Sensible Gun Safety

[MDlaxfan76]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Have you seen ANY credible suggestions from Waffle to reduce gun deaths in America?

I haven't.

And we won't, because that ain't what Waffle actually cares about.

3rd actually attempts to put out a whole series of well-defined, specific measures that overall simply transfer the risk of mis-use to the owners of the guns that bear such risk, ala insurance against mis-use of cars, etc. With all sorts of credible specifics that are consistent with 2A.

Doesn't mean 3rd's ideas are necessarily the 'best' ideas, but it's a serious attempt at presenting specifics.

So, Waffle resorts to specious 2A arguments, with no real offer of credible alternative approaches.

Thus, the conversation is one-sided, no matter how many pages Waffle takes up.

How right you are. Oh, wait, my first post here in November of last year included the following:

If we can set aside the collective emotional enmity for AR-15 rifles for just a few minutes, here’s what we CAN do. After Sandy Hook in 2012, President Obama put together a task force headed by then Vice-president Joe Biden. Representatives included the Attorney General/DOJ, Education Secretary/DOE, Health & Human Services Secretary, and the included the additional presence of FBI and other community leaders. In 2013, when their findings were published by the FBI, the key takeaway was a logical definition regarding how a mass shooting/active shooter incidents should be defined, which is as follows: “an incident in which four or more victims are fatally shot in a public location within a 24-hour period in the absence of other criminal activity, such as robberies, drug deals, and gang conflict.” This has been updated to exclude family annihilations. There have been 200 such Mass Public Shooting incidents since 1966. In addition, the development of a nascent deterrence playbook - which incorporated strategies previously identified (some going back decades) with a commitment to new research studies - was set in motion. The goal? Find ways to offramp potential mass shooters in the making BEFORE they are able to enact their horrific mass murders.

One member serving on the Obama commission was now retired FBI Special Agent Katherine Schweit. Quick aside: She’s a female Blue State Democrat voter. As an attorney and special agent she spent nearly five years as the executive responsible the FBI’s active/mass shooter efforts. Since retirement, she has tirelessly researched Mass Public Shootings (utilizing facts, incident reports, and empirical data), lectured, consulted, and authored a book I'd like to recommend titled "Stop the Killing" (now in its second edition). The book unpacks the root causes of Mass Public Shootings, and outlines actionable and effective solutions which have been proven to help reduce these horrific crimes NOT by disarming law abiding citizens of AR-15s, but rather by teaching strategies for OFF RAMPING those on the path toward resorting to such actions.1) See something, say something. 2) taking to task our politicians and media and THEIR ROLE in creating a COPYCAT CONTAGION which inspires potential mass killers (and in many cases AR-15 usage in mass killings). 3) EDUCATING our political, school, and community leaders, and the public at large, to recognize the warning signs (aka LEAKAGE) given off by an overwhelming majority of mass public killers. 4) Addressing the role of mental illness and PHARMACEUTICALS present in a high percentage of mass killers. 5) creating a THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM infrastructure in America which focuses on prevention and intervention. 6) Implement HARDENING strategies for public places such as churches, schools, and workplaces. These include personnel, training, and physical elements. We know where and why Mass Public Shooter are choosing their venues, which are overwhelmingly gun free zones. The recent Maine shooter chose his venues with care: bars and bowling alleys are by law “gun free zones” in a state with a large percentage of the population carrying concealed. His mentally ill, twisted mind knew all too well exactly where he wouldn’t meet a good guy or gal with a gun (more on that topic coming below). Yet “sensible hardening strategies” meet with a great deal of pushback. There is a growing body of “intercepted incidents” (170 and counting according to the National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services database) which attests to the EFFECTIVENESS of these strategies, including an averted event just one week before the most recent Maine incident (which SHOULD have been another MPS averted success story!), and a disturbing credible threat (made by a Cornell engineering student) just last week.

The single most important action we can take to stop Mass Public Shootings is SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. Yet this “off-ramping superpower” is not a part of the public consciousness. How could it be when we’re so busy vilifying inanimate objects? In interview after interview of persons who knew a mass public shooter and sensed something was “off”, they mention the fact that by “saying something” they felt like they would betray the person in crisis. Sadly, this mindset has prevented these “early warning radar detection opportunities” from initiating an off-ramping sequence. Estimates suggest up to 90% of Mass Public Shootings could be averted, which speaks volumes about how far sideways the public mass public shooting discourse has gone. Why aren’t our political leaders, academics, lobbying groups, and the public demanding policies which focus on the creation of a public awareness campaigns which encourage better understanding and safe reporting avenues which would jump start broad utilization of this powerful intervention tool?


But, please, be condescending and wrong in one post. Or snarky in my query on today's Kamala Thread where I referenced some posts I had seen, asked for some insights from some of our more deeply invested political wonks, and you start your reply off with... "I don't want to be disrespectful in tone or substance, but that's not a well informed post." Here I was thinking "there is no such thing as a stupid question" still applied here in 2024. But apparently not for those amongst us who are the self-appointed arbiters of such things.

Sorry if you're butt hurt that I don't feel your plan to sequester AR usage to ranges is an earnest if completely misguided non starter. You do realize your suggestion is tantamount to discrimination by both economic resources and demographics (ie: you okay with the poor and minorities and women your plan will effectively discriminate against?).

Under your mandates this woman, her husband, and unborn child would potentially have lost their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ho ... 5-n1076026

But you've made it clear there are no valid reasons for AR ownership, be it for self defense, varmint and small game hunting, invasive animal control by ranchers and farmers and homeowners, or just plain target shooting fun. Nope. Not valid.

And all 25mm Americans who own them are MAGA tacticool wanna be Ruby Ridge guns as male anatomy proxy fetishists. After all, that's what Bloomberg's army of lobbyists and politicians and researchers who love juicy grants if their policy based evidence making furthers the narrative will have you...feeling.

For the poster talking about would be assassin and dad's AR, how about we focus on his mental health, his mental health professional parents, and what pharmaceuticals he might have been on, in addition to weapon, whether AR or scoped hunting rifle or one of his IED devices. Where is the "Bipartisan waiving of hippa protections for live or dead perpetrators of assassination or mass public shootings act"? Let's get it passed. That way we can begin to understand how America's mental health epidemic and powerful big pharma drugs are fueling an environment where the sickest among us are acting out in the most visibly sick and shocking manner? Anyone on either side of this issue take issue with that? Page. Playbook.

Specious arguments cut both ways, gentlemen. The great thing about this place is it's a bastion of old school privilege, so regardless of social and societal ills we tussle over as keyboard warriors, most of us will never come within a country mile of experiencing first-hand the dark side of criminal gun violence. I've experienced it first hand, and recounted that experience here.

Be well

That's supposed to be actual policy? See something, say something?
Blame Big Pharma???

[DMac]

I wonder how close, exactly, mayhem lies?

I don't know but I keep thinking it's not too far down the road.
Really been hoping I can get a few shots off from my bedroom
window. Can see a long way both east and west. I'm going to be
a sniper in the Fit Hit The Shan War.

[cradleandshoot]

I wonder how close, exactly, mayhem lies?

I don't know but I keep thinking it's not too far down the road.
Really been hoping I can get a few shots off from my bedroom
window. Can see a long way both east and west. I'm going to be
a sniper in the Fit Hit The Shan War.

Gotta protect your crop.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Have you seen ANY credible suggestions from Waffle to reduce gun deaths in America?

I haven't.

And we won't, because that ain't what Waffle actually cares about.

3rd actually attempts to put out a whole series of well-defined, specific measures that overall simply transfer the risk of mis-use to the owners of the guns that bear such risk, ala insurance against mis-use of cars, etc. With all sorts of credible specifics that are consistent with 2A.

Doesn't mean 3rd's ideas are necessarily the 'best' ideas, but it's a serious attempt at presenting specifics.

So, Waffle resorts to specious 2A arguments, with no real offer of credible alternative approaches.

Thus, the conversation is one-sided, no matter how many pages Waffle takes up.

How right you are. Oh, wait, my first post here in November of last year included the following:

If we can set aside the collective emotional enmity for AR-15 rifles for just a few minutes, here’s what we CAN do. After Sandy Hook in 2012, President Obama put together a task force headed by then Vice-president Joe Biden. Representatives included the Attorney General/DOJ, Education Secretary/DOE, Health & Human Services Secretary, and the included the additional presence of FBI and other community leaders. In 2013, when their findings were published by the FBI, the key takeaway was a logical definition regarding how a mass shooting/active shooter incidents should be defined, which is as follows: “an incident in which four or more victims are fatally shot in a public location within a 24-hour period in the absence of other criminal activity, such as robberies, drug deals, and gang conflict.” This has been updated to exclude family annihilations. There have been 200 such Mass Public Shooting incidents since 1966. In addition, the development of a nascent deterrence playbook - which incorporated strategies previously identified (some going back decades) with a commitment to new research studies - was set in motion. The goal? Find ways to offramp potential mass shooters in the making BEFORE they are able to enact their horrific mass murders.

One member serving on the Obama commission was now retired FBI Special Agent Katherine Schweit. Quick aside: She’s a female Blue State Democrat voter. As an attorney and special agent she spent nearly five years as the executive responsible the FBI’s active/mass shooter efforts. Since retirement, she has tirelessly researched Mass Public Shootings (utilizing facts, incident reports, and empirical data), lectured, consulted, and authored a book I'd like to recommend titled "Stop the Killing" (now in its second edition). The book unpacks the root causes of Mass Public Shootings, and outlines actionable and effective solutions which have been proven to help reduce these horrific crimes NOT by disarming law abiding citizens of AR-15s, but rather by teaching strategies for OFF RAMPING those on the path toward resorting to such actions.1) See something, say something. 2) taking to task our politicians and media and THEIR ROLE in creating a COPYCAT CONTAGION which inspires potential mass killers (and in many cases AR-15 usage in mass killings). 3) EDUCATING our political, school, and community leaders, and the public at large, to recognize the warning signs (aka LEAKAGE) given off by an overwhelming majority of mass public killers. 4) Addressing the role of mental illness and PHARMACEUTICALS present in a high percentage of mass killers. 5) creating a THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM infrastructure in America which focuses on prevention and intervention. 6) Implement HARDENING strategies for public places such as churches, schools, and workplaces. These include personnel, training, and physical elements. We know where and why Mass Public Shooter are choosing their venues, which are overwhelmingly gun free zones. The recent Maine shooter chose his venues with care: bars and bowling alleys are by law “gun free zones” in a state with a large percentage of the population carrying concealed. His mentally ill, twisted mind knew all too well exactly where he wouldn’t meet a good guy or gal with a gun (more on that topic coming below). Yet “sensible hardening strategies” meet with a great deal of pushback. There is a growing body of “intercepted incidents” (170 and counting according to the National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services database) which attests to the EFFECTIVENESS of these strategies, including an averted event just one week before the most recent Maine incident (which SHOULD have been another MPS averted success story!), and a disturbing credible threat (made by a Cornell engineering student) just last week.

The single most important action we can take to stop Mass Public Shootings is SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. Yet this “off-ramping superpower” is not a part of the public consciousness. How could it be when we’re so busy vilifying inanimate objects? In interview after interview of persons who knew a mass public shooter and sensed something was “off”, they mention the fact that by “saying something” they felt like they would betray the person in crisis. Sadly, this mindset has prevented these “early warning radar detection opportunities” from initiating an off-ramping sequence. Estimates suggest up to 90% of Mass Public Shootings could be averted, which speaks volumes about how far sideways the public mass public shooting discourse has gone. Why aren’t our political leaders, academics, lobbying groups, and the public demanding policies which focus on the creation of a public awareness campaigns which encourage better understanding and safe reporting avenues which would jump start broad utilization of this powerful intervention tool?


But, please, be condescending and wrong in one post. Or snarky in my query on today's Kamala Thread where I referenced some posts I had seen, asked for some insights from some of our more deeply invested political wonks, and you start your reply off with... "I don't want to be disrespectful in tone or substance, but that's not a well informed post." Here I was thinking "there is no such thing as a stupid question" still applied here in 2024. But apparently not for those amongst us who are the self-appointed arbiters of such things.

Sorry if you're butt hurt that I don't feel your plan to sequester AR usage to ranges is an earnest if completely misguided non starter. You do realize your suggestion is tantamount to discrimination by both economic resources and demographics (ie: you okay with the poor and minorities and women your plan will effectively discriminate against?).

Under your mandates this woman, her husband, and unborn child would potentially have lost their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ho ... 5-n1076026

But you've made it clear there are no valid reasons for AR ownership, be it for self defense, varmint and small game hunting, invasive animal control by ranchers and farmers and homeowners, or just plain target shooting fun. Nope. Not valid.

And all 25mm Americans who own them are MAGA tacticool wanna be Ruby Ridge guns as male anatomy proxy fetishists. After all, that's what Bloomberg's army of lobbyists and politicians and researchers who love juicy grants if their policy based evidence making furthers the narrative will have you...feeling.

For the poster talking about would be assassin and dad's AR, how about we focus on his mental health, his mental health professional parents, and what pharmaceuticals he might have been on, in addition to weapon, whether AR or scoped hunting rifle or one of his IED devices. Where is the "Bipartisan waiving of hippa protections for live or dead perpetrators of assassination or mass public shootings act"? Let's get it passed. That way we can begin to understand how America's mental health epidemic and powerful big pharma drugs are fueling an environment where the sickest among us are acting out in the most visibly sick and shocking manner? Anyone on either side of this issue take issue with that? Page. Playbook.

Specious arguments cut both ways, gentlemen. The great thing about this place is it's a bastion of old school privilege, so regardless of social and societal ills we tussle over as keyboard warriors, most of us will never come within a country mile of experiencing first-hand the dark side of criminal gun violence. I've experienced it first hand, and recounted that experience here.

Be well

That's supposed to be actual policy? See something, say something?
Blame Big Pharma???

I know, folks like Katherine Schweit believing intrinsically in "see something, say something" (and her podcasts that highlight case studies where doing exactly that averted a mass public shooting) are useless, and worthy of derision. I mean, that strategy was only born in Obama's White House. Okey-dokey.

She doesn't exist in a vacuum, she has plenty of company at the table where smart people are trying to create awareness and policies which have the ability to avert horrific MPS events. Sorry if her focus isn't on a particular model of firearm, or weapon, or any method utilized in the perpetration of these events. It's on the things like you mock above. The idea isn't to do something on the day of an event. It's to never allow the event to occur in the first place. Oh the humanity!

Regarding Big Pharma and the mental health crisis in America when overlayed on top of the top 25 mass public shootings in history, we get the following facts regarding perpetrators:

1) Diagnosed mental health issues: 70%.
2) Mental Health drugs prescribed: 30% (the remaining 70% of MPS perpetrators are listed as “unknown” in this category because HIPPA laws (you know, the ones I suggest should be suspended for dead or alive mass public shooters) are keeping us in the dark.
3) Notable depression symptoms: 50%.
4) Inability to perform daily routines and tasks: 33%.
5) Clinical psychosis: 20%
6) Crisis presence: Ongoing: 50%. Acute: 90%. Both: 60%.
6) Suicide end goal: 40% of perpetrators plan their MPS as way to commit suicide, with 60% committing suicide during/after their MPS event.

But, yeah, hey, golly, no need to explore policy regarding the role of powerful drugs which have side effect warnings such as "may induce violent thoughts, fantasies, and suicidal ideation". Nothing to see here, but, look! over on this chart over here we have a picture of a black scary rifle that the ATF director can't even define or not as an assault weapon.

I'm not blaming big pharma. Just sharing what many mental health care experts who study mass public shootings are strongly suggesting: that the facts regarding mass public shooters and big pharma in terms of presence of powerful prescription drugs in the mass public shooter's brains should be a priority vector for deeper transparent research, and accountability. You have an issue with that, take it up with them.

For folks so fixated on a single point (if misguided imho) solution, it's odd how little curiosity exists (for most here, anyways) regarding viable and expert derived paths toward mitigating the issue at hand. At this point, it's truly baffling.

Well, Mom just turned my keyboard off and sent me back to the kid's table. I apologize for my feeble endeavors to share ideas and possibilities which don't toe the proscribed and privileged echo chamber of expertise here. I nominate y'all to run the world.

P.S. In the top 25 events referenced above, ARs were present...in 40% of them. So your ban plan needs to get going and identify the 60% you need to add to Santa's naughty list.

[MDlaxfan76]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Have you seen ANY credible suggestions from Waffle to reduce gun deaths in America?

I haven't.

And we won't, because that ain't what Waffle actually cares about.

3rd actually attempts to put out a whole series of well-defined, specific measures that overall simply transfer the risk of mis-use to the owners of the guns that bear such risk, ala insurance against mis-use of cars, etc. With all sorts of credible specifics that are consistent with 2A.

Doesn't mean 3rd's ideas are necessarily the 'best' ideas, but it's a serious attempt at presenting specifics.

So, Waffle resorts to specious 2A arguments, with no real offer of credible alternative approaches.

Thus, the conversation is one-sided, no matter how many pages Waffle takes up.

How right you are. Oh, wait, my first post here in November of last year included the following:

If we can set aside the collective emotional enmity for AR-15 rifles for just a few minutes, here’s what we CAN do. After Sandy Hook in 2012, President Obama put together a task force headed by then Vice-president Joe Biden. Representatives included the Attorney General/DOJ, Education Secretary/DOE, Health & Human Services Secretary, and the included the additional presence of FBI and other community leaders. In 2013, when their findings were published by the FBI, the key takeaway was a logical definition regarding how a mass shooting/active shooter incidents should be defined, which is as follows: “an incident in which four or more victims are fatally shot in a public location within a 24-hour period in the absence of other criminal activity, such as robberies, drug deals, and gang conflict.” This has been updated to exclude family annihilations. There have been 200 such Mass Public Shooting incidents since 1966. In addition, the development of a nascent deterrence playbook - which incorporated strategies previously identified (some going back decades) with a commitment to new research studies - was set in motion. The goal? Find ways to offramp potential mass shooters in the making BEFORE they are able to enact their horrific mass murders.

One member serving on the Obama commission was now retired FBI Special Agent Katherine Schweit. Quick aside: She’s a female Blue State Democrat voter. As an attorney and special agent she spent nearly five years as the executive responsible the FBI’s active/mass shooter efforts. Since retirement, she has tirelessly researched Mass Public Shootings (utilizing facts, incident reports, and empirical data), lectured, consulted, and authored a book I'd like to recommend titled "Stop the Killing" (now in its second edition). The book unpacks the root causes of Mass Public Shootings, and outlines actionable and effective solutions which have been proven to help reduce these horrific crimes NOT by disarming law abiding citizens of AR-15s, but rather by teaching strategies for OFF RAMPING those on the path toward resorting to such actions.1) See something, say something. 2) taking to task our politicians and media and THEIR ROLE in creating a COPYCAT CONTAGION which inspires potential mass killers (and in many cases AR-15 usage in mass killings). 3) EDUCATING our political, school, and community leaders, and the public at large, to recognize the warning signs (aka LEAKAGE) given off by an overwhelming majority of mass public killers. 4) Addressing the role of mental illness and PHARMACEUTICALS present in a high percentage of mass killers. 5) creating a THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM infrastructure in America which focuses on prevention and intervention. 6) Implement HARDENING strategies for public places such as churches, schools, and workplaces. These include personnel, training, and physical elements. We know where and why Mass Public Shooter are choosing their venues, which are overwhelmingly gun free zones. The recent Maine shooter chose his venues with care: bars and bowling alleys are by law “gun free zones” in a state with a large percentage of the population carrying concealed. His mentally ill, twisted mind knew all too well exactly where he wouldn’t meet a good guy or gal with a gun (more on that topic coming below). Yet “sensible hardening strategies” meet with a great deal of pushback. There is a growing body of “intercepted incidents” (170 and counting according to the National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services database) which attests to the EFFECTIVENESS of these strategies, including an averted event just one week before the most recent Maine incident (which SHOULD have been another MPS averted success story!), and a disturbing credible threat (made by a Cornell engineering student) just last week.

The single most important action we can take to stop Mass Public Shootings is SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. Yet this “off-ramping superpower” is not a part of the public consciousness. How could it be when we’re so busy vilifying inanimate objects? In interview after interview of persons who knew a mass public shooter and sensed something was “off”, they mention the fact that by “saying something” they felt like they would betray the person in crisis. Sadly, this mindset has prevented these “early warning radar detection opportunities” from initiating an off-ramping sequence. Estimates suggest up to 90% of Mass Public Shootings could be averted, which speaks volumes about how far sideways the public mass public shooting discourse has gone. Why aren’t our political leaders, academics, lobbying groups, and the public demanding policies which focus on the creation of a public awareness campaigns which encourage better understanding and safe reporting avenues which would jump start broad utilization of this powerful intervention tool?


But, please, be condescending and wrong in one post. Or snarky in my query on today's Kamala Thread where I referenced some posts I had seen, asked for some insights from some of our more deeply invested political wonks, and you start your reply off with... "I don't want to be disrespectful in tone or substance, but that's not a well informed post." Here I was thinking "there is no such thing as a stupid question" still applied here in 2024. But apparently not for those amongst us who are the self-appointed arbiters of such things.

Sorry if you're butt hurt that I don't feel your plan to sequester AR usage to ranges is an earnest if completely misguided non starter. You do realize your suggestion is tantamount to discrimination by both economic resources and demographics (ie: you okay with the poor and minorities and women your plan will effectively discriminate against?).

Under your mandates this woman, her husband, and unborn child would potentially have lost their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ho ... 5-n1076026

But you've made it clear there are no valid reasons for AR ownership, be it for self defense, varmint and small game hunting, invasive animal control by ranchers and farmers and homeowners, or just plain target shooting fun. Nope. Not valid.

And all 25mm Americans who own them are MAGA tacticool wanna be Ruby Ridge guns as male anatomy proxy fetishists. After all, that's what Bloomberg's army of lobbyists and politicians and researchers who love juicy grants if their policy based evidence making furthers the narrative will have you...feeling.

For the poster talking about would be assassin and dad's AR, how about we focus on his mental health, his mental health professional parents, and what pharmaceuticals he might have been on, in addition to weapon, whether AR or scoped hunting rifle or one of his IED devices. Where is the "Bipartisan waiving of hippa protections for live or dead perpetrators of assassination or mass public shootings act"? Let's get it passed. That way we can begin to understand how America's mental health epidemic and powerful big pharma drugs are fueling an environment where the sickest among us are acting out in the most visibly sick and shocking manner? Anyone on either side of this issue take issue with that? Page. Playbook.

Specious arguments cut both ways, gentlemen. The great thing about this place is it's a bastion of old school privilege, so regardless of social and societal ills we tussle over as keyboard warriors, most of us will never come within a country mile of experiencing first-hand the dark side of criminal gun violence. I've experienced it first hand, and recounted that experience here.

Be well

That's supposed to be actual policy? See something, say something?
Blame Big Pharma???

I know, folks like Katherine Schweit believing intrinsically in "see something, say something" (and her podcasts that highlight case studies where doing exactly that averted a mass public shooting) are useless, and worthy of derision. I mean, that strategy was only born in Obama's White House. Okey-dokey.

She doesn't exist in a vacuum, she has plenty of company at the table where smart people are trying to create awareness and policies which have the ability to avert horrific MPS events. Sorry if her focus isn't on a particular model of firearm, or weapon, or any method utilized in the perpetration of these events. It's on the things like you mock above. The idea isn't to do something on the day of an event. It's to never allow the event to occur in the first place. Oh the humanity!

Regarding Big Pharma and the mental health crisis in America when overlayed on top of the top 25 mass public shootings in history, we get the following facts regarding perpetrators:

1) Diagnosed mental health issues: 70%.
2) Mental Health drugs prescribed: 30% (the remaining 70% of MPS perpetrators are listed as “unknown” in this category because HIPPA laws (you know, the ones I suggest should be suspended for dead or alive mass public shooters) are keeping us in the dark.
3) Notable depression symptoms: 50%.
4) Inability to perform daily routines and tasks: 33%.
5) Clinical psychosis: 20%
6) Crisis presence: Ongoing: 50%. Acute: 90%. Both: 60%.
6) Suicide end goal: 40% of perpetrators plan their MPS as way to commit suicide, with 60% committing suicide during/after their MPS event.

But, yeah, hey, golly, no need to explore policy regarding the role of powerful drugs which have side effect warnings such as "may induce violent thoughts, fantasies, and suicidal ideation". Nothing to see here, but, look! over on this chart over here we have a picture of a black scary rifle that the ATF director can't even define or not as an assault weapon.

I'm not blaming big pharma. Just sharing what many mental health care experts who study mass public shootings are strongly suggesting: that the facts regarding mass public shooters and big pharma in terms of presence of powerful prescription drugs in the mass public shooter's brains should be a priority vector for deeper transparent research, and accountability. You have an issue with that, take it up with them.

For folks so fixated on a single point (if misguided imho) solution, it's odd how little curiosity exists (for most here, anyways) regarding viable and expert derived paths toward mitigating the issue at hand. At this point, it's truly baffling.

Well, Mom just turned my keyboard off and sent me back to the kid's table. I apologize for my feeble endeavors to share ideas and possibilities which don't toe the proscribed and privileged echo chamber of expertise here. I nominate y'all to run the world.

P.S. In the top 25 events referenced above, ARs were present...in 40% of them. So your ban plan needs to get going and identify the 60% you need to add to Santa's naughty list.

Only derision as meaningful "policy". I certainly have no issue with further "research" on mental health, but that sounds to me like tobacco company funded research as an excuse to keep selling cigarettes...or Dupont...or...just a delay tactic.

But absolutely, if there are things to be learned that are actionable, great. No argument with trying. Just don't use it as a delay tactic or cover-up for product liability.

And there's nothing wrong with "see something, say something". Of course. But it ain't actionable in any credible way that can truly move the needle...but if it can just save one life, or a set of lives, terrific.

We get it, you're not willing to grapple with the reality that the US is awash in guns, with vast swaths of the country with virtually no regulation on time and place and storage, etc, and that makes it far, far easier than any other first world country for people with bad intentions to get and misuse a gun. Whether to harm others or to harm themselves.

So, we have hugely higher gun death statistics here as a result.

There's tons of common ground between the vast majority of responsible American gun owners and most responsible pro-regulation activists, but some on each extreme are absolutists. And you're one of those absolutists.

And no, I'm not focused on a sole make or model of weapon, this is a much larger cultural problem that requires multi-faceted approaches to which weapons, when, where, how and who, and how stored and yes, absolutely, to mental health care in all its ramifications. But the big one is recognizing that a culture that glorifies gun usage and particularly glorifies killing as 'cool' is itself a viral sickness into which the susceptible fall all too easily.

The notion that anyone and everyone has a "right" to have and carry a weapon, any weapon, anywhere, anytime, needs to get sent to the dump heap. It ain't actually a Constitutional right, so get over it, guns need to be regulated.

Once we get there, there's a ton of common sense, common ground to be found.

[cradleandshoot]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Have you seen ANY credible suggestions from Waffle to reduce gun deaths in America?

I haven't.

And we won't, because that ain't what Waffle actually cares about.

3rd actually attempts to put out a whole series of well-defined, specific measures that overall simply transfer the risk of mis-use to the owners of the guns that bear such risk, ala insurance against mis-use of cars, etc. With all sorts of credible specifics that are consistent with 2A.

Doesn't mean 3rd's ideas are necessarily the 'best' ideas, but it's a serious attempt at presenting specifics.

So, Waffle resorts to specious 2A arguments, with no real offer of credible alternative approaches.

Thus, the conversation is one-sided, no matter how many pages Waffle takes up.

How right you are. Oh, wait, my first post here in November of last year included the following:

If we can set aside the collective emotional enmity for AR-15 rifles for just a few minutes, here’s what we CAN do. After Sandy Hook in 2012, President Obama put together a task force headed by then Vice-president Joe Biden. Representatives included the Attorney General/DOJ, Education Secretary/DOE, Health & Human Services Secretary, and the included the additional presence of FBI and other community leaders. In 2013, when their findings were published by the FBI, the key takeaway was a logical definition regarding how a mass shooting/active shooter incidents should be defined, which is as follows: “an incident in which four or more victims are fatally shot in a public location within a 24-hour period in the absence of other criminal activity, such as robberies, drug deals, and gang conflict.” This has been updated to exclude family annihilations. There have been 200 such Mass Public Shooting incidents since 1966. In addition, the development of a nascent deterrence playbook - which incorporated strategies previously identified (some going back decades) with a commitment to new research studies - was set in motion. The goal? Find ways to offramp potential mass shooters in the making BEFORE they are able to enact their horrific mass murders.

One member serving on the Obama commission was now retired FBI Special Agent Katherine Schweit. Quick aside: She’s a female Blue State Democrat voter. As an attorney and special agent she spent nearly five years as the executive responsible the FBI’s active/mass shooter efforts. Since retirement, she has tirelessly researched Mass Public Shootings (utilizing facts, incident reports, and empirical data), lectured, consulted, and authored a book I'd like to recommend titled "Stop the Killing" (now in its second edition). The book unpacks the root causes of Mass Public Shootings, and outlines actionable and effective solutions which have been proven to help reduce these horrific crimes NOT by disarming law abiding citizens of AR-15s, but rather by teaching strategies for OFF RAMPING those on the path toward resorting to such actions.1) See something, say something. 2) taking to task our politicians and media and THEIR ROLE in creating a COPYCAT CONTAGION which inspires potential mass killers (and in many cases AR-15 usage in mass killings). 3) EDUCATING our political, school, and community leaders, and the public at large, to recognize the warning signs (aka LEAKAGE) given off by an overwhelming majority of mass public killers. 4) Addressing the role of mental illness and PHARMACEUTICALS present in a high percentage of mass killers. 5) creating a THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM infrastructure in America which focuses on prevention and intervention. 6) Implement HARDENING strategies for public places such as churches, schools, and workplaces. These include personnel, training, and physical elements. We know where and why Mass Public Shooter are choosing their venues, which are overwhelmingly gun free zones. The recent Maine shooter chose his venues with care: bars and bowling alleys are by law “gun free zones” in a state with a large percentage of the population carrying concealed. His mentally ill, twisted mind knew all too well exactly where he wouldn’t meet a good guy or gal with a gun (more on that topic coming below). Yet “sensible hardening strategies” meet with a great deal of pushback. There is a growing body of “intercepted incidents” (170 and counting according to the National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services database) which attests to the EFFECTIVENESS of these strategies, including an averted event just one week before the most recent Maine incident (which SHOULD have been another MPS averted success story!), and a disturbing credible threat (made by a Cornell engineering student) just last week.

The single most important action we can take to stop Mass Public Shootings is SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. Yet this “off-ramping superpower” is not a part of the public consciousness. How could it be when we’re so busy vilifying inanimate objects? In interview after interview of persons who knew a mass public shooter and sensed something was “off”, they mention the fact that by “saying something” they felt like they would betray the person in crisis. Sadly, this mindset has prevented these “early warning radar detection opportunities” from initiating an off-ramping sequence. Estimates suggest up to 90% of Mass Public Shootings could be averted, which speaks volumes about how far sideways the public mass public shooting discourse has gone. Why aren’t our political leaders, academics, lobbying groups, and the public demanding policies which focus on the creation of a public awareness campaigns which encourage better understanding and safe reporting avenues which would jump start broad utilization of this powerful intervention tool?


But, please, be condescending and wrong in one post. Or snarky in my query on today's Kamala Thread where I referenced some posts I had seen, asked for some insights from some of our more deeply invested political wonks, and you start your reply off with... "I don't want to be disrespectful in tone or substance, but that's not a well informed post." Here I was thinking "there is no such thing as a stupid question" still applied here in 2024. But apparently not for those amongst us who are the self-appointed arbiters of such things.

Sorry if you're butt hurt that I don't feel your plan to sequester AR usage to ranges is an earnest if completely misguided non starter. You do realize your suggestion is tantamount to discrimination by both economic resources and demographics (ie: you okay with the poor and minorities and women your plan will effectively discriminate against?).

Under your mandates this woman, her husband, and unborn child would potentially have lost their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ho ... 5-n1076026

But you've made it clear there are no valid reasons for AR ownership, be it for self defense, varmint and small game hunting, invasive animal control by ranchers and farmers and homeowners, or just plain target shooting fun. Nope. Not valid.

And all 25mm Americans who own them are MAGA tacticool wanna be Ruby Ridge guns as male anatomy proxy fetishists. After all, that's what Bloomberg's army of lobbyists and politicians and researchers who love juicy grants if their policy based evidence making furthers the narrative will have you...feeling.

For the poster talking about would be assassin and dad's AR, how about we focus on his mental health, his mental health professional parents, and what pharmaceuticals he might have been on, in addition to weapon, whether AR or scoped hunting rifle or one of his IED devices. Where is the "Bipartisan waiving of hippa protections for live or dead perpetrators of assassination or mass public shootings act"? Let's get it passed. That way we can begin to understand how America's mental health epidemic and powerful big pharma drugs are fueling an environment where the sickest among us are acting out in the most visibly sick and shocking manner? Anyone on either side of this issue take issue with that? Page. Playbook.

Specious arguments cut both ways, gentlemen. The great thing about this place is it's a bastion of old school privilege, so regardless of social and societal ills we tussle over as keyboard warriors, most of us will never come within a country mile of experiencing first-hand the dark side of criminal gun violence. I've experienced it first hand, and recounted that experience here.

Be well

That's supposed to be actual policy? See something, say something?
Blame Big Pharma???

I know, folks like Katherine Schweit believing intrinsically in "see something, say something" (and her podcasts that highlight case studies where doing exactly that averted a mass public shooting) are useless, and worthy of derision. I mean, that strategy was only born in Obama's White House. Okey-dokey.

She doesn't exist in a vacuum, she has plenty of company at the table where smart people are trying to create awareness and policies which have the ability to avert horrific MPS events. Sorry if her focus isn't on a particular model of firearm, or weapon, or any method utilized in the perpetration of these events. It's on the things like you mock above. The idea isn't to do something on the day of an event. It's to never allow the event to occur in the first place. Oh the humanity!

Regarding Big Pharma and the mental health crisis in America when overlayed on top of the top 25 mass public shootings in history, we get the following facts regarding perpetrators:

1) Diagnosed mental health issues: 70%.
2) Mental Health drugs prescribed: 30% (the remaining 70% of MPS perpetrators are listed as “unknown” in this category because HIPPA laws (you know, the ones I suggest should be suspended for dead or alive mass public shooters) are keeping us in the dark.
3) Notable depression symptoms: 50%.
4) Inability to perform daily routines and tasks: 33%.
5) Clinical psychosis: 20%
6) Crisis presence: Ongoing: 50%. Acute: 90%. Both: 60%.
6) Suicide end goal: 40% of perpetrators plan their MPS as way to commit suicide, with 60% committing suicide during/after their MPS event.

But, yeah, hey, golly, no need to explore policy regarding the role of powerful drugs which have side effect warnings such as "may induce violent thoughts, fantasies, and suicidal ideation". Nothing to see here, but, look! over on this chart over here we have a picture of a black scary rifle that the ATF director can't even define or not as an assault weapon.

I'm not blaming big pharma. Just sharing what many mental health care experts who study mass public shootings are strongly suggesting: that the facts regarding mass public shooters and big pharma in terms of presence of powerful prescription drugs in the mass public shooter's brains should be a priority vector for deeper transparent research, and accountability. You have an issue with that, take it up with them.

For folks so fixated on a single point (if misguided imho) solution, it's odd how little curiosity exists (for most here, anyways) regarding viable and expert derived paths toward mitigating the issue at hand. At this point, it's truly baffling.

Well, Mom just turned my keyboard off and sent me back to the kid's table. I apologize for my feeble endeavors to share ideas and possibilities which don't toe the proscribed and privileged echo chamber of expertise here. I nominate y'all to run the world.

P.S. In the top 25 events referenced above, ARs were present...in 40% of them. So your ban plan needs to get going and identify the 60% you need to add to Santa's naughty list.

Only derision as meaningful "policy". I certainly have no issue with further "research" on mental health, but that sounds to me like tobacco company funded research as an excuse to keep selling cigarettes...or Dupont...or...just a delay tactic.

But absolutely, if there are things to be learned that are actionable, great. No argument with trying. Just don't use it as a delay tactic or cover-up for product liability.

And there's nothing wrong with "see something, say something". Of course. But it ain't actionable in any credible way that can truly move the needle...but if it can just save one life, or a set of lives, terrific.

We get it, you're not willing to grapple with the reality that the US is awash in guns, with vast swaths of the country with virtually no regulation on time and place and storage, etc, and that makes it far, far easier than any other first world country for people with bad intentions to get and misuse a gun. Whether to harm others or to harm themselves.

So, we have hugely higher gun death statistics here as a result.

There's tons of common ground between the vast majority of responsible American gun owners and most responsible pro-regulation activists, but some on each extreme are absolutists. And you're one of those absolutists.

And no, I'm not focused on a sole make or model of weapon, this is a much larger cultural problem that requires multi-faceted approaches to which weapons, when, where, how and who, and how stored and yes, absolutely, to mental health care in all its ramifications. But the big one is recognizing that a culture that glorifies gun usage and particularly glorifies killing as 'cool' is itself a viral sickness into which the susceptible fall all too easily.

The notion that anyone and everyone has a "right" to have and carry a weapon, any weapon, anywhere, anytime, needs to get sent to the dump heap. It ain't actually a Constitutional right, so get over it, guns need to be regulated.

Once we get there, there's a ton of common sense, common ground to be found.

Well with 400 + million of different types of weapons already in circulation don't expect anything to change in your lifetime or our kids lifetime or our grandkids lifetime. I believe you are incorrect about it not being a constitutional right. That last sentence in the 2A doesn't contain any ambiguity about what the founding fathers meant. The fact it comes in at #2 also tells you the priority the founding fathers felt about the right to own a gun. The only realistic venue would be an amendment to the constitution and that is a dog that just won't hunt.

[MDlaxfan76]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Have you seen ANY credible suggestions from Waffle to reduce gun deaths in America?

I haven't.

And we won't, because that ain't what Waffle actually cares about.

3rd actually attempts to put out a whole series of well-defined, specific measures that overall simply transfer the risk of mis-use to the owners of the guns that bear such risk, ala insurance against mis-use of cars, etc. With all sorts of credible specifics that are consistent with 2A.

Doesn't mean 3rd's ideas are necessarily the 'best' ideas, but it's a serious attempt at presenting specifics.

So, Waffle resorts to specious 2A arguments, with no real offer of credible alternative approaches.

Thus, the conversation is one-sided, no matter how many pages Waffle takes up.

How right you are. Oh, wait, my first post here in November of last year included the following:

If we can set aside the collective emotional enmity for AR-15 rifles for just a few minutes, here’s what we CAN do. After Sandy Hook in 2012, President Obama put together a task force headed by then Vice-president Joe Biden. Representatives included the Attorney General/DOJ, Education Secretary/DOE, Health & Human Services Secretary, and the included the additional presence of FBI and other community leaders. In 2013, when their findings were published by the FBI, the key takeaway was a logical definition regarding how a mass shooting/active shooter incidents should be defined, which is as follows: “an incident in which four or more victims are fatally shot in a public location within a 24-hour period in the absence of other criminal activity, such as robberies, drug deals, and gang conflict.” This has been updated to exclude family annihilations. There have been 200 such Mass Public Shooting incidents since 1966. In addition, the development of a nascent deterrence playbook - which incorporated strategies previously identified (some going back decades) with a commitment to new research studies - was set in motion. The goal? Find ways to offramp potential mass shooters in the making BEFORE they are able to enact their horrific mass murders.

One member serving on the Obama commission was now retired FBI Special Agent Katherine Schweit. Quick aside: She’s a female Blue State Democrat voter. As an attorney and special agent she spent nearly five years as the executive responsible the FBI’s active/mass shooter efforts. Since retirement, she has tirelessly researched Mass Public Shootings (utilizing facts, incident reports, and empirical data), lectured, consulted, and authored a book I'd like to recommend titled "Stop the Killing" (now in its second edition). The book unpacks the root causes of Mass Public Shootings, and outlines actionable and effective solutions which have been proven to help reduce these horrific crimes NOT by disarming law abiding citizens of AR-15s, but rather by teaching strategies for OFF RAMPING those on the path toward resorting to such actions.1) See something, say something. 2) taking to task our politicians and media and THEIR ROLE in creating a COPYCAT CONTAGION which inspires potential mass killers (and in many cases AR-15 usage in mass killings). 3) EDUCATING our political, school, and community leaders, and the public at large, to recognize the warning signs (aka LEAKAGE) given off by an overwhelming majority of mass public killers. 4) Addressing the role of mental illness and PHARMACEUTICALS present in a high percentage of mass killers. 5) creating a THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM infrastructure in America which focuses on prevention and intervention. 6) Implement HARDENING strategies for public places such as churches, schools, and workplaces. These include personnel, training, and physical elements. We know where and why Mass Public Shooter are choosing their venues, which are overwhelmingly gun free zones. The recent Maine shooter chose his venues with care: bars and bowling alleys are by law “gun free zones” in a state with a large percentage of the population carrying concealed. His mentally ill, twisted mind knew all too well exactly where he wouldn’t meet a good guy or gal with a gun (more on that topic coming below). Yet “sensible hardening strategies” meet with a great deal of pushback. There is a growing body of “intercepted incidents” (170 and counting according to the National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services database) which attests to the EFFECTIVENESS of these strategies, including an averted event just one week before the most recent Maine incident (which SHOULD have been another MPS averted success story!), and a disturbing credible threat (made by a Cornell engineering student) just last week.

The single most important action we can take to stop Mass Public Shootings is SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. Yet this “off-ramping superpower” is not a part of the public consciousness. How could it be when we’re so busy vilifying inanimate objects? In interview after interview of persons who knew a mass public shooter and sensed something was “off”, they mention the fact that by “saying something” they felt like they would betray the person in crisis. Sadly, this mindset has prevented these “early warning radar detection opportunities” from initiating an off-ramping sequence. Estimates suggest up to 90% of Mass Public Shootings could be averted, which speaks volumes about how far sideways the public mass public shooting discourse has gone. Why aren’t our political leaders, academics, lobbying groups, and the public demanding policies which focus on the creation of a public awareness campaigns which encourage better understanding and safe reporting avenues which would jump start broad utilization of this powerful intervention tool?


But, please, be condescending and wrong in one post. Or snarky in my query on today's Kamala Thread where I referenced some posts I had seen, asked for some insights from some of our more deeply invested political wonks, and you start your reply off with... "I don't want to be disrespectful in tone or substance, but that's not a well informed post." Here I was thinking "there is no such thing as a stupid question" still applied here in 2024. But apparently not for those amongst us who are the self-appointed arbiters of such things.

Sorry if you're butt hurt that I don't feel your plan to sequester AR usage to ranges is an earnest if completely misguided non starter. You do realize your suggestion is tantamount to discrimination by both economic resources and demographics (ie: you okay with the poor and minorities and women your plan will effectively discriminate against?).

Under your mandates this woman, her husband, and unborn child would potentially have lost their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ho ... 5-n1076026

But you've made it clear there are no valid reasons for AR ownership, be it for self defense, varmint and small game hunting, invasive animal control by ranchers and farmers and homeowners, or just plain target shooting fun. Nope. Not valid.

And all 25mm Americans who own them are MAGA tacticool wanna be Ruby Ridge guns as male anatomy proxy fetishists. After all, that's what Bloomberg's army of lobbyists and politicians and researchers who love juicy grants if their policy based evidence making furthers the narrative will have you...feeling.

For the poster talking about would be assassin and dad's AR, how about we focus on his mental health, his mental health professional parents, and what pharmaceuticals he might have been on, in addition to weapon, whether AR or scoped hunting rifle or one of his IED devices. Where is the "Bipartisan waiving of hippa protections for live or dead perpetrators of assassination or mass public shootings act"? Let's get it passed. That way we can begin to understand how America's mental health epidemic and powerful big pharma drugs are fueling an environment where the sickest among us are acting out in the most visibly sick and shocking manner? Anyone on either side of this issue take issue with that? Page. Playbook.

Specious arguments cut both ways, gentlemen. The great thing about this place is it's a bastion of old school privilege, so regardless of social and societal ills we tussle over as keyboard warriors, most of us will never come within a country mile of experiencing first-hand the dark side of criminal gun violence. I've experienced it first hand, and recounted that experience here.

Be well

That's supposed to be actual policy? See something, say something?
Blame Big Pharma???

I know, folks like Katherine Schweit believing intrinsically in "see something, say something" (and her podcasts that highlight case studies where doing exactly that averted a mass public shooting) are useless, and worthy of derision. I mean, that strategy was only born in Obama's White House. Okey-dokey.

She doesn't exist in a vacuum, she has plenty of company at the table where smart people are trying to create awareness and policies which have the ability to avert horrific MPS events. Sorry if her focus isn't on a particular model of firearm, or weapon, or any method utilized in the perpetration of these events. It's on the things like you mock above. The idea isn't to do something on the day of an event. It's to never allow the event to occur in the first place. Oh the humanity!

Regarding Big Pharma and the mental health crisis in America when overlayed on top of the top 25 mass public shootings in history, we get the following facts regarding perpetrators:

1) Diagnosed mental health issues: 70%.
2) Mental Health drugs prescribed: 30% (the remaining 70% of MPS perpetrators are listed as “unknown” in this category because HIPPA laws (you know, the ones I suggest should be suspended for dead or alive mass public shooters) are keeping us in the dark.
3) Notable depression symptoms: 50%.
4) Inability to perform daily routines and tasks: 33%.
5) Clinical psychosis: 20%
6) Crisis presence: Ongoing: 50%. Acute: 90%. Both: 60%.
6) Suicide end goal: 40% of perpetrators plan their MPS as way to commit suicide, with 60% committing suicide during/after their MPS event.

But, yeah, hey, golly, no need to explore policy regarding the role of powerful drugs which have side effect warnings such as "may induce violent thoughts, fantasies, and suicidal ideation". Nothing to see here, but, look! over on this chart over here we have a picture of a black scary rifle that the ATF director can't even define or not as an assault weapon.

I'm not blaming big pharma. Just sharing what many mental health care experts who study mass public shootings are strongly suggesting: that the facts regarding mass public shooters and big pharma in terms of presence of powerful prescription drugs in the mass public shooter's brains should be a priority vector for deeper transparent research, and accountability. You have an issue with that, take it up with them.

For folks so fixated on a single point (if misguided imho) solution, it's odd how little curiosity exists (for most here, anyways) regarding viable and expert derived paths toward mitigating the issue at hand. At this point, it's truly baffling.

Well, Mom just turned my keyboard off and sent me back to the kid's table. I apologize for my feeble endeavors to share ideas and possibilities which don't toe the proscribed and privileged echo chamber of expertise here. I nominate y'all to run the world.

P.S. In the top 25 events referenced above, ARs were present...in 40% of them. So your ban plan needs to get going and identify the 60% you need to add to Santa's naughty list.

Only derision as meaningful "policy". I certainly have no issue with further "research" on mental health, but that sounds to me like tobacco company funded research as an excuse to keep selling cigarettes...or Dupont...or...just a delay tactic.

But absolutely, if there are things to be learned that are actionable, great. No argument with trying. Just don't use it as a delay tactic or cover-up for product liability.

And there's nothing wrong with "see something, say something". Of course. But it ain't actionable in any credible way that can truly move the needle...but if it can just save one life, or a set of lives, terrific.

We get it, you're not willing to grapple with the reality that the US is awash in guns, with vast swaths of the country with virtually no regulation on time and place and storage, etc, and that makes it far, far easier than any other first world country for people with bad intentions to get and misuse a gun. Whether to harm others or to harm themselves.

So, we have hugely higher gun death statistics here as a result.

There's tons of common ground between the vast majority of responsible American gun owners and most responsible pro-regulation activists, but some on each extreme are absolutists. And you're one of those absolutists.

And no, I'm not focused on a sole make or model of weapon, this is a much larger cultural problem that requires multi-faceted approaches to which weapons, when, where, how and who, and how stored and yes, absolutely, to mental health care in all its ramifications. But the big one is recognizing that a culture that glorifies gun usage and particularly glorifies killing as 'cool' is itself a viral sickness into which the susceptible fall all too easily.

The notion that anyone and everyone has a "right" to have and carry a weapon, any weapon, anywhere, anytime, needs to get sent to the dump heap. It ain't actually a Constitutional right, so get over it, guns need to be regulated.

Once we get there, there's a ton of common sense, common ground to be found.

Well with 400 + million of different types of weapons already in circulation don't expect anything to change in your lifetime or our kids lifetime or our grandkids lifetime. I believe you are incorrect about it not being a constitutional right. That last sentence in the 2A doesn't contain any ambiguity about what the founding fathers meant. The fact it comes in at #2 also tells you the priority the founding fathers felt about the right to own a gun. The only realistic venue would be an amendment to the constitution and that is a dog that just won't hunt.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

What "last sentence"??? It's just one sentence.

Yes, the Amendment was very important to the notion that the new nation needed to be able to defend itself from tyrants foreign or domestic, though they were particularly concerned with the foreign such ( and were right to be concerned as the British invaded again)...And it says it quite clearly, "A well regulated Militia"...and explains "being necessary to the security of a free State" (not individuals, rather "a free State" and its "security" not individual security or individual pleasure), etc.

"the people" never meant anyone, anywhere, anytime, for whatever reason...

But yes, very important to the Founders.

And yes, the fact that we are already awash in a sea of guns seems daunting...but that doesn't mean there isn't a ton that can change on common ground with common sense solutions. Just not absolutist stuff on either side.

[a fan]

Regarding Big Pharma and the mental health crisis in America when overlayed on top of the top 25 mass public shootings in history, we get the following facts regarding perpetrators:

1) Diagnosed mental health issues: 70%.
2) Mental Health drugs prescribed: 30% (the remaining 70% of MPS perpetrators are listed as “unknown” in this category because HIPPA laws (you know, the ones I suggest should be suspended for dead or alive mass public shooters) are keeping us in the dark.
3) Notable depression symptoms: 50%.
4) Inability to perform daily routines and tasks: 33%.
5) Clinical psychosis: 20%
6) Crisis presence: Ongoing: 50%. Acute: 90%. Both: 60%.
6) Suicide end goal: 40% of perpetrators plan their MPS as way to commit suicide, with 60% committing suicide during/after their MPS event.

But, yeah, hey, golly, no need to explore policy regarding the role of powerful drugs which have side effect warnings such as "may induce violent thoughts, fantasies, and suicidal ideation". Nothing to see here, but, look! over on this chart over here we have a picture of a black scary rifle that the ATF director can't even define or not as an assault weapon.

I'm not blaming big pharma. Just sharing what many mental health care experts who study mass public shootings are strongly suggesting: that the facts regarding mass public shooters and big pharma in terms of presence of powerful prescription drugs in the mass public shooter's brains should be a priority vector for deeper transparent research, and accountability. You have an issue with that, take it up with them.

For folks so fixated on a single point (if misguided imho) solution, it's odd how little curiosity exists (for most here, anyways) regarding viable and expert derived paths toward mitigating the issue at hand. At this point, it's truly baffling.

Well, Mom just turned my keyboard off and sent me back to the kid's table. I apologize for my feeble endeavors to share ideas and possibilities which don't toe the proscribed and privileged echo chamber of expertise here. I nominate y'all to run the world.

P.S. In the top 25 events referenced above, ARs were present...in 40% of them. So your ban plan needs to get going and identify the 60% you need to add to Santa's naughty list.

You still haven't suggested any tangible solutions. How about you bullet point five things, and keep it simple?



And respectfully, you're making a massive logical leap to suggest that Big Pharma is in any way to blame, versus the underlying mental health issues.

That's like blaming the fact that all shooters wear pants as the underlying cause.

[Kismet]

Waffle, you guys trip all over yourselves talking about law abiding gun owners. But then you say if an AR ban or some other type of ban or restriction were to be put in place, that is, enacted into law, all you guys would disobey it. “You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.”

So which is it? Are you law abiding and obey the laws or do you only obey the laws you want to obey? If the latter, you aren’t law abiding.

You aren’t the only one who claims gunowners are “law abiding” citizens. It’s a regular trope of the 2A gang.

Have you seen ANY credible suggestions from Waffle to reduce gun deaths in America?

I haven't.

And we won't, because that ain't what Waffle actually cares about.

3rd actually attempts to put out a whole series of well-defined, specific measures that overall simply transfer the risk of mis-use to the owners of the guns that bear such risk, ala insurance against mis-use of cars, etc. With all sorts of credible specifics that are consistent with 2A.

Doesn't mean 3rd's ideas are necessarily the 'best' ideas, but it's a serious attempt at presenting specifics.

So, Waffle resorts to specious 2A arguments, with no real offer of credible alternative approaches.

Thus, the conversation is one-sided, no matter how many pages Waffle takes up.

How right you are. Oh, wait, my first post here in November of last year included the following:

If we can set aside the collective emotional enmity for AR-15 rifles for just a few minutes, here’s what we CAN do. After Sandy Hook in 2012, President Obama put together a task force headed by then Vice-president Joe Biden. Representatives included the Attorney General/DOJ, Education Secretary/DOE, Health & Human Services Secretary, and the included the additional presence of FBI and other community leaders. In 2013, when their findings were published by the FBI, the key takeaway was a logical definition regarding how a mass shooting/active shooter incidents should be defined, which is as follows: “an incident in which four or more victims are fatally shot in a public location within a 24-hour period in the absence of other criminal activity, such as robberies, drug deals, and gang conflict.” This has been updated to exclude family annihilations. There have been 200 such Mass Public Shooting incidents since 1966. In addition, the development of a nascent deterrence playbook - which incorporated strategies previously identified (some going back decades) with a commitment to new research studies - was set in motion. The goal? Find ways to offramp potential mass shooters in the making BEFORE they are able to enact their horrific mass murders.

One member serving on the Obama commission was now retired FBI Special Agent Katherine Schweit. Quick aside: She’s a female Blue State Democrat voter. As an attorney and special agent she spent nearly five years as the executive responsible the FBI’s active/mass shooter efforts. Since retirement, she has tirelessly researched Mass Public Shootings (utilizing facts, incident reports, and empirical data), lectured, consulted, and authored a book I'd like to recommend titled "Stop the Killing" (now in its second edition). The book unpacks the root causes of Mass Public Shootings, and outlines actionable and effective solutions which have been proven to help reduce these horrific crimes NOT by disarming law abiding citizens of AR-15s, but rather by teaching strategies for OFF RAMPING those on the path toward resorting to such actions.1) See something, say something. 2) taking to task our politicians and media and THEIR ROLE in creating a COPYCAT CONTAGION which inspires potential mass killers (and in many cases AR-15 usage in mass killings). 3) EDUCATING our political, school, and community leaders, and the public at large, to recognize the warning signs (aka LEAKAGE) given off by an overwhelming majority of mass public killers. 4) Addressing the role of mental illness and PHARMACEUTICALS present in a high percentage of mass killers. 5) creating a THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM infrastructure in America which focuses on prevention and intervention. 6) Implement HARDENING strategies for public places such as churches, schools, and workplaces. These include personnel, training, and physical elements. We know where and why Mass Public Shooter are choosing their venues, which are overwhelmingly gun free zones. The recent Maine shooter chose his venues with care: bars and bowling alleys are by law “gun free zones” in a state with a large percentage of the population carrying concealed. His mentally ill, twisted mind knew all too well exactly where he wouldn’t meet a good guy or gal with a gun (more on that topic coming below). Yet “sensible hardening strategies” meet with a great deal of pushback. There is a growing body of “intercepted incidents” (170 and counting according to the National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services database) which attests to the EFFECTIVENESS of these strategies, including an averted event just one week before the most recent Maine incident (which SHOULD have been another MPS averted success story!), and a disturbing credible threat (made by a Cornell engineering student) just last week.

The single most important action we can take to stop Mass Public Shootings is SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. Yet this “off-ramping superpower” is not a part of the public consciousness. How could it be when we’re so busy vilifying inanimate objects? In interview after interview of persons who knew a mass public shooter and sensed something was “off”, they mention the fact that by “saying something” they felt like they would betray the person in crisis. Sadly, this mindset has prevented these “early warning radar detection opportunities” from initiating an off-ramping sequence. Estimates suggest up to 90% of Mass Public Shootings could be averted, which speaks volumes about how far sideways the public mass public shooting discourse has gone. Why aren’t our political leaders, academics, lobbying groups, and the public demanding policies which focus on the creation of a public awareness campaigns which encourage better understanding and safe reporting avenues which would jump start broad utilization of this powerful intervention tool?


But, please, be condescending and wrong in one post. Or snarky in my query on today's Kamala Thread where I referenced some posts I had seen, asked for some insights from some of our more deeply invested political wonks, and you start your reply off with... "I don't want to be disrespectful in tone or substance, but that's not a well informed post." Here I was thinking "there is no such thing as a stupid question" still applied here in 2024. But apparently not for those amongst us who are the self-appointed arbiters of such things.

Sorry if you're butt hurt that I don't feel your plan to sequester AR usage to ranges is an earnest if completely misguided non starter. You do realize your suggestion is tantamount to discrimination by both economic resources and demographics (ie: you okay with the poor and minorities and women your plan will effectively discriminate against?).

Under your mandates this woman, her husband, and unborn child would potentially have lost their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ho ... 5-n1076026

But you've made it clear there are no valid reasons for AR ownership, be it for self defense, varmint and small game hunting, invasive animal control by ranchers and farmers and homeowners, or just plain target shooting fun. Nope. Not valid.

And all 25mm Americans who own them are MAGA tacticool wanna be Ruby Ridge guns as male anatomy proxy fetishists. After all, that's what Bloomberg's army of lobbyists and politicians and researchers who love juicy grants if their policy based evidence making furthers the narrative will have you...feeling.

For the poster talking about would be assassin and dad's AR, how about we focus on his mental health, his mental health professional parents, and what pharmaceuticals he might have been on, in addition to weapon, whether AR or scoped hunting rifle or one of his IED devices. Where is the "Bipartisan waiving of hippa protections for live or dead perpetrators of assassination or mass public shootings act"? Let's get it passed. That way we can begin to understand how America's mental health epidemic and powerful big pharma drugs are fueling an environment where the sickest among us are acting out in the most visibly sick and shocking manner? Anyone on either side of this issue take issue with that? Page. Playbook.

Specious arguments cut both ways, gentlemen. The great thing about this place is it's a bastion of old school privilege, so regardless of social and societal ills we tussle over as keyboard warriors, most of us will never come within a country mile of experiencing first-hand the dark side of criminal gun violence. I've experienced it first hand, and recounted that experience here.

Be well

That's supposed to be actual policy? See something, say something?
Blame Big Pharma???

I know, folks like Katherine Schweit believing intrinsically in "see something, say something" (and her podcasts that highlight case studies where doing exactly that averted a mass public shooting) are useless, and worthy of derision. I mean, that strategy was only born in Obama's White House. Okey-dokey.

She doesn't exist in a vacuum, she has plenty of company at the table where smart people are trying to create awareness and policies which have the ability to avert horrific MPS events. Sorry if her focus isn't on a particular model of firearm, or weapon, or any method utilized in the perpetration of these events. It's on the things like you mock above. The idea isn't to do something on the day of an event. It's to never allow the event to occur in the first place. Oh the humanity!

Regarding Big Pharma and the mental health crisis in America when overlayed on top of the top 25 mass public shootings in history, we get the following facts regarding perpetrators:

1) Diagnosed mental health issues: 70%.
2) Mental Health drugs prescribed: 30% (the remaining 70% of MPS perpetrators are listed as “unknown” in this category because HIPPA laws (you know, the ones I suggest should be suspended for dead or alive mass public shooters) are keeping us in the dark.
3) Notable depression symptoms: 50%.
4) Inability to perform daily routines and tasks: 33%.
5) Clinical psychosis: 20%
6) Crisis presence: Ongoing: 50%. Acute: 90%. Both: 60%.
6) Suicide end goal: 40% of perpetrators plan their MPS as way to commit suicide, with 60% committing suicide during/after their MPS event.

But, yeah, hey, golly, no need to explore policy regarding the role of powerful drugs which have side effect warnings such as "may induce violent thoughts, fantasies, and suicidal ideation". Nothing to see here, but, look! over on this chart over here we have a picture of a black scary rifle that the ATF director can't even define or not as an assault weapon.

I'm not blaming big pharma. Just sharing what many mental health care experts who study mass public shootings are strongly suggesting: that the facts regarding mass public shooters and big pharma in terms of presence of powerful prescription drugs in the mass public shooter's brains should be a priority vector for deeper transparent research, and accountability. You have an issue with that, take it up with them.

For folks so fixated on a single point (if misguided imho) solution, it's odd how little curiosity exists (for most here, anyways) regarding viable and expert derived paths toward mitigating the issue at hand. At this point, it's truly baffling.

Well, Mom just turned my keyboard off and sent me back to the kid's table. I apologize for my feeble endeavors to share ideas and possibilities which don't toe the proscribed and privileged echo chamber of expertise here. I nominate y'all to run the world.

P.S. In the top 25 events referenced above, ARs were present...in 40% of them. So your ban plan needs to get going and identify the 60% you need to add to Santa's naughty list.

Only derision as meaningful "policy". I certainly have no issue with further "research" on mental health, but that sounds to me like tobacco company funded research as an excuse to keep selling cigarettes...or Dupont...or...just a delay tactic.

But absolutely, if there are things to be learned that are actionable, great. No argument with trying. Just don't use it as a delay tactic or cover-up for product liability.

And there's nothing wrong with "see something, say something". Of course. But it ain't actionable in any credible way that can truly move the needle...but if it can just save one life, or a set of lives, terrific.

We get it, you're not willing to grapple with the reality that the US is awash in guns, with vast swaths of the country with virtually no regulation on time and place and storage, etc, and that makes it far, far easier than any other first world country for people with bad intentions to get and misuse a gun. Whether to harm others or to harm themselves.

So, we have hugely higher gun death statistics here as a result.

There's tons of common ground between the vast majority of responsible American gun owners and most responsible pro-regulation activists, but some on each extreme are absolutists. And you're one of those absolutists.

And no, I'm not focused on a sole make or model of weapon, this is a much larger cultural problem that requires multi-faceted approaches to which weapons, when, where, how and who, and how stored and yes, absolutely, to mental health care in all its ramifications. But the big one is recognizing that a culture that glorifies gun usage and particularly glorifies killing as 'cool' is itself a viral sickness into which the susceptible fall all too easily.

The notion that anyone and everyone has a "right" to have and carry a weapon, any weapon, anywhere, anytime, needs to get sent to the dump heap. It ain't actually a Constitutional right, so get over it, guns need to be regulated.

Once we get there, there's a ton of common sense, common ground to be found.

Well with 400 + million of different types of weapons already in circulation don't expect anything to change in your lifetime or our kids lifetime or our grandkids lifetime. I believe you are incorrect about it not being a constitutional right. That last sentence in the 2A doesn't contain any ambiguity about what the founding fathers meant. The fact it comes in at #2 also tells you the priority the founding fathers felt about the right to own a gun. The only realistic venue would be an amendment to the constitution and that is a dog that just won't hunt.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

What "last sentence"??? It's just one sentence.

Yes, the Amendment was very important to the notion that the new nation needed to be able to defend itself from tyrants foreign or domestic, though they were particularly concerned with the foreign such ( and were right to be concerned as the British invaded again)...And it says it quite clearly, "A well regulated Militia"...and explains "being necessary to the security of a free State" (not individuals, rather "a free State" and its "security" not individual security or individual pleasure), etc.

"the people" never meant anyone, anywhere, anytime, for whatever reason...

But yes, very important to the Founders.

And yes, the fact that we are already awash in a sea of guns seems daunting...but that doesn't mean there isn't a ton that can change on common ground with common sense solutions. Just not absolutist stuff on either side.

There is a reason why the sentence isn't perfectly clear using today's English language vs that used in 1791

https://daily.jstor.org/revisiting-mess ... amendment/

[DMac]

In all of your condescending post you have enlightened no one to anything, Waffle. Nothing you have said hasn't been seen on the long time running great gun debate thread. You and your like-minded are hell bent, heels dug in deep, ain't no one tellin' me what kind of gun I can't have. 2A and the militia is all I need to know. Your right, and the need for (you don't need an AR15), and wiseness in circulating these in big numbers are very different things, and I lean more to the need (not) and wiseness (not) side. 2A and the militia for justification of AR15s being circulated among the population is abuse of 2A, as is a lot of the gibberish coming from your like-minded, IMHO.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The C&S form of policing. When someone mentally ill calls the police, shoot them in the face and ask questions later because a criminal will do it to a police officer. Fair is fair. You don’t have time to determine if the person is crazy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/us/sonya ... index.html

[cradleandshoot]

The C&S form of policing. When someone mentally ill calls the police, shoot them in the face and ask questions later because a criminal will do it to a police officer. Fair is fair. You don’t have time to determine if the person is crazy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/us/sonya ... index.html

How is that my form of policing? The problem when having to deal with people having mental issues is getting the right help on the scene. How long should that take? The police don't always have an unlimited amount of time to wait. The best option from your perspective is for the police to stand down, leave the scene and let all concerned parties know that someone will be along shortly to help. A very cheerful have a nice might also help Oh and you might want to tell Uncle Henry to put down the knife.

[ardilla secreta]

The C&S form of policing. When someone mentally ill calls the police, shoot them in the face and ask questions later because a criminal will do it to a police officer. Fair is fair. You don’t have time to determine if the person is crazy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/us/sonya ... index.html

If they call the police for help, they must be crazy. Shoot em in the face and lie about it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The C&S form of policing. When someone mentally ill calls the police, shoot them in the face and ask questions later because a criminal will do it to a police officer. Fair is fair. You don’t have time to determine if the person is crazy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/us/sonya ... index.html

How is that my form of policing? The problem when having to deal with people having mental issues is getting the right help on the scene. How long should that take? The police don't always have an unlimited amount of time to wait. The best option from your perspective is for the police to stand down, leave the scene and let all concerned parties know that someone will be along shortly to help. A very cheerful have a nice might also help Oh and you might want to tell Uncle Henry to put down the knife.

The right help is an untrained cop. Nothing wrong with that body cam. Hey Wanda, put the hot water down…Sh!t happens.

[cradleandshoot]

The C&S form of policing. When someone mentally ill calls the police, shoot them in the face and ask questions later because a criminal will do it to a police officer. Fair is fair. You don’t have time to determine if the person is crazy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/us/sonya ... index.html

How is that my form of policing? The problem when having to deal with people having mental issues is getting the right help on the scene. How long should that take? The police don't always have an unlimited amount of time to wait. The best option from your perspective is for the police to stand down, leave the scene and let all concerned parties know that someone will be along shortly to help. A very cheerful have a nice might also help Oh and you might want to tell Uncle Henry to put down the knife.

The right help is an untrained cop. Nothing wrong with that body cam. Sh!t happens.

Fundamentally I couldn't agree with you more. There are way too many police officers on the streets that don't have the proper training on how to handle crisis situations. Not to defend the bad cops but dealing with these very stressful situations requires constant training that needs to be reinforced on a regular basis. That is difficult to do for too many police forces that are short officers and struggle every day to find enough officers for patrol duty. It very well could be that defunding the police wasn't such a great idea. That is what the people wanted and that is what they got. You can't avoid the fact that in the present environment a law enforcement career isn't looking very attractive to new recruits.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The C&S form of policing. When someone mentally ill calls the police, shoot them in the face and ask questions later because a criminal will do it to a police officer. Fair is fair. You don’t have time to determine if the person is crazy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/us/sonya ... index.html

How is that my form of policing? The problem when having to deal with people having mental issues is getting the right help on the scene. How long should that take? The police don't always have an unlimited amount of time to wait. The best option from your perspective is for the police to stand down, leave the scene and let all concerned parties know that someone will be along shortly to help. A very cheerful have a nice might also help Oh and you might want to tell Uncle Henry to put down the knife.

The right help is an untrained cop. Nothing wrong with that body cam. Sh!t happens.

Fundamentally I couldn't agree with you more. There are way too many police officers on the streets that don't have the proper training on how to handle crisis situations. Not to defend the bad cops but dealing with these very stressful situations requires constant training that needs to be reinforced on a regular basis. That is difficult to do for too many police forces that are short officers and struggle every day to find enough officers for patrol duty.

I wonder what other countries and some jurisdictions do? Is there something called “best practices”? A big part of the problem with some police departments is poor training and the policy of escalation versus de-escalation. Just told a friend yesterday if we had far less guns on the streets, we would be able to draw from a better candidate pool. It’s a sh!tty dangerous job in some places. No justifiable reason for that cop to shoot that woman. None at all…. She should have done as ordered in not a justifiable reason….it is THE reason though.

[Kismet]

The C&S form of policing. When someone mentally ill calls the police, shoot them in the face and ask questions later because a criminal will do it to a police officer. Fair is fair. You don’t have time to determine if the person is crazy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/us/sonya ... index.html

How is that my form of policing? The problem when having to deal with people having mental issues is getting the right help on the scene. How long should that take? The police don't always have an unlimited amount of time to wait. The best option from your perspective is for the police to stand down, leave the scene and let all concerned parties know that someone will be along shortly to help. A very cheerful have a nice might also help Oh and you might want to tell Uncle Henry to put down the knife.

The right help is an untrained cop. Nothing wrong with that body cam. Sh!t happens.

Fundamentally I couldn't agree with you more. There are way too many police officers on the streets that don't have the proper training on how to handle crisis situations. Not to defend the bad cops but dealing with these very stressful situations requires constant training that needs to be reinforced on a regular basis. That is difficult to do for too many police forces that are short officers and struggle every day to find enough officers for patrol duty.

I wonder what other countries and some jurisdictions do? Is there something called “best practices”? A big part of the problem with some police departments is poor training and the policy of escalation versus de-escalation. Just told a friend yesterday if we had far less guns on the streets, we would be able to draw from a better candidate pool. It’s a sh!tty dangerous job in some places. No justifiable reason for that cop to shoot that woman. None at all…. She should have done as ordered in not a justifiable reason….it is THE reason though.

Not to mention that the deputy worked at 6 agencies in 4 years, after being charged twice with DUI. He also failed to activate his body camera until AFTER he shot the lady.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The C&S form of policing. When someone mentally ill calls the police, shoot them in the face and ask questions later because a criminal will do it to a police officer. Fair is fair. You don’t have time to determine if the person is crazy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/us/sonya ... index.html

How is that my form of policing? The problem when having to deal with people having mental issues is getting the right help on the scene. How long should that take? The police don't always have an unlimited amount of time to wait. The best option from your perspective is for the police to stand down, leave the scene and let all concerned parties know that someone will be along shortly to help. A very cheerful have a nice might also help Oh and you might want to tell Uncle Henry to put down the knife.

The right help is an untrained cop. Nothing wrong with that body cam. Sh!t happens.

Fundamentally I couldn't agree with you more. There are way too many police officers on the streets that don't have the proper training on how to handle crisis situations. Not to defend the bad cops but dealing with these very stressful situations requires constant training that needs to be reinforced on a regular basis. That is difficult to do for too many police forces that are short officers and struggle every day to find enough officers for patrol duty.

I wonder what other countries and some jurisdictions do? Is there something called “best practices”? A big part of the problem with some police departments is poor training and the policy of escalation versus de-escalation. Just told a friend yesterday if we had far less guns on the streets, we would be able to draw from a better candidate pool. It’s a sh!tty dangerous job in some places. No justifiable reason for that cop to shoot that woman. None at all…. She should have done as ordered in not a justifiable reason….it is THE reason though.

Not to mention that the deputy worked at 6 agencies in 4 years, after being charged twice with DUI. He also failed to activate his body camera until AFTER he shot the lady.

I wonder why he didn’t pursue another profession?

[ardilla secreta]

The C&S form of policing. When someone mentally ill calls the police, shoot them in the face and ask questions later because a criminal will do it to a police officer. Fair is fair. You don’t have time to determine if the person is crazy.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/us/sonya ... index.html

How is that my form of policing? The problem when having to deal with people having mental issues is getting the right help on the scene. How long should that take? The police don't always have an unlimited amount of time to wait. The best option from your perspective is for the police to stand down, leave the scene and let all concerned parties know that someone will be along shortly to help. A very cheerful have a nice might also help Oh and you might want to tell Uncle Henry to put down the knife.

The right help is an untrained cop. Nothing wrong with that body cam. Sh!t happens.

Fundamentally I couldn't agree with you more. There are way too many police officers on the streets that don't have the proper training on how to handle crisis situations. Not to defend the bad cops but dealing with these very stressful situations requires constant training that needs to be reinforced on a regular basis. That is difficult to do for too many police forces that are short officers and struggle every day to find enough officers for patrol duty.

I wonder what other countries and some jurisdictions do? Is there something called “best practices”? A big part of the problem with some police departments is poor training and the policy of escalation versus de-escalation. Just told a friend yesterday if we had far less guns on the streets, we would be able to draw from a better candidate pool. It’s a sh!tty dangerous job in some places. No justifiable reason for that cop to shoot that woman. None at all…. She should have done as ordered in not a justifiable reason….it is THE reason though.

Not to mention that the deputy worked at 6 agencies in 4 years, after being charged twice with DUI. He also failed to activate his body camera until AFTER he shot the lady.

I wonder why he didn’t pursue another profession?

He applied at a meat processing plant, but left when he found out they don’t shoot them.

[DMac]

That's pretty damn funny, a s.