100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Mass shooting in Jacksonville | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Basically liberals want to claim anyone against open borders is a racist. It's the new black card. I dont know what all 'liberals' may or may not do. I think all sides have their go to insults that some will use, whether its that people are racist, or brainwashed, or anti american, or whatever. And sometimes its true, and sometimes its just the easy and lazy way to distract from logical discussion. I personally assess racism by how people speak about different races of people, or sometimes by double standards in how vast the difference is between how they judge someone of one race verse someone of another in similar circumstances. plain and simple, not in who one supports/opposes, but in WHY they support/oppose them. I dont read minds, I read the reasons people GIVE in their own words. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically liberals want to claim anyone against open borders is a racist. It's the new black card. I dont know what all 'liberals' may or may not do. I think all sides have their go to insults that some will use, whether its that people are racist, or brainwashed, or anti american, or whatever. And sometimes its true, and sometimes its just the easy and lazy way to distract from logical discussion. many 'liberals' may claim any opposition to be 'racism', or Trump supporters may claim any opposition is 'fake news' each side of the political spectrum has their go to accusations/arguments. I personally assess racism by how people speak about different races of people, or sometimes by double standards in how vast the difference is between how they judge someone of one race verse someone of another in similar circumstances. plain and simple, not in who one supports/opposes, but in WHY they support/oppose them. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Mon 08/27/18 11:59 AM
|
|
Mass shootings are terrible no matter what ethnic group the murderers belong too. Smh I agree with you!!! I think it says an AWFUL LOT about the character of any human being who would try to turn a tragedy like this into an opportunity to make racist comments!!! check out some other threads sometimes, that character is not so uncommon or unacceptable, depending on who is being focused on. I realize that,'character' is a matter of perspective. psychologically,though,behavior like that hints at a person who suffers from a GREAT INSECURITY,and also,a lack of intelligence,and compassion,and would be thought of as a severe character flaw by most people who are considered to be 'decent' people by most modern societies. there will ALWAYS be people whose 'character' does not live up to the requirements that modern society deems proper,but,luckily,those people are in the minority,and most of them do not have the courage to act like that,or say things like that in public,where they will have to own those behaviors,and face ostracization from anyone who does not share their antisocial behavior. just look at the 'white pride' rally that they tried to have to celebrate the 1 year anniversary of the tragic event that happened in charlottesville.... the public opinion of outrage at that sort of behavior was so strong that only about 20 people had the courage to publically stand up and publically claim those views,and face being ostracized by modern,polite society,while the people protesting them numbered in the hundreds,and even thousands! so,while,in some circles/places,there might be people who think that sort of behavior is acceptable,LUCKILY,most people think that it is unacceptable in this day and age to think/act like that,and it is only mainly in places where the people who have those antisocial views can remain anonymous,and don't have to publically own them,and suffer for having them,such as on the internet,that behavior like that is practiced,and has the freedom from public outrage that allows that type of behavior to flourish. why is it that YOU ASSUME that my comments are ONLY focused on white racism when I was only talking about how 'racism' is an antisocial behavior that modern society is ostracizing people that practice it? I guess it all goes back to that old saying... "when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs,the one that yelps is the one that just got hit!",huh? [that is what psychologists would call "a Freudian slip" on your part!!] |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
petenh
on
Mon 08/27/18 02:20 PM
|
|
Basically liberals want to claim anyone against open borders is a racist. It's the new black card. And when in the 8 years previous to Obama's, anyone who was against W's agenda was considered "not a patriot". And now, when anyone goes against the Cheato, they "must be a liberal". WHAT is your point? Enough with the labels! Muslims are not a race but a religion, you can's call it "Muslim racism". By saying "90% of blacks in jail belong there", you are implying (that damn "logic" again, that somehow gets missed by a lot of folks here on this board) that the non-blacks DON'T belong in prison. And what defines racism? When you make generalizations about someone based on his or her RACE! Back to the TOPIC of this thread, and not the crap that was INSERTED into this thread by the same old whines. (How someone brought up OPEN BORDERS during this topic shows that people can't discuss ANYTHING on here without it going back to the Cheato's hot buttons) - Is the motive just that the kid was eliminated, and lost his s--t? - It was at a "gun-free zone", but does that mean all were wanded before they went in? And if he was wanded, where did he get the gun? - How do we support the 2nd amendment and also curb this violence? Do we need to stop reporting it, so that the shooters no longer think they will get famous? Do we stop disclosing his (there has not been a female mass shooter yet, so I am not being sexist) name, and just refer to him as "the shooter"? Enough with the rhetoric, tired labels, and useless "thoughts and prayers", AMERICANS are getting killed by their own. This doesn't happen in the other 162 countries on this planet. What do we do about this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In watching the news today he was treated twice for mental illness. And was a known player in these high stakes tournaments.( which I never even knew existed)
So the obvious question is... how does he get his hands on two guns. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting question.
I would imagine, due to the sheer number of things which fall under 'mental illness' it becomes difficult to restrict people with 'mental illness' from gun ownership without more detailed reasoning in the restriction. I do not know the details of the young mans psyhiatric. it could also be an issue with his childhood medical record(it seems the incidents were in his teens), and the details of his admittance and release. it could also simply be that it was not his gun. His father appears to be a NASA engineer. Perhaps it was his. ... time will reveal more, for sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
shovelheaddave
on
Mon 08/27/18 04:15 PM
|
|
Mass shootings are terrible no matter what ethnic group the murderers belong too. Smh I agree with you!!! I think it says an AWFUL LOT about the character of any human being who would try to turn a tragedy like this into an opportunity to make racist comments!!! check out some other threads sometimes, that character is not so uncommon or unacceptable, depending on who is being focused on. I realize that,'character' is a matter of perspective. psychologically,though,behavior like that hints at a person who suffers from a GREAT INSECURITY,and also,a lack of intelligence,and compassion,and would be thought of as a severe character flaw by most people who are considered to be 'decent' people by most modern societies. there will ALWAYS be people whose 'character' does not live up to the requirements that modern society deems proper,but,luckily,those people are in the minority,and most of them do not have the courage to act like that,or say things like that in public,where they will have to own those behaviors,and face ostracization from anyone who does not share their antisocial behavior. just look at the 'white pride' rally that they tried to have to celebrate the 1 year anniversary of the tragic event that happened in charlottesville.... the public opinion of outrage at that sort of behavior was so strong that only about 20 people had the courage to publically stand up and publically claim those views,and face being ostracized by modern,polite society,while the people protesting them numbered in the hundreds,and even thousands! so,while,in some circles/places,there might be people who think that sort of behavior is acceptable,LUCKILY,most people think that it is unacceptable in this day and age to think/act like that,and it is only mainly in places where the people who have those antisocial views can remain anonymous,and don't have to publically own them,and suffer for having them,such as on the internet,that behavior like that is practiced,and has the freedom from public outrage that allows that type of behavior to flourish. why is it that YOU ASSUME that my comments are ONLY focused on white racism when I was only talking about how 'racism' is an antisocial behavior that modern society is ostracizing people that practice it? I guess it all goes back to that old saying... "when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs,the one that yelps is the one that just got hit!",huh? [that is what psychologists would call "a Freudian slip" on your part!!] that is simply because there are so many more LEGITIMATE examples of 'white racism' in the news to talk about than of any other kind. ESPECIALLY since the president of the united states,AND his party are the posterboys for white racism,and the advancement of white rscism,and have MADE IT such a huge part of current events. I have also noticed that the few cases of other types of racism that people talk about are MAINLY just a bunch of white racists who are trying to defend THEIR OWN racism via the process of 'transferance'! so,an attempt to try to ATTACK ME out of desperation for NOT talking about the types of racism that YOU want to talk about as a way to DEFEND the type of racism that you DONT WANT TO TALK ABOUT is both transparent,and pathetic!! [and ALSO a sign that YOU DONT HAVE ANY RATIONAL ARGUMENT that you can use to try to defend your point of view!!!!!!! ] 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited of comments targeting other members
rather than the topic. soufie Site Admin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Jacksonville, Florida, Sheriff's Office said there was a mass shooting with multiple fatalities at a downtown shopping-dining complex on Sunday and urged people to stay far away from the area. "Mass shooting at the Jacksonville Landing. Stay far away from the area. The area is not safe at this time. STAY AWAY #TheLandingMassShooting," the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said on Twitter. The shooting occurred during a qualifying event for the Madden 19 Tournament at the GLHF Game Bar, according to the Twitter of CompLexity Gaming, one of the gaming teams. One Madden participant, Young Drini, was grazed in the hand and is away from the scene and safe, Complexity said. http://mingle2.com/topic/new?forum_id=14 in school, at movies, at gaming events ,,, one just never knows anymore. Immediately or within months of these types of shootings the story eventually comes out "The Shooter has mental issues"! Quote: David Katz, the 24-year-old gunman who opened fire at a video game tournament, had previously been hospitalized for mental illness, according to court records in his home state of Maryland reviewed by The Associated Press. Divorce filings from his parents say Katz was hospitalized twice in psychiatric facilities as an adolescent and said he was prescribed antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. I keep asking and few want to address the question: "How do documented, mentally ill people legally obtain weapons of any kind"? Why aren't the state and federal laws being enforced at the time of purchase? The antigun people REFUSE to address this question. In Parkland one student tried to and the media refused to talk to him. I just renewed my Indiana carry permit and I'll tell you I had to jump though more hoops that a circus has: and that's how it should be. It took Indiana 2 months to finish their inquiry into my past in order to find no problems of any kind. Anyone selling or providing a weapon to a person with a known mental illness should be held accountable if that person commits a crime with said weapon. A shooting happened in our area 10 years ago. The person was mentally ill and the licensed gun store sold him a hand gun without a background check. Not only was the state weapon license cancelled but the dealer was taken to court by the city and state and prosecuted. This kind of back ground check should be happening country wide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Jacksonville, Florida, Sheriff's Office said there was a mass shooting with multiple fatalities at a downtown shopping-dining complex on Sunday and urged people to stay far away from the area. "Mass shooting at the Jacksonville Landing. Stay far away from the area. The area is not safe at this time. STAY AWAY #TheLandingMassShooting," the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said on Twitter. The shooting occurred during a qualifying event for the Madden 19 Tournament at the GLHF Game Bar, according to the Twitter of CompLexity Gaming, one of the gaming teams. One Madden participant, Young Drini, was grazed in the hand and is away from the scene and safe, Complexity said. http://mingle2.com/topic/new?forum_id=14 in school, at movies, at gaming events ,,, one just never knows anymore. Immediately or within months of these types of shootings the story eventually comes out "The Shooter has mental issues"! Quote: David Katz, the 24-year-old gunman who opened fire at a video game tournament, had previously been hospitalized for mental illness, according to court records in his home state of Maryland reviewed by The Associated Press. Divorce filings from his parents say Katz was hospitalized twice in psychiatric facilities as an adolescent and said he was prescribed antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. I keep asking and few want to address the question: "How do documented, mentally ill people legally obtain weapons of any kind"? Why aren't the state and federal laws being enforced at the time of purchase? The antigun people REFUSE to address this question. In Parkland one student tried to and the media refused to talk to him. I just renewed my Indiana carry permit and I'll tell you I had to jump though more hoops that a circus has: and that's how it should be. It took Indiana 2 months to finish their inquiry into my past in order to find no problems of any kind. Anyone selling or providing a weapon to a person with a known mental illness should be held accountable if that person commits a crime with said weapon. A shooting happened in our area 10 years ago. The person was mentally ill and the licensed gun store sold him a hand gun without a background check. Not only was the state weapon license cancelled but the dealer was taken to court by the city and state and prosecuted. This kind of back ground check should be happening country wide. I totally agree. How does someone with a mental history get a gun? If the guns were in fact legal it is a big problem History of mental issued needs to = no legal way to own guns..period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Jacksonville, Florida, Sheriff's Office said there was a mass shooting with multiple fatalities at a downtown shopping-dining complex on Sunday and urged people to stay far away from the area. "Mass shooting at the Jacksonville Landing. Stay far away from the area. The area is not safe at this time. STAY AWAY #TheLandingMassShooting," the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said on Twitter. The shooting occurred during a qualifying event for the Madden 19 Tournament at the GLHF Game Bar, according to the Twitter of CompLexity Gaming, one of the gaming teams. One Madden participant, Young Drini, was grazed in the hand and is away from the scene and safe, Complexity said. http://mingle2.com/topic/new?forum_id=14 in school, at movies, at gaming events ,,, one just never knows anymore. Immediately or within months of these types of shootings the story eventually comes out "The Shooter has mental issues"! Quote: David Katz, the 24-year-old gunman who opened fire at a video game tournament, had previously been hospitalized for mental illness, according to court records in his home state of Maryland reviewed by The Associated Press. Divorce filings from his parents say Katz was hospitalized twice in psychiatric facilities as an adolescent and said he was prescribed antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. I keep asking and few want to address the question: "How do documented, mentally ill people legally obtain weapons of any kind"? Why aren't the state and federal laws being enforced at the time of purchase? The antigun people REFUSE to address this question. In Parkland one student tried to and the media refused to talk to him. I just renewed my Indiana carry permit and I'll tell you I had to jump though more hoops that a circus has: and that's how it should be. It took Indiana 2 months to finish their inquiry into my past in order to find no problems of any kind. Anyone selling or providing a weapon to a person with a known mental illness should be held accountable if that person commits a crime with said weapon. A shooting happened in our area 10 years ago. The person was mentally ill and the licensed gun store sold him a hand gun without a background check. Not only was the state weapon license cancelled but the dealer was taken to court by the city and state and prosecuted. This kind of back ground check should be happening country wide. I totally agree. How does someone with a mental history get a gun? If the guns were in fact legal it is a big problem History of mental issued needs to = no legal way to own guns..period because,unless the people with mental problems are discovered to have mental problems by the courts,and OFFICIALLY ordered to seek mental help,then their medical records are private,under the HIPPA laws,and the ATFE doesn't have access to those records! because,not EVERY person who seeks mental help is a danger to society,and,unless the physician who diagnoses the person to have mental problems feels that they ARE a danger to society,then they do not have to pass that information along to the courts,which SOME people might protest this idea of privacy for people with mental problems,but if people with mental problems feel that they are going to wind up being persecuted for SEEKING mental health,then they will not try to get the help that they need,which will STILL means that not only these people who go on a shooting spree will still be a danger to society,BUT so will ALL OF THE REST of the people who actually GOT the help they needed to PREVENT themselves from being a danger to society,which would be even WORSE for society,as you would have A LOT MORE mentally unstable people who could possible go on their own shooting spree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to steer clear of painting every 'mental illness' with the same brush, not all mental illness translates into being a danger to society. That is why it may be an idea for health professionals to flag those patients who they feel could harm others. OR there could simply be a mandatory psych review when purchasing a gun. That way people have no reason to avoid treatment. and it will be more difficult for those who may be a harm to LEGALLY get their hands on their own gun(this does nothing if they live with or are close to someone else with a gun though ... which is another issue)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
shovelheaddave
on
Tue 08/28/18 10:59 AM
|
|
I want to steer clear of painting every 'mental illness' with the same brush, not all mental illness translates into being a danger to society. That is why it may be an idea for health professionals to flag those patients who they feel could harm others. OR there could simply be a mandatory psych review when purchasing a gun. That way people have no reason to avoid treatment. and it will be more difficult for those who may be a harm to LEGALLY get their hands on their own gun(this does nothing if they live with or are close to someone else with a gun though ... which is another issue) I agree!!! there are SO MANY things that could be considered a 'mental illness' that if anybody with ANY of them were considered unfit to ever own a gun,we might as well just kiss the second amendment goodbye!! 'depression' is considered a mental illness,and just about EVERYBODY becomes depressed at some level,at some point in their lives,but being depressed dosnt mean that you are about to go off your rocker,and go on a shooting spree,especially since most people who have suffered from depression overcome it and go on to lead normal,and productive lives. 'substance abuse' is also considered a mental illness,and substance abuse can be considered 'anybody that has had more than 3-5 drinks in a night',or 'someone that drinks more than 1-2 nights per week',which would pretty much mean that virtually everybody in the country has at one time,or another had a mental illness,and I refuse to believe that somebody that had a few drinks in their younger years is not fit to own a gun as an adult,and is a danger to society. so,mental health issues' is pretty much just a blanket term that people like to throw around,but there are sure an AWFUL LOT of things that CAN BE considered a 'mental health issue' that I feel it would be stupid to try to use to deny people their second amendment rights because they are not necessarily a danger to society,and if you TRY to do it like that,then all you are going to do is force people who WOULD be going and getting help with their problems to NOT get the help they need,out of fear of being persecuted for it. and,THEN where would we be?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to steer clear of painting every 'mental illness' with the same brush, not all mental illness translates into being a danger to society. That is why it may be an idea for health professionals to flag those patients who they feel could harm others. OR there could simply be a mandatory psych review when purchasing a gun. That way people have no reason to avoid treatment. and it will be more difficult for those who may be a harm to LEGALLY get their hands on their own gun(this does nothing if they live with or are close to someone else with a gun though ... which is another issue) With respect, your response side steps the issue. People with mental illness need treatment, true. Focusing on mentally ill people buying weapons and killing people is not painting every mentally ill person as a killer. It would focus on enforcing gun laws as they should be. The facts are plain that from Columbine Nigh School until Jacksonville all of them had a documented track record of psychiatric issues. The antigun lobbyists and media purposefully sidestep this issue. They use the excuse they don't want to give the image that all mentally challenged people are killers. However, they have no problem connecting the average law abiding gun owner with supporting serial killers. take note of their shots at the NRA. This is the main issue. Mentally ill people obtaining weapons when common sense and the law forbids them. I understand condemning the 1961 pop hit "They're coming to take me away". That was rude and demeaning. Ignoring this fact is hiding the problem. These people need help but should,also, be denied access to weapons. And society needs to know that the average gun owner (and guns themself) are not the problem and the evening TV news refuse to address this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to steer clear of painting every 'mental illness' with the same brush, not all mental illness translates into being a danger to society. That is why it may be an idea for health professionals to flag those patients who they feel could harm others. OR there could simply be a mandatory psych review when purchasing a gun. That way people have no reason to avoid treatment. and it will be more difficult for those who may be a harm to LEGALLY get their hands on their own gun(this does nothing if they live with or are close to someone else with a gun though ... which is another issue) With respect, your response side steps the issue. People with mental illness need treatment, true. Focusing on mentally ill people buying weapons and killing people is not painting every mentally ill person as a killer. It would focus on enforcing gun laws as they should be. The facts are plain that from Columbine Nigh School until Jacksonville all of them had a documented track record of psychiatric issues. The antigun lobbyists and media purposefully sidestep this issue. They use the excuse they don't want to give the image that all mentally challenged people are killers. However, they have no problem connecting the average law abiding gun owner with supporting serial killers. take note of their shots at the NRA. This is the main issue. Mentally ill people obtaining weapons when common sense and the law forbids them. I understand condemning the 1961 pop hit "They're coming to take me away". That was rude and demeaning. Ignoring this fact is hiding the problem. These people need help but should,also, be denied access to weapons. And society needs to know that the average gun owner (and guns themself) are not the problem and the evening TV news refuse to address this issue. with respect, no sidestepping a woman suffering from PTSD, or a kid who may have depression are both 'mental illness' but of very different natures and not suggesting any danger to others. people use the blanket term 'mentally ill' which may suggest policy to prevent anyone who has ever had treatment for ANYthing be denied their 'right' as a citizen to bear arms. there has to be more specific criteria than just the label of 'mental illness' to set policy is all I was saying there has to be an actual threat to others, which not all mental illness is. I think it is a legit concern that labeling anyone who has had help for emotional or mental issues as a public threat would greatly harm the chances for people to seek help. To avoid it, I would think some testing of ones threat WHEN they want a license to carry is at least something to consider. I think some other countries with less gun crime actually have such tests that inquire as to the persons beliefs and intentions with the gun. IF there is deception on whether they wish to harm others,,, its a no go. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Toodygirl5
on
Tue 08/28/18 05:13 PM
|
|
Mentally Ill people need evaluated by a Professional Psychiatrist. Many do not want to and aults cannot Always be forced to do so. In some cases Yes they can. However, medical records are private.
No gun store business should be able to get assess to any man's personal medical records. Stricter gun laws is Not the answer to less violence concerning Mass shootings! Criminals get guns illegally ! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to the victims, and condolences
to the families who suffered loss... Another lib gets butthurt and shoots a place up. His final action, saved the taxpayers a fortune in trial & incarceration expenses. As for jumping on the gun control band wagon... It's already illegal for the mentally ill, to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, or even possess a firearm. However, much the same as regular medical records, mental health records are protected by HPPA, and other privacy laws. The federal agency that conducts the background checks, would need access to those protected records. And that, not only would throw the liberal ACLU into a tizzy. Many others would object. Where would the breach of privacy end? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do we know what his politics were?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do we know what his politics were? Exactly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to steer clear of painting every 'mental illness' with the same brush, not all mental illness translates into being a danger to society. That is why it may be an idea for health professionals to flag those patients who they feel could harm others. OR there could simply be a mandatory psych review when purchasing a gun. That way people have no reason to avoid treatment. and it will be more difficult for those who may be a harm to LEGALLY get their hands on their own gun(this does nothing if they live with or are close to someone else with a gun though ... which is another issue) With respect, your response side steps the issue. People with mental illness need treatment, true. Focusing on mentally ill people buying weapons and killing people is not painting every mentally ill person as a killer. It would focus on enforcing gun laws as they should be. The facts are plain that from Columbine Nigh School until Jacksonville all of them had a documented track record of psychiatric issues. The antigun lobbyists and media purposefully sidestep this issue. They use the excuse they don't want to give the image that all mentally challenged people are killers. However, they have no problem connecting the average law abiding gun owner with supporting serial killers. take note of their shots at the NRA. This is the main issue. Mentally ill people obtaining weapons when common sense and the law forbids them. I understand condemning the 1961 pop hit "They're coming to take me away". That was rude and demeaning. Ignoring this fact is hiding the problem. These people need help but should,also, be denied access to weapons. And society needs to know that the average gun owner (and guns themself) are not the problem and the evening TV news refuse to address this issue. with respect, no sidestepping a woman suffering from PTSD, or a kid who may have depression are both 'mental illness' but of very different natures and not suggesting any danger to others. people use the blanket term 'mentally ill' which may suggest policy to prevent anyone who has ever had treatment for ANYthing be denied their 'right' as a citizen to bear arms. there has to be more specific criteria than just the label of 'mental illness' to set policy is all I was saying there has to be an actual threat to others, which not all mental illness is. I think it is a legit concern that labeling anyone who has had help for emotional or mental issues as a public threat would greatly harm the chances for people to seek help. To avoid it, I would think some testing of ones threat WHEN they want a license to carry is at least something to consider. I think some other countries with less gun crime actually have such tests that inquire as to the persons beliefs and intentions with the gun. IF there is deception on whether they wish to harm others,,, its a no go. Big difference between having a slight case of depression and being, involuntarily, placed in a hospital for psychiatric problems as with this guy. Stating on facebook that they plan to shoot up their school as in the case with Columbine. Or being released from the air force for making threats to officers and then killing members of a Church. Society is being kept in the dark and made to think that the average "joe" is doing these shooting sprees, when they aren't! Everyone of them had a known psychiatric history that should have disqualified them from owning a weapon. |
|
|
|
|
