whole Carolina shooting has all the ear marks of a terrorist attack. Why do we insist on calling it a mass shooting, if not for any other reason than political? Mental health issues aside(as you can't convince me otherwise that terrorists anywhere in the world are mentally sane), shouldn't we start addressing these for what they are and not labeling it with a misleading name and foisting the blame elsewhere?
 
They have to call for mass shootings or the statistics will prove their premise to be wrong from the outset. In the rest of the world, you have mass stabbings, poisonings, passenger plane destruction, and bombings, often with over a hundred victims. The US would trail behind quite a few countries if the discussion was about killing itself, not the tools used to commit the acts.
 
Psychology is a wide field so blanket statements are not productive. I deleted noise about such.

There is more to the field than just clinical.

Modern medicine is full of treatments that don't work or found to be useless after being proclaimed to be great. So is medicine a sham?
 
Terrorism is a tactic, its not a people or a thing. is there any difference between a "Mass Shooting" and;

1) a person with HIV that infects several people intentionally.
2) a cook that serves a bulging can of food with botulism to several customers.
3) a drug company that markets drugs with deadly side effects.
4) a car company that sells cars with known defects that will cause the car to shut off at any time while driving and kill lots of people.
5) a person that kills several people over several years.

the list goes on and on. I see no difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top