Terror in NYC

[BmorePat87]

(11-07-2017, 03:22 AM)Dill Wrote: Mightn't a ban on semi automatic weapons and/or a limit on magazine size, coupled with a restoration of the stricter, Obama era back ground checks reduce some of the carnage?  

I don't know if any of that, outside of background checks, will pass the 2nd amendment test. Not that I am disagreeing, just looking at what we can legally do.

[Benton]

(11-07-2017, 03:43 AM)Dill Wrote: These graphs only go to 2015, and don't include the recent record breakers.

I still lean toward the thinking that most mass shootings — and really a lot of the violence our country has seen increasing — goes back to 1981 and repealing mental health legislation. These graphs reemphasis my opinion. Thanks for sharing them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2017, 01:20 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: None. It's the reality of the 2nd Amendment. Guns will, for the foreseeable future, be in abundance and readily available for any psychopath who wants to murder dozens of people in a short period of time, and people will happily jump on board and defend that neckbeard's need to overcompensate for his buried micropenis.

Except laws already in effect should have prevented this guy from purchasing firearms.  For some reason his convictions were not reported by the Air Force into the NICS system.  If they had he would have been denied any attempted purchase.  You allude to this below. 

Quote:Doesn't mean I can't ***** about it and the lives lost. Repeal the ban on funding for gun violence research and, in this case, be reactionary and take steps to prevent the ***** up that occurred in this guy's case that allowed  a repeat criminal the ability to buy guns. 

You're far more likely to get hit by a car or injure yourself slipping in the shower then you are to be injured or killed in a mass shooting.  If you remove the instances of criminals killing other criminals, which account for around 80% of homicides involving a firearm, then you have around 2-3000 people a year killed by firearms in a country of 330 million.  While it is of no comfort if you are one of those 2-3000, this is hardly an "epidemic" that requires our constant, near laser like, focus.

(11-07-2017, 03:28 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: SSF, I hope you know that I certainly respect your opinion on a number of issues.  I'm curious as to what you think is a solution to these atrocious crimes?  Seriously something has to give.  I don't stand by the old "nothing can be done because of the 2nd amendment."

There are several, very easy, things that could be done.  First, ensure all agencies report to the NICS system, that would have stopped this current killer from legally acquiring his firearms.  Second, the media needs to stop advertising what type of firearm is used in these attacks as all it does is promote copycats.  If a relative of mine is killed by a madman with a gun I'm not going to give a shit what type of gun it was.  We all know it's only done to rile people up, it serves no discernible purpose.  Lastly, and this is the simplest of all, start actually prosecuting people who use a gun, or are illegally carrying a gun and do so vigorously.  If you've seen some of the criminal records I've run, and seen the numerous gun related convictions and the constant slaps on the wrist they receive, you'd likely vomit.  Chicago PD constantly complains that they arrest a felon carrying a gun and the guy is back on the street before they end their shift.

The Dems have their head way up their ass on this.  You can't claim to care about firearm related crime and then pass constant legislation lessening punishments for criminals engaged in this crime.  Numerous studies have shown that 90% of crime is committed by around 10% of the criminal population, the hard core recidivists.  These are the types of guys the three strikes laws target, successfully when actually used btw.  Lock criminals who use a gun up, and do it for a long time.  Aggressively target known shooters, believe me, we know who they are, we just can't always tie them to a specific crime.  You do this and crime will continue to go down, as it had for 25 years before the slew of soft on crime feel good laws were passed and the criminal population started running amok.

Quote:Are we just supposed to live with this?  Is there nothing that can be done?

Because you are a member of the LOE community, I'm interested in what you think could curb the problem.  IMO we can't just accept that this is life now.

I'll give you a real world example.  In CA we have a ban on any magazine that can hold more than ten rounds.  In all the arrests of criminals carrying a gun, and having a magazine with a capacity greater than ten rounds, I have never seen, not once, this crime actually end up being charged.  What is the point of the law then?

Freedoms come with a price, there will always be someone who will abuse them.  You are not safe, you never were and you never will be unless we surrender all liberty and elect Big Brother to watch over our lives.  The irony of the current climate is that you are actually safer now, much safer, then you were in the 60-80's.  We could put governors on all cars to ensure they can't exceed 70 mph.  We could put breathalizer ignition locks on all cars.  We could ban all guns.  We could all have a GPS chip implanted in our body.  None of these will make you safe though, they will make you safer, but at a price you're willing to pay?

Bottom line, I don't think the government should have a monopoly on the means of self defense.  I think the right to own a firearm is important and almost unique to this country.  I am not a fan of my rights being curtailed because of a handful of mentally ill pieces of shit.  I know it's trite, but gun control laws only affect people who care about following the laws.  Any person determined to carry out such an attack will find the means, illegally to do so, just like someone determined to use illegal drugs can do so, despite their illegality.

Target criminals, actually use the background process already in place and things will improve.  They will never be perfect, ever, people need to stop thinking that's even possible.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2017, 11:36 AM)Benton Wrote: I still lean toward the thinking that most mass shootings — and really a lot of the violence our country has seen increasing — goes back to 1981 and repealing mental health legislation. These graphs reemphasis my opinion. Thanks for sharing them.

Absolutely, 100% correct.  One wonders why this isn't discussed more often and openly.

[BmorePat87]

(11-07-2017, 11:36 AM)Benton Wrote: I still lean toward the thinking that most mass shootings — and really a lot of the violence our country has seen increasing — goes back to 1981 and repealing mental health legislation. These graphs reemphasis my opinion. Thanks for sharing them.

A lot of social scientists look towards that time period as the start of a lot of problems (drugs, homelessness, etc). We said we were finally going to treat a very real problem that for most of history was not taken seriously. We said we were going to treat it at a community level, a great way at rehabilitating people and getting them back into their community. Then the funding is pulled out from under them and the only place to go is onto the streets. Many would prefer to self medicate for a number of reasons. The side effects, when not supported in a rehabilitation center, can be harder than the effects of street level drugs. The street level drugs can be easier to get, meaning less chances of withdrawal. 

Of course, the result is then throwing these people into jail, which helps support the private prison industry. But we're spending more money to house them in prison than we would be to treat them and actually rehabilitate them. 

[*michaelsean*]

(11-07-2017, 11:36 AM)Benton Wrote: I still lean toward the thinking that most mass shootings — and really a lot of the violence our country has seen increasing — goes back to 1981 and repealing mental health legislation. These graphs reemphasis my opinion. Thanks for sharing them.

Thanks Obama

[BmorePat87]

(11-07-2017, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're far more likely to get hit by a car or injure yourself slipping in the shower then you are to be injured or killed in a mass shooting.  If you remove the instances of criminals killing other criminals, which account for around 80% of homicides involving a firearm, then you have around 2-3000 people a year killed by firearms in a country of 330 million.  While it is of no comfort if you are one of those 2-3000, this is hardly an "epidemic" that requires our constant, near laser like, focus.

The label "epidemic" is debatable. Is it widespread relative to previous years? Yea. Some would argue it is infectious and spreads from one mentally ill person to another as these occur more and more often.

Is it the most prevalent crime? No. It is the most common way to die? No. Should we not take it seriously as an issue because it happens less than some accidents? No. 

 

[Belsnickel]

We need to stop trying to tie attempts at firearm policy to events. That's step one, for me. Reactionary policy is almost always bad policy.

Apart from that, we have a whole thread devoted to the conversation on what to do about firearm violence. I'm not going to bother rehashing it all here. I will just say we need a holistic approach to this, because it isn't just about firearm access, it is about a large number of socioeconomic, health, and other factors.

[Benton]

(11-07-2017, 11:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, 100% correct.  One wonders why this isn't discussed more often and openly.

This is the same society where a large part of the population probably can't explain the ending of Donnie Darko (the original, not the sequel). It's probably too much to expect that many people to understand why an otherwise healthy, middle class person with no trauma in their history might have depression or anxiety or bipolar disorder or any one of a dozen conditions. 

We had psychology as an elective in high school, but probably half the class was about methodology and people who developed the science. I doubt most of the class came out with a clear understanding of what exactly a schizophrenic is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2017, 12:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The label "epidemic" is debatable. Is it widespread relative to previous years? Yea. Some would argue it is infectious and spreads from one mentally ill person to another as these occur more and more often.

Is it the most prevalent crime? No. It is the most common way to die? No. Should we not take it seriously as an issue because it happens less than some accidents? No. 

 

I'm not suggesting doing nothing.  I think Matt really nails it below though.

(11-07-2017, 12:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We need to stop trying to tie attempts at firearm policy to events. That's step one, for me. Reactionary policy is almost always bad policy.

Apart from that, we have a whole thread devoted to the conversation on what to do about firearm violence. I'm not going to bother rehashing it all here. I will just say we need a holistic approach to this, because it isn't just about firearm access, it is about a large number of socioeconomic, health, and other factors.

Agreed, mental health being paramount among them.  The homeless population in LA has exploded of late, many, if not the majority, of them are mentally ill.  Friends how live in San Francisco inform me that the city is one step away from lawlessness with the homeless population becoming even more aggressive than in previous years, which is saying something.

(11-07-2017, 12:06 PM)Benton Wrote: This is the same society where a large part of the population probably can't explain the ending of Donnie Darko (the original, not the sequel). It's probably too much to expect that many people to understand why an otherwise healthy, middle class person with no trauma in their history might have depression or anxiety or bipolar disorder or any one of a dozen conditions. 

We had psychology as an elective in high school, but probably half the class was about methodology and people who developed the science. I doubt most of the class came out with a clear understanding of what exactly a schizophrenic is.

I took several psych classes in college as electives, almost ending up minoring in it.  Understanding human psychology is a must for any LEO in my opinion.  Just knowing the basics really helps anyone in the interactions with difficult/hostile people.  We need to start taking this problem more seriously than not at all.

[Belsnickel]

(11-07-2017, 12:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I took several psych classes in college as electives, almost ending up minoring in it.  Understanding human psychology is a must for any LEO in my opinion.  Just knowing the basics really helps anyone in the interactions with difficult/hostile people.  We need to start taking this problem more seriously than not at all.

I'm taking several psych classes in my policy degree framework because understanding human behavior is a must for policy folks, as well. It's a must for so many things, yet most people probably think only of Freudian psychoanalysis when they think of psychology. I think because of this lack of understanding of the field and all that it entails is an ignorance that leads to so many other problems with how we view mental health among the populous and what we can do to address it.

[Dill]

(11-07-2017, 11:36 AM)Benton Wrote: I still lean toward the thinking that most mass shootings — and really a lot of the violence our country has seen increasing — goes back to 1981 and repealing mental health legislation. These graphs reemphasis my opinion. Thanks for sharing them.

I remember this. It was earlier than 1981 in some places.  E.g. I moved to Seattle in 1978. I never saw "street people" or homeless there until 1980, when in the space of a month or so they visible downtown, especially around the Pike Place market. Ever after they were the "norm."

[BmorePat87]

(11-07-2017, 12:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not suggesting doing nothing.  I think Matt really nails it below though.


Agreed, mental health being paramount among them.  The homeless population in LA has exploded of late, many, if not the majority, of them are mentally ill.  Friends how live in San Francisco inform me that the city is one step away from lawlessness with the homeless population becoming even more aggressive than in previous years, which is saying something.

That's why my only real suggestion was actually study it and enforce what's in the books. 

As for LA homelessness, check out this documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB_P3eljq1Y

[*bfine32*]

Luckily this idiot's device malfunctioned:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/7b014ceb-ae21-3e91-a5a3-b2e1e95cd078/ss_nyc-pipe-bomber-captured.html

Quote:The guy who strapped a pipe bomb to himself and set it off in an NYC subway has been captured alive ... and police say it was "absolutely an attempted terrorist act." The bomber, now identified as 27-year-old Akayed Ullah, was walking in one of the tunnels underneath NYC's Port Authority when the bomb went off. It appears something malfunctioned, or it was a very small explosive ... police captured the man at the scene. NYPD says Ullah has been living in the U.S. for 7 years. He's a Bangladeshi immigrant, and police say the attack was definitely a terrorist act, inspired by ISIS.FDNY says a total of 4 people were hurt in the bombing ... all non-life-threatening injuries.

Troubling times we are living in.