No gun rhetoric in Oregon

Yeah, typical parents and relatives denouncing guns on the tube with the Pres. However, they got significant numbers of folks wanting to be armed.

Thus, the pullback. It was going to be another antigun rant, I'm sure.
 
I worry more when he doesn't talk about it. I would rather know what he's planning to do next. The fact that he didn't stress gun control in Oregon doesn't mean he's not going to try another end run around the law through abuse of executive orders.
 
He got told to tone things down, getting in a rhetorical argument with the parents in Roseburg would have been very, very, stupid. If you can keep them out of the news and gloss it over later, you still control the debate, and his fundraisers in Portland and Seattle the next few days would not have been adversely affected.
 
The area of OR and WA have quietly been the targets of the gun control lobby(in a way)
Click to expand...

the area targeted is the metro area, the I-5 corridor. From Seattle to Portland, mostly. This area is notoriously liberal, and by population outvotes the rest of the states.

Gun control, doesn't fly well with the rest of WA or OR.

The WA UBC passed this last election (after being defeated twice in the legislature) as a ballot referendum. It only passed in the 5 counties in the Sea-Tac area, but the numbers were enough to carry it over the rest of the state.

One of the main reasons I think it passed there, was because of a barrage of TV ads (paid for by out of state money, so I hear) that claimed the law would prevent domestic abusers from getting guns.

NO mention was ever made that EXISTING LAW prevents domestic abusers from getting guns.

A friend and I were discussing Obama's lack of his characteristic gun control comments. The protestors probably had something to do with it, but his theory is that Obama was simply told by the DNC to shut up about it.

He can't be politically hurt by bringing it up, he's a lame duck. And the die hard anti's generally are in districts where they are essentially protected. BUT the REST of the party could suffer if the issue is pushed.

Might not be the real reason, but makes sense to me...
 
I agree. In the past, there were folks who were pro-gun but didn't like the other party's policies or positions. However, the full court press on gun control might well turn folks into single issue voters for gun rights. Obama was lucky in a sense to run against a reviled administration by many. Thus, Hillary won't have that advantage.

Bernie may not come across as a total gun banner like Hill and O. Yeah, he favors AWBs and such but isn't that much of a hater. So that's that attack on him from Hill.
 
Every time this happens, more people buy guns. They are looking for protection. They have the mental capacity to see that an "official" will not come to protect them in time.

In chatting with fellows in the UK, they strongly feel that police will be by their side in an instant.... Not sure how true it is but that's the conversations I've had. If you don't bash them over gun rights, you can have lots of interesting talks with them.

That's the difference between pro-gun and anti-gun; it's the perception of police response. Most antis think police will arrive in time, gun owners don't feel that is the case.
 
There are going to be, I think, moments as we go forward where we're going to have to come together and figure out how do we stop things like this from happening.
Click to expand...
I don't think he means to be figuring out how to improve our mental health care in America.
Click to expand...

This is an instance if the republicans ect were on their A game.
They could preempt Obama and start hearings or some thing.
" The Violence and mental health hearings"
It would be real hard for Obama to get any traction if we were already working on the problems.
We could focus on the causes and not the tool used.
They always let the enemy frame the debate and we are always on defense.
I dont understand why. We dont have to be. We could be setting the topic and force them to defend. After all we have control of both houses.
 
Last edited:
They always let the enemy frame the debate and we are always on defense.
I dont understand why.
Click to expand...

because conservatives realize you cant regulate (or medicate) violence... and youll never get that thru the liberal progressives heads. When you own something thats rightfully yours that somebody else wants to take away from you, you will always be on the defensive. There isnt much you can do to improve mental health care to a point of stopping mass killings, (and doing so opens up risk of corrupting due process for the legit, do we really want to open that can of worms?). The ultimate responsibility lies on the family and friends of the suspect, to intervene and take action...... but in every one of these cases, the friends if any did nothing and the family was just as messed up and clueless.
 
Well said...
There's really not much you can do with mental illness. They don't have asylums much anymore. Most mental illnesses are masked with drugs, only to become worse if the drugs are interrupted.
 
You can't prevent a nut job from arming and killing, but you can mitigate the carnage with a fast armed response by somebody who is already on the scene.
 
There isnt much you can do to improve mental health care to a point of stopping mass killings,
Click to expand...

I would suggest that there isn't ANYTHING you can do to improve mental health care to a point of stopping mass killings.

People are looking at hindsight, and being told it can be trusted as foresight, and that is simply NOT TRUE. And absolutely untrue 100% of the time.

They will look at the killers pasts, point to this, or that quirk (some point where they deviate from accepted societal norms), and then tell us that since they had this "deviance" that allows them to stop others with the same/similar deviance. A=B=C, or A+B=C or some other math formula that "studies show".

And that is nearly as crazy as the deranged killers themselves, in its own way. THERE IS NO SIMPLE ANSWER. Period.

You are dealing with the most twisted, convoluted COMPLEX thing ever encountered by man, the MIND of Man.

There are so many hopeful assumptions made about "mental health care" it is staggering. To think, even for a moment, that any human system could even identify, let alone "cure" 100% of ANYTHING is foolishness.

What's the old joke? How many (insert proper mental health care professional here) does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change!

The ultimate responsibility lies on the family and friends of the suspect, to intervene and take action......
Click to expand...

I don't see it quite that way. The friends and family are the only ones in a position to see what might, or might not be valid indicators, but I think the ultimate responsibility can, and must only be placed on the individual in question.

"yeah, he was a bit weird, but we never though he would actually DO anything"
This is more than just a small point.

There is more than just a small liability attached when you accuse someone and turn out to be wrong. Even if later you are proven right.

I believe one of the Columbine killers had a website with peace, love, brotherhood, diversity, can't we all just get along, etc., plastered all over it.

Here's a point, if they are crazy, you cannot take them at their word. But you don't know they are crazy unless you take them at their word.

I have no issues with keeping a closer eye on the people who make public statements and rants about killing, shooting places up, etc. We even have a legal system that defines credible threats for us.

But, are YOU ready to make that call, based on your gut feelings? Absent something that meets the bar for a legal threat?

And what about those who don't make any public rants? People do tend to hide their feelings sometimes...

Improvements to the mental health system are needed, many people would benefit. But if you buy into the claim that it will stop violence, or even just the miniscule percentage of violence that is a mass killing (remember, gotta kill 4 or more to be a mass killing, that's the rules today!:rolleyes:), you are paying for something you will never get.
 
44amp, those are all valid points I dont disagree. They support what Im saying that you cant regulate violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top