Gun Control Debate

[Frelga]

I think this week has given a comprehensive answer why people take it seriously when the president spouts racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hate crosses the political spectrum. Yes the El Paso shooter is a rabid anti-immigrant white supremacist, but the Dayton shooter was a registered Democrat and proffessed fan of Elizabeth Warrren and Bernie Sanders.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Frelga]

Where did you see that? I looked over both local and national sources from an hour ago and they said nothing about the Dayton shooter's political affiliation. Gilroy and El Paso, we have heard about.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This article in Newsweek confirms that he was a registered Democrat. This article at Heavy.com allegedly quotes some of his Twitter posts.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[River]

I've seen some suggestions that the Dayton shooter may have had some trouble getting dates. His sister is among the dead. I'm wondering how much of a role national politics played in his motives. With the El Paso shooter we know because he was kind enough to post a manifesto but with this guy we'll have to wait and see. He may be just another misogynist, though a lefty one this time (misogyny knows no political bounds, though the noise level is lower in some circles).

[RoseMorninStar]

Too many guns. Too much acceptance of violence in our culture. Too much hate. Not enough support/resources for those with mental illness/problems.

[Cerin]

Hate crosses the political spectrum. Yes the El Paso shooter is a rabid anti-immigrant white supremacist, but the Dayton shooter was a registered Democrat and proffessed fan of Elizabeth Warrren and Bernie Sanders.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

Hate and, I would add, mental illness.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've seen some suggestions that the Dayton shooter may have had some trouble getting dates. His sister is among the dead. I'm wondering how much of a role national politics played in his motives. With the El Paso shooter we know because he was kind enough to post a manifesto but with this guy we'll have to wait and see. He may be just another misogynist, though a lefty one this time (misogyny knows no political bounds, though the noise level is lower in some circles).

Yes, unlike the El Paso shooter there does not seem to be any indication that the Dayton (not Toledo, Mr. President) shooter was motivated by politics, and I did not mean to equate the two. And I don't think it wrong to call out Mr. Trump for the role that his rheteric plays (I was reminded this morning that when he held a rally in the Texas panhandle not long ago he made a comment to the effect of "I don't know what we are going to do about these people (presumably referring to immigrants from Mexico and points south) and he paused and someone from the crowd shouted "shoot them," to which the president laughed and smiled). But I just wanted to note that it is not, and never will be that simple.

I don't know whether we will ever know whether Megan Betts was specifically targeted by her brother, or whether it is just a horrible coincidence that she was in the direct line of fire. I am suspicious of coincidences, but sometimes the universe works in weirdly horrible ways. [ETA: I see now that Megan and Conner Betts actual traveled together along with a third companion to the night club district where the shooting occurred, so it certainly was not a coincidence that they were both there. Apparently the companion is one of the wounded, so maybe that person can shed more light on what happened.]

As for "mental health" I am getting quite sick of that being used as a buzz phrase to avoid actually doing anything effective to prevent or limit these repeated tragedies. Americans don't suffer from more mental health issues that other industrialized nations. I am all for increasing awareness and treatment for mental health issues but don't let that get in the way of the simple fact that Americans kill far more Americans with guns because guns, particularly highly lethal guns and gun accesseries, are far more available to Americans than anywhere else. Period. End of story.

[Cerin]

I was not intending any buzz phrase or underlying message. I was simply observing that mental illness as well as hate crosses party lines. The people who do these things are not well adjusted individuals. Mental illness + assault weapon is a very bad combination.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Whether or not you were intending any buzz phrase or underlying message, that is the typical GOP talking point of choice whenever these tragedies occur and they want to avoid taking any real action to limit access to lethal guns, including in Mr. Trump's speech today.

[Cerin]

Republicans say that mental illness + guns is a very bad combination? Well then, I agree with their talking point. Guns should be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Republicans don't really care about mental illness (as a general rule, of course there are exceptions). They care about having a talking point to avoid the real issue of guns in America.

Of course, you didn't hear much talk about mental illness after San Bernardino or Orlando because those mass shootings could be conveniently tied to fears of Islamic terrorism.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[River]

Of course, you didn't hear much talk about mental illness after San Bernardino or Orlando because those mass shootings could be conveniently tied to fears of Islamic terrorism.

You're hitting on something that's recently crossed my mind. Seeking to harm self or others is a hallmark of a mental health emergency. And yet we only talk about that when the shooters look like a neighbor, friend, or relative. If they look foreign, the talk turns to "those people" and how we need to bar them from the country.

[Frelga]

Whether or not you were intending any buzz phrase or underlying message, that is the typical GOP talking point of choice whenever these tragedies occur and they want to avoid taking any real action to limit access to lethal guns, including in Mr. Trump's speech today.

And video games. Which, of course, are exclusively available in the USA. /s

[RoseMorninStar]

As for "mental health" I am getting quite sick of that being used as a buzz phrase to avoid actually doing anything effective to prevent or limit these repeated tragedies. Americans don't suffer from more mental health issues that other industrialized nations. I am all for increasing awareness and treatment for mental health issues but don't let that get in the way of the simple fact that Americans kill far more Americans with guns because guns, particularly highly lethal guns and gun accesseries, are far more available to Americans than anywhere else. Period. End of story.

Agreed. Too many excuses for not doing a damn thing.

[Cerin]

I was quite confused about this conversation because of an internal inconsistency, but I have worked it out now. Mentioning mental illness or the influence of violent video games after mass shootings (or for that matter, the alienation of youth in a society where most relationships are virtual and realized in the vicious world of the internet) is considered illegitimate because these are Republican talking points. Mentioning hate after mass shootings is considered okay because hate is a Democratic talking point.

I would point out, though, that if we are being consistent, mention of hate as a factor should also be considered illegitimate in a conversation following a mass shooting. Neither hate nor mental illness nor any other factor is the reason for a mass shooting. It is guns, and guns only, and the availability of guns, that is the issue. People hate in other countries, they play video games, they are alienated in a virtual society, but they don't have mass shootings because guns aren't allowed. Do I have that right?

This seemed like an unnaturally constricted view of the issue to me, but as has been referenced, there is nothing to prevent studies of youth alienation, of hatred, of misogyny, of mental illness, of the effect of violent video games on an ongoing basis. It's when guns are involved that the consequences of these other issues become so devastating, and make a consideration of them seem like a matter of some urgency. But the urgency is really with the guns.

Which makes the whole thing overwhelmingly discouraging, because I don't see a banning of guns happening in this country without a civil war. So maybe this will be our second Civil War? It's a pity the founders could not have been given a glimpse of how illiterate Americans would become, and taken care to write the second amendment in simple sentence structure without ambiguity.

[yovargas]

That is a fair point, Cerin.

[RoseMorninStar]

It's a pity the founders could not have been given a glimpse of how illiterate Americans would become, and taken care to write the second amendment in simple sentence structure without ambiguity.

Agreed.

This is a complicated issue and certainly the abundance of easy to obtain, extremely lethal weapons is a HUGE part of the problem, however, hate, hateful rhetoric, and incitement to violence IS an issue. An increasing issue. Our law enforcement (CIA/FBI) recognizes it as such as they say that the threat of domestic terrorism has now surpassed international terrorism in the US. While mental illness is probably more or less static, hate can be whipped up to produce hateful acts. We cannot and should not ignore the rise of White Supremacy and domestic radicalization.

In other words, Americans do not have more mental illness than people in other countries, but we do have more guns. A LOT more guns. AND an increase in tolerance/acceptance (for all kinds of various reasons) for hate/violence/hate speech. When I was in New Zealand.. at the time of the Christchurch shooting.. the reaction from all people was very different than the reaction to violent shootings and hatred here in the US.

[Cerin]

The reaction to shootings here is inextricably tied to the American mythology of the Constitution and people's understanding (or misunderstanding) of and very fervent feelings about it. That complicates the issue of gun violence here in a way that I'm guessing it isn't similarly complicated elsewhere.

[Frelga]

A huge contributor to gun-related deaths was the 1996 Dickey amendment, which made it nearly impossible to do science on reducing gun deaths in the way similar to how science helped reduce car-related deaths.

That's because of 1996 legislation defunding any research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promoting gun control.

Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), who appended an amendment to a spending bill disallowing government funds from beings used to, in whole or in part, advocate or promote gun control, told the House, "This is an issue of federally-funded political advocacy … a[n] attempt by the CDC to bring about gun control advocacy all over the United States." $2.6 million from the CDC's budget was re-allocated, and it had a chilling effect on almost all firearm research.

From this article, which is a good read.

Guns and public health: Applying preventive medicine to a national epidemic