|
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/17/12 11:00 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/17/2012 9:34 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote: I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault" style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's assumption that they're at war with the world? === I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a desire for 15 minutes of media fame/notoriety. That desire for notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general. I disagree on most of your points. I think the "penis" is in guns, as badly as boats, or cars.. maybe even worse. Even my girl eyeballs the black assault rifles in gun shops, "they look bad ass" and they are used to them in the shooter games.. As to the death wish ok, but the notoriety part I don't see in this one. This kid just had rage, pure and simple. As you said "revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general". But reading the reports, I don't think the guy gave a crap what others thought of him or making history, he just went on a rampagwe... We don't know what was going through the mind of the shooter. He apparently started off his killing binge by committing matricide. That act, weird and unusual in itself, and the observations offered to date by those who actually knew him, his age, and the horrific nature of what he did, point to neither a death wish nor a desire for 15 minutes of fame. Several mental health professionals who have been interviewed are guessing the behaviors point to schizophrenia, which typically "blooms" in young males who suffer from it between the ages of 17 and 21. Most schizophrenics, however, are withdrawn and non-violent towards others. Perhaps the police have found or will find some clues that shine light on the shooter's mental state. Maybe not. The problem with guessing on these cases where the shooter is dead and there is a lack of concrete evidence is that it usually points in the wrong direction. I've read and heard some reports that "violent video games" may have been involved. Well, video games don't cause schizophrenia. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws. http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son? Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs.... Stop being a liberal parrot. "The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment. The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs. Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960." This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs." It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states. Sources: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act " It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended) The trouble you fail to grasp and understand is that all of that was a complete failure. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws. http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son? Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs.... Stop being a liberal parrot. "The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment. The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs. Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960." This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs." It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states. Sources: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act " It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended) Here you go, only a moron like you would cherry pick ONE single site as gospel: http://www.dailynugget.com/2004/06/r...-and-the-ugly/ State-funded mental health care wasn?t all that great in many respects, and advocates for the mentally ill supported reform of the large state- run psychiatric hospitals. Reform meant that inpatient institutions, many of which had become abusive warehouses for people the state saw as defective, would be replaced by community-based mental health centers who could provide appropriate, personalized care for those suffering from mental illness while the patients lived at home, with the support of their families. The advent of effective anti-psychotic drugs made that possible ? but that?s not what happened. What happened is that funding for mental health at every level, public and private, has been consistently reduced over the last 25 years. No insurance, public or private, covers psychiatric meds or talk therapy at the same level that it covers physical illness. I?m not saying meds are the solution to everything ? far from it ? but people with insurance can access medications far more easily than they can talk therapy. For most emotional illnesses (save schizophrenia), talk therapy is just as effective as meds, but it?s far more expensive and insurances just don?t pay for it. In my area, psychiatrists don?t do therapy any more unless the patient is paying privately. Privately insured patients can see a therapist (one on their insurance?s panel who is taking new patients) for a limited number of visits with a much higher copay than the one charged for a visit with me. They can more easily access medications, but it can take three or four months to get an appointment with a psychiatrist (one on their insurance?s panel who is taking new patients). And all this is assuming they can acknowledge that psychiatric care and/or therapy might be helpful to them. People with no insurance, or with public insurance like Medicaid, have far fewer choices. And if you have public insurance and don?t speak English? The next available appointment with a Spanish- speaking therapist in my community is usually six months away. If you speak Arabic, or Farsi, or Portuguese, or French? Forget it. I can?t imagine what yesterday afternoon must have been like for the people in the building, their families, the family of the Leeland Eisenberg, or the police who had to manage the situation. I imagine that they might have nightmares, anxiety, flashbacks and other symptoms. I hope they have better access to mental health care than Mr. Eisenberg did, but thanks to Ronald Reagan I bet they don?t. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
In article , says...
On 12/17/2012 4:33 PM, wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Cite? http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381 He'll pretend he doesn't see it... even an event like this can't make this guy man up... Answered, dip****. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:30:57 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Cite? http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381 That is "mass shootings" only, dip. Which is the context of the current discussion. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:38:28 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws. http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son? Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs.... Stop being a liberal parrot. "The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment. The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs. Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960." This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs." It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states. Sources: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act " It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended) Here you go, only a moron like you would cherry pick ONE single site as gospel: http://www.dailynugget.com/2004/06/r...-and-the-ugly/ A left wing-nut site like the daily (butt) nugget? ~snerk! |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/18/2012 8:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 12/17/2012 3:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:49:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start a war? === It turns out that the "AR-15 style guns" make pretty decent hunting and target rifles. They are not truly "assault rifles" however since they can not (in most cases) fire in fully automatic mode. I agree that it's hard to justify 30 round magazines when 5 or 10 is more than adequate for hunting or target practice. The big mags do look cool however and a lot of folks want them for that reason alone. Others view them as a survival weapon if civilization as we know it breaks down. Is that far fetched? Who can say. The whole problem with this unfortunate incident in Connecticut lies with the now deceased mother. She had a child with a long history of emotional instability, taught him how to shoot, and gave him full access to her well stocked arsenal. How stupid and irresponsible is that? Totally ****in' stupid.. And you are right. There is no legit reason for those 30 clips, except to make someones penis feel bigger... Yep! Right on again! See, you CAN think outside of the FOX! You are a disgusting piece of ****.... now go spread some blood on your shirt and jump up on that soapbox... |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/18/2012 8:43 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:30:57 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Cite? http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381 That is "mass shootings" only, dip. Which is the context of the current discussion. Well, until you prove loogie wrong, then the context will change...again. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:30:57 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Cite? http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381 That is "mass shootings" only, dip. Which is the context of the current discussion. So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee, then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do we do about the 100's of thousands of others? |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:38:28 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws. http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son? Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs.... Stop being a liberal parrot. "The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment. The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs. Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960." This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs." It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states. Sources: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act " It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended) Here you go, only a moron like you would cherry pick ONE single site as gospel: http://www.dailynugget.com/2004/06/r...-and-the-ugly/ A left wing-nut site like the daily (butt) nugget? ~snerk! OH, let's see, you turn out one right wing bunch of bull**** that has no real research done and that's good for you??!!! Gee, what a thorough researcher you are!!! |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
In article , says...
On 12/18/2012 8:40 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 12/17/2012 3:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:49:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start a war? === It turns out that the "AR-15 style guns" make pretty decent hunting and target rifles. They are not truly "assault rifles" however since they can not (in most cases) fire in fully automatic mode. I agree that it's hard to justify 30 round magazines when 5 or 10 is more than adequate for hunting or target practice. The big mags do look cool however and a lot of folks want them for that reason alone. Others view them as a survival weapon if civilization as we know it breaks down. Is that far fetched? Who can say. The whole problem with this unfortunate incident in Connecticut lies with the now deceased mother. She had a child with a long history of emotional instability, taught him how to shoot, and gave him full access to her well stocked arsenal. How stupid and irresponsible is that? Totally ****in' stupid.. And you are right. There is no legit reason for those 30 clips, except to make someones penis feel bigger... Yep! Right on again! See, you CAN think outside of the FOX! You are a disgusting piece of ****.... now go spread some blood on your shirt and jump up on that soapbox... I'm "disgusting" because I agree with you??? Interesting! And what is that insane second sentence about??! |
Scarborough gets it right
In article , says...
On 12/18/2012 8:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 12/17/2012 1:18 PM, Califbill wrote: jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week?s massacre of 20 elementary school children that ?the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,? and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger?s syndrome. ?Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,? he explained. ?They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut ? it?s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.? ?I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA?s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,? he continued. ?I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control? I?ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.? Scarborough concluded: ?I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington?s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don?t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.? Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target assault rifles because of this. He used pistols. According to the reports I am seeing here, he used a Bushmaster 223, and killed himself with a pistol when he heard the cops coming... But the majority of the killing was done with an assault weapon. I just don't get the assault weapon thing, even for self defense. If you are in a situation where you need 30 rounds to "defend" yourself, you are probably under pretty heavy fire, and are not gonna' get out anyway. If you can't defend yourself with 1-6 shots or so, you are over your head. 30 round clips are for offense... And I support the 2nd amendment... Went to a gun group today and saw somebody ask "why you need assault weapons" the only answer I saw was "because I can"... Wow, you actually made sense for once, thanks! I always do, you are just blinded and unless someone is lockstep with you, you think they are wrong.. Problem is, you don't have enough sense to tie your shoes most of the time... You always make sense??? BWAAAHAAAA!!!!!! |
Scarborough gets it right
In article , says...
On 12/18/2012 8:43 AM, wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:30:57 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading... It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels. Cite? http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381 That is "mass shootings" only, dip. Which is the context of the current discussion. Well, until you prove loogie wrong, then the context will change...again. Well, there you go, back to nonsense.... |
Scarborough gets it right
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:42:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote: I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault" style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's assumption that they're at war with the world? === I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general. The fame thing does make you wonder. But, what is "fame" if you are already dead by your own hand? === Some sort of perverse "legacy" fame is what I would conjecture. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/18/2012 10:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:42:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote: I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault" style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's assumption that they're at war with the world? === I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general. The fame thing does make you wonder. But, what is "fame" if you are already dead by your own hand? === Some sort of perverse "legacy" fame is what I would conjecture. Yeah, and in some of these cases like the Movie Theater shooter I can see it, he sprayed everything trying to make chaos... This guy in CT was different. He was not thinking of "chaos", he was thinking straight up killing one, then the next, then the next... With an average of 3-11 shots into each child and each and every one, dead. He stayed on each child until he was sure they were dead and moved on to the next. In a "chaos" situation, I think it would be more likely some of the kids might have survived as he moved along quickly to create as much chaos as possible over as wide an area as possible... I liken this kid to a knife attack. A few pokes means he wanted to murder you, 15 stab wounds says he hates you and is in a rage... |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/18/12 11:15 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:42:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote: I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault" style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's assumption that they're at war with the world? === I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general. The fame thing does make you wonder. But, what is "fame" if you are already dead by your own hand? === Some sort of perverse "legacy" fame is what I would conjecture. Yeah, and in some of these cases like the Movie Theater shooter I can see it, he sprayed everything trying to make chaos... This guy in CT was different. He was not thinking of "chaos", he was thinking straight up killing one, then the next, then the next... With an average of 3-11 shots into each child and each and every one, dead. He stayed on each child until he was sure they were dead and moved on to the next. In a "chaos" situation, I think it would be more likely some of the kids might have survived as he moved along quickly to create as much chaos as possible over as wide an area as possible... I liken this kid to a knife attack. A few pokes means he wanted to murder you, 15 stab wounds says he hates you and is in a rage... "Perverse legacy fame..." "He was not thinking of chaos..." Psychobabble from two mooks who haven't a clue. |
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
|
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On 12/18/12 12:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:43:21 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: I wonder about the notoriety part as well. His intentions were to kill others, then HIMSELF, therefore, he'd not know whether he got that notoriety or not. He knew, if he killed enough people, he would be the only thing on TV for a month. psychobabble Rational people attribute rationality to pyschos. But that's not rational! |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/18/12 12:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On 12/18/12 12:09 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:43:21 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: I wonder about the notoriety part as well. His intentions were to kill others, then HIMSELF, therefore, he'd not know whether he got that notoriety or not. He knew, if he killed enough people, he would be the only thing on TV for a month. psychobabble Rational people attribute rationality to pyschos. But that's not rational! We don't know anything about the mindset of the Newtown shooter. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee, then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do we do about the 100's of thousands of others? 100s of thousands? Cite that No problem!! http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm If we really wanted to make a dent in violent death we would end the drug war. That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a legal owner. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:34 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee, then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do we do about the 100's of thousands of others? 100s of thousands? Cite that No problem!! http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm From that site: "Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993." "According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those posessing a gun, the source of the gun was from - - a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2% - a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% - family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%" Where's that 90% you claim are stolen? No cite for that? http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm Funny, if you drill down on this data, it separates deaths by handgun and "other guns". Since assault rifles aren't handguns, we must include them in with rifles and shotguns in "other guns". And the data shows not only that handgun deaths occur at around 4X the rate as all "other guns" combined, but also that the rate of deaths for all types have reduced sharply since the '90s, which is exactly what I quoted in another thread. Even more interesting is that the "other guns" death rate number roughly equals "knife" in deaths. JPS, pay attention. Thanks for not reading or understanding your own links enough to realize they don't support your statements at all. |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/18/2012 1:46 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:01:34 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee, then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do we do about the 100's of thousands of others? 100s of thousands? Cite that No problem!! http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm Since 1973? OK. Do you want to talk about what killed the most kids since then? Hint, more kids were killed in cars since Newtown than were killed at Newtown (as of this afternoon) You can find that stat at CDC (1702 a year 0-14 in the last year on their site. 20 every 107 hours) Why doesn't that make the news? If we really wanted to make a dent in violent death we would end the drug war. That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a legal owner. Why don't we just make theft illegal? That should stop it. So what do you all think of 30 clips? |
Scarborough gets it right
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:46:53 -0500, wrote:
Why don't we just make theft illegal? That should stop it, === The Taliban know how to deter theft. Maybe that Sharia law isn't such a bad thing after all. :-) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/pakistan-taliban-amputates-hands-of-three-men-accused-of-theft.html |
Scarborough gets it right
On 12/18/12 1:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:36:46 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/18/12 12:01 PM, wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:47:07 -0500, ESAD wrote: Perhaps the police have found or will find some clues that shine light on the shooter's mental state. Maybe not. The problem with guessing on these cases where the shooter is dead and there is a lack of concrete evidence is that it usually points in the wrong direction. I've read and heard some reports that "violent video games" may have been involved. Well, video games don't cause schizophrenia. We have a culture of violence. We were started in a revolution where we threw out all of the rules of "civilized warfare", our most bloody war was amongst ourselves and the rest of the world uses us as their enforcer/hit man. You really just have to look to the media to see the model for these shootings. What passes for news and entertainment (which is only separated by a blurry line) all you see is mass killing of one kind or another. The public seems to be drawn to it and the media outlets are more than happy to oblige. The biggest news story last year was the cold blooded murder of Osama Bin Laden. I agree he needed killing but it was still a "hit" worthy of Al Capone or Pablo Escobar. We love bomb camera and drone strike videos even when a bunch of kids are "collateral damage". . It is not shocking that a disturbed individual thinks the best way to be somebody is to kill a lot of people. The more shocking the victims, the bigger splash you get. Once again, you are just extending the psychobabble. What evidence do you have that the Connecticut shooter wanted to "be somebody"? Isn't every debate driven by psychobabble? There is no shortage of people who make penis references to guns, fast boats, fast cars or just about anything else they are opposed to? Isn't that psychobabble? It is clear there was something wrong with these people's thinking processes. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more psychobabble as this story goes on. There has to be something that separates a responsible gun owner like you from this waste of oxygen. I think it is a little different when lay people try to psychoanalyze someone who has committed a horrific act such as the one in Newtown. The few professional psychotherapists I have seen interviewed on TV are rightly reluctant to play that game in the absence of a face to face evaluation and, of course, that isn't going to happen. Some of the "symptoms" and behaviors attributed to the shooter suggest schizophrenia. If that is the case, it manifests itself in many different ways, and it is silly to think in the absence of evidence the shooter did what he did for "fame," or to be somebody, or even to "get even." We may never know what was on his mind. According to my wife, it is "very interesting" that he killed his mother. Matricide is not common, even among the severely mentally ill. Particide is a bit more common, especially where the father has sexually abused his child. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:34 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee, then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do we do about the 100's of thousands of others? 100s of thousands? Cite that No problem!! http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm From that site: "Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993." "According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those posessing a gun, the source of the gun was from - - a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2% - a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% - family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%" Where's that 90% you claim are stolen? No cite for that? Sure!! http://extranosalley.com/?p=12198 Which states: The same studies found that 11% of persons arrested for a gun crime were armed with a gun from ?unknown sources.? That is interesting but not extremely informative. Those studies also found that 82 percent of those arrested for a gun crime were armed with a stolen gun. Which is interesting and informative. So depending on how you want to slice the ?unknown 11%? the percentage of gun toting criminals arrested with a stolen gun runs between 82 and 93%. Conventional wisdom has it that 92% of all gun criminals are armed with a stolen gun. Something that is not unreasonable, although in fact it may be a percent or two high. But all this talks begs the question; ?What percentage of crimes are committed with stolen guns? is the question. The fact is that a very high percentage of gun related crimes are never solved. We know from other studies that a typical criminal will commit a ?major crime? every 48 hours or so to cover living expenses. We know that a typical criminal will ?be on the street? for more than four months before they slip up and are arrested. That would place a typical criminal?s run at around 65 serious crimes before they are arrested. But since it is not to the criminal?s interest to confess, we do not know how many of those are gun crimes and how many are not. Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Probably closer to a dozen. But until all the crimes get solved, we can only guess. The best guess I can come up with is 96% of all gun related crimes are committed by career criminals, using a stolen gun. That seems to be the consensus among the detectives and criminologists I have talked to. http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm Funny, if you drill down on this data, it separates deaths by handgun and "other guns". Since assault rifles aren't handguns, we must include them in with rifles and shotguns in "other guns". And the data shows not only that handgun deaths occur at around 4X the rate as all "other guns" combined, but also that the rate of deaths for all types have reduced sharply since the '90s, which is exactly what I quoted in another thread. Even more interesting is that the "other guns" death rate number roughly equals "knife" in deaths. JPS, pay attention. Thanks for not reading or understanding your own links enough to realize they don't support your statements at all. Well sure they do, your problem is you cherry pick pieces instead of being able to comprehend the whole story. |
Scarborough gets it right
In article ,
says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:01:34 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee, then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do we do about the 100's of thousands of others? 100s of thousands? Cite that No problem!! http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm Since 1973? OK. Do you want to talk about what killed the most kids since then? Hint, more kids were killed in cars since Newtown than were killed at Newtown (as of this afternoon) You can find that stat at CDC (1702 a year 0-14 in the last year on their site. 20 every 107 hours) Why doesn't that make the news? Hint, who said "kids" only? If we really wanted to make a dent in violent death we would end the drug war. That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a legal owner. Why don't we just make theft illegal? That should stop it. That's just stupid on so many levels. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:34:25 -0800, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that after last week’s massacre of 20 elementary school children that “the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,” and he is now backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips. In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger’s syndrome. “Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,” he explained. “They must instead be forced to defend our children. Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut — it’s being spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.” “I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA’s highest ratings over four terms in Congress,” he continued. “I saw this debate over guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and government control… I’ve spent the last few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my long-held beliefs on these subjects.” Scarborough concluded: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas.” What's 'high calibre' about a ,223 rifle? Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined) magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a little slower, but not much! |
Scarborough gets it right
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:41:45 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
The best guess I can come up with is 96% of all gun related crimes are committed by career criminals, using a stolen gun. That seems to be the consensus among the detectives and criminologists I have talked to. ~snerk~ "The best guess I can come up with..." You left out the last two entries on that page: "But the lack of information makes all this pretty murky." "Stranger" Signed by "Stranger"? This is your researched, footnoted, reliable info? You are truly a laugh a minute! http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm Funny, if you drill down on this data, it separates deaths by handgun and "other guns". Since assault rifles aren't handguns, we must include them in with rifles and shotguns in "other guns". And the data shows not only that handgun deaths occur at around 4X the rate as all "other guns" combined, but also that the rate of deaths for all types have reduced sharply since the '90s, which is exactly what I quoted in another thread. Even more interesting is that the "other guns" death rate number roughly equals "knife" in deaths. JPS, pay attention. Thanks for not reading or understanding your own links enough to realize they don't support your statements at all. Well sure they do, your problem is you cherry pick pieces instead of being able to comprehend the whole story. The sad thing is, I really do believe you think they do. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Califbill" wrote in message ... Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target assault rifles because of this. He used pistols. ------------------------------------------------------ My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one to kill the children and adults. He used a pistol to kill himself. Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits magazine rounds to 10. So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1? There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass murders. Banning guns isn't the answer. I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine capacity that is "acceptable". How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy, especially if one is taped to the other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty rounds. Another four or five seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up to thirty rounds off. Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks happy. It won't stop a determined killer in any way. |
Scarborough gets it right
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:41:22 -0800, jps wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:18:58 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/17/12 3:48 PM, Eisboch wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target assault rifles because of this. He used pistols. ------------------------------------------------------ My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of one to kill the children and adults. He used a pistol to kill himself. Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in terms of how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits magazine rounds to 10. So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number in our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1? There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false hope that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many guns exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out mass murders. Banning guns isn't the answer. I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on magazine capacity that is "acceptable". I have a lot of building trades union buddies, and a goodly number of these "hunt" deer and other critters. I don't hunt because I don't like the idea of killing Bambi or Bambi's mother, or any other helpless animal but, even though I don't think hunting is a sport, I don't begrudge my buddies their woodsy sport. I've been out stomping around in the forest and in the fields with my buddies while they hunt, though. That being said, I can't recall any of them hunting with anything but a traditional hunting rifle that holds a few rounds or a shotgun that holds a few rounds. Just one of my buddies has the time and financial wherewithal to hunt really big game, and the rifle round he prefers for that is a .375 H&H Magnum, which isn't as big a round as it sounds. Anyway, it holds a total of four rounds, including one in the chamber. Many states limit how many rounds you can have in a shotgun to three or four while hunting. Obviously, there are reasons why serious or semi-serious hunters aren't walking in the woods with semi-auto assault style rifle 30-round magazines. What's the real purpose of these semi-auto assault style rifles? To kill people, of course, and lots of them. They're not that suitable for hunting. I don't see any rational reason for rifles in calibers larger than, say, .22LR, to be able to load up with more than a few rounds. A 22? 10-round magazine is adequate. Same with a semi-auto pistol. No reason for more than 10 rounds unless you plan to shoot up a school or a movie theater, eh? I happen to have a couple of hi-cap mags for my CZ target pistol, but I don't use them. I use the 10-rounders at the range and in competition. Oh...what might work? Making personal possession of certain firearms and certain sized mags after a certain date a violation of federal law, with serious penalties, and eliminating the gun show loophopes. No firearms transactions without paperwork and a background check. That would do for starters. Makes sense. I just responded to Wayne with an idea about the styling of the rifle lending permission to go to war with the perceived enemy. The 'styling' of the rifle changed big time during the Vietnam war. However, the style didn't seem to interfere with our ability to go to war *before* Vietnam. Is this a hunting rifle or a 'go to war with the perceived enemy' rifle: http://tinyurl.com/c6jno2d |
Scarborough gets it right
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com