Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On 12/17/12 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/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.


Funny stuff from w'hine.

If you would perform the last action Lanza performed we could be done
with your 15 years of shame.

You wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore.

Scarborough gets it right
 

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 rampage...

Scarborough gets it right
 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:34:15 -0500, 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/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 kid was obviously mentally disturbed and, like the kid in Aurora,
was blaming society for his situation. So much so that he couldn't
differentiate a elementary age kid from the rest of society.

In the absence of personal success, they choose to go out with a big
bang. Although why kill themselves when they won't be around to
witness the 15 minutes.

I still think the optics of the assault style rifle might give
lunatics a charge and fuel the permission they need to go off.

Scarborough gets it right
 

ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 4:48 PM, wrote:
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)




Reagan "presumed (utter bull****) the local communities would have the
wherewithal the feds were no longer going to provide. Nothing has changed
except that in most communities there are even less possibilities for
treatment of the indigent than when Reagan decimated
the federal contributions for the larger facilities.

Your spin on it is just more right-wing bull****. But, hey, that's all
you have. In a few more years as you aging right-wing southern white
republican bigots start dying out in greater numbers, this country might
regain its ability to move forward.

Bull****. Reagan just signed the bill that was passed by a Democrat
controlled, liberal legislature. Same political makeup we still have, and
that same legislature is still cutting the community funding even more.

Scarborough gets it right
 

"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 heard on the radio he was armed with 2 pistols. Either weapon will kill
someone. And at the range he was shooting from, would not matter much.
Except a rifle may be harder to aim at short range. Still comes down to
what we do about children and mental problems. My daughter is a pediatric
behavior therapist and one of her offices was paid from Calif Regional
Center which were created when the state hospitals were emptied during
Reagan's years. Now they are only covering speech and physical therapy.
No mental services. And we wonder why we have nutcase problems!

Scarborough gets it right
 

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....

He just went along with the desires of the Legislature and those who wanted
community care. Under Reagan the community centers were funded. Under the
legislature they have basically been defunded, while at the same time
doubling prison guards pay.

Scarborough gets it right
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 646115654377460069.971710bmckeenospam-
, says...

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.

What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start
a war?

The 2 nd amendment was put in there to keep politicians under control.
Remember that in Europe, only the lords could possess weapons.

Scarborough gets it right
 

ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 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 AspergerÂ’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 controlÂ… IÂ’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 WashingtonÂ’s old
way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls
donÂ’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.



No, Bilious, he used a .223 Bushmaster "assault-style" rifle with
30-round magazines to kill the kids and the teachers.

I read reports that he was armed with two semiauto pistols.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 12:12 AM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/17/12 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 AspergerÂ’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 controlÂ… IÂ’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 WashingtonÂ’s old
way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls
donÂ’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.



No, Bilious, he used a .223 Bushmaster "assault-style" rifle with
30-round magazines to kill the kids and the teachers.

I read reports that he was armed with two semiauto pistols.


Three weapons on him, and a shotgun in the car.

Scarborough gets it right
 

On 12/18/2012 12:30 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:12:41 -0600, Califbill
wrote:



No, Bilious, he used a .223 Bushmaster "assault-style" rifle with
30-round magazines to kill the kids and the teachers.

I read reports that he was armed with two semiauto pistols.

Plus the AR and a shotgun in the trunk.


The best reports we have now are he did the killing with the AR with
"special" ammunition.. The pistol was used when the piece of **** heard
the cops coming.