 
     |
| School shootings... what changed? (Page 31/33) |
|
MidEngineManiac
|
JUN 17, 08:42 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
If I say that I think it would be better to have a new law—let's designate it for the sake of this discussion as "A4.37-c"—that restricts or regulates the sale or transfer of firearms in some way that goes beyond whatever laws are already on the books, I am not saying it because I expect that everyone is going to willingly comply with A4.37-c.
After contemplating the preceding message, it seems like a call to anarchy... a mindset that wants to argue for the abandonment of any and all laws and law enforcement, "period." |
|
Rinsey...
It's reality mister.............you are in CA straddling the Mexican border, and in the middle of it...
Are you so stupid to believe you cant gat any gun you want ???? with rounds and mags... ?????
Yeh, right......
And what exactly is "law" and "government" going to do about it ????
Yeh......Get one yourself, man, because when you need help, cops and ambulance are only 20 minutes.....Unless you are islamic, then ya can damn well call your own ambulance.....
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
JUN 17, 08:57 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
After contemplating the preceding message, it seems like a call to anarchy... a mindset that wants to argue for the abandonment of any and all laws and law enforcement, "period." |
|
ANNDDDD......
This exactly why we have a Ukraine-Russia war....shooting at each other and killing.....
Those who think they are comfortable and a revolution will never happen...
guillotines and swords and beheadings...bullet to the head, dump the nazi garbage and keep on, Allah is hunting you. More muslims.
Anarchy ????.....no Rinse, its a war for freedom, same as when the Americans in 1776 told the brits to **** off...
I'm getting tired of European and arab and politics man....
Shoot them all, then we can have some peace.
Kill them all...let thier god sort out the good ones.[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-17-2022).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 20, 06:48 PM
|
|
Peter Bergen is a CNN National Security Analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice (practice of what?) at Arizona State University.
Here he interviews Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, about so-called "mass shootings."
"Opinion: Forensic psychologist largely dismisses common talking point that mass shootings are caused by individuals with mental disorders"
Peter Bergen for CNN; June 19, 2022.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06...gen-meloy/index.html
another Mainstream Media Activity Alert from "rinse-bot"[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-20-2022).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JUN 20, 07:13 PM
|
|
|
So, tell me about a mass murder that was committed by a sane person.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 20, 07:30 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
So, tell me about a mass murder that was committed by a sane person. |
|
If I were responsible for titularizing the transcript of that interview, I would word it somewhat differently.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JUN 20, 08:01 PM
|
|
The title is intentionally misleading. The entire article is propaganda.
You cannot tell me about a mass murder that was committed by a sane person.
I can tell you about mass murders that were committed without a gun.
Where should the focus be?
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 20, 09:00 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
The title is intentionally misleading. The entire article is propaganda. You cannot tell me about a mass murder that was committed by a sane person.
I can tell you about mass murders that were committed without a gun.
Where should the focus be? |
|
"Where should the focus be?" I don't know. There needs to be a sharpening of the focus about where the focus should be. Here's some of what Professor Meloy had to say:
"LEAKAGE"
| quote | The movement along the pathway to violence with its different stages is typically the same, whether it's a terrorist or a school shooter, and along the way, one of the most fascinating things is these individuals will engage in "leakage," which is communication to a third party of the intent to attack. And in one study, we saw that more than half of the time, the individual told a third party what they were planning to do.
What frustrates me is that there is a continuous failure of many individuals to take "leakage" seriously and report it to some authority. They often hear a person articulating their violent intent, and they minimize it or deny that they actually heard what they heard, and then they don't report it. And then a horrible event unfolds. That for me is always very difficult to see repeated again and again as these attacks unfold and to see events such as those in Buffalo and Uvalde, where these killers were troubled and made a number of warning behaviors prior to their attacks, and there was little or nothing done to try to stop them from doing what they were about to do.
However, there are also people who engage in "leakage" who don't carry out an attack. So you've got this paradox that is sometimes very difficult for the public to understand. I worry about complacency, and that even affects people like me who are looking at these cases all the time. You might think: "Well, here's another case of leakage where there was actually no intent to carry out the attack." But you just don't know that. What that means operationally is you have to investigate every case of leakage. |
|
THE "PUBLIC HEALTH" APPROACH
| quote | I think the approach we have to take is the public health approach. There are two main levels to this: There's primary prevention like we saw with Covid-19 vaccines. You don't know who's going to get Covid-19, but what you do is you try to get as many people vaccinated as possible.
Now, the translation of that into the threat management of potential mass shooters is the better regulation of firearms in the United States, and that is the primary prevention approach that you see being carried out at the federal level in a very weak form.
What we need is universal registration of firearms and much closer regulation of individuals purchasing firearms. And that's primary prevention, because you don't know which one of those individuals is going to want to carry out an attack and try to access a firearm amid the millions of very responsible gun owners all over the country. So you protect the Second Amendment, but none of our freedoms are absolute: You typically have certain conditions and measures of responsibility for exercising your rights.
A secondary prevention is the identification of symptomatic individuals. So in a medical scenario, if an individual started to experience symptoms, you would intervene medically. So secondary prevention in the case of those who might be on the pathway to violence is to identify symptomatic individuals and then intervene to try to divert them from that pathway.
Some states now mandate threat assessment management teams in their secondary school systems. Way upstream on the pathway to violence, that may mean more publicly available mental health care. Way downstream close to an attack, it becomes oftentimes law enforcement intervention. So you tailor the intervention to where you see this individual, where they are on the pathway to violence, how fast are they moving, and what kind of intervention can be done to try to mitigate the risk. |
|
"Universal Registration of Firearms"... somehow, I"m not "seeing it." But other than those four words, I don't see that there's anything in the professor's commentary that should be discarded without some further consideration.
?[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-20-2022).]
|
|
|
|
Fats
|
JUN 20, 09:28 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Although a resident of New York State, he bought some of his perpetrator's gear in nearby Pennsylvania. I think he bought the gun that he used in New York State and then went to Pennsylvania to fit it with a larger magazine or modify it in some other way that went outside of what was legally permissible in New York.
|
|
So you are saying that despite there being laws that prohibited buying such things, (he was after all a resident of New York, and buying the stuff to commit murder) that he still went out and got them?!?
I mean, who could have guessed that someone planning on killing people would be willing to break the law to get the equipment to do such a thing.
|
|
|
|
Fats
|
JUN 20, 09:56 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
What frustrates me is that there is a continuous failure of many individuals to take "leakage" seriously and report it to some authority. They often hear a person articulating their violent intent, and they minimize it or deny that they actually heard what they heard, and then they don't report it. And then a horrible event unfolds. That for me is always very difficult to see repeated again and again as these attacks unfold and to see events such as those in Buffalo and Uvalde, where these killers were troubled and made a number of warning behaviors prior to their attacks, and there was little or nothing done to try to stop them from doing what they were about to do.
?
|
|
| quote | | Gendron received a psychiatric evaluation last year, after making threats at his high school. For reasons that are still unclear, the state’s red-flag laws were not invoked. “This could have been a hundred-and-ten-per-cent preventable,” Deninis said. “New York State, they dropped the ball.” |
|
99%
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 20, 10:07 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Fats:
So you are saying that despite there being laws that prohibited buying such things, (he was after all a resident of New York, and buying the stuff to commit murder) that he still went out and got them?!?
I mean, who could have guessed that someone planning on killing people would be willing to break the law to get the equipment to do such a thing. |
|
For the sake of discussion, I put aside whatever it was (specifically) that was legal for him to purchase from a firearms retailer in Pennsylvania, but not legal for him to purchase from a firearms retailer in his own state of New York. I'll just call that "X".
If there were a national law against X, he wouldn't have been able to travel to the adjacent state (Pennsylvania) or any other of the other 49 states and bring his newly and legally purchased X back with him to New York. (I think he violated New York state law when he returned to New York with X in his possession.)
He didn't get his X by pursuing it in some clandestine way in New York. He took advantage of the circumstance that he could go to Pennsylvania and buy it legally, in a straightforward, "over the counter" firearms or firearms accessory kind of transaction.
So I don't know about X. I don't even know exactly what X was. Maybe it was a larger-sized clip or magazine that New York state has put a law against. Maybe it was something else.
I wonder if any new legislation will come out of this "bi-partisan" effort among certain Democratic and Republican U.S. Senators.
|
|
|
|