What are we gonna do about white people and all their guns?

[Unbeatable]

Mass shootings come along once every few weeks/months, and they make for very dramatic news stories, but if you combine their body counts, do they really come anywhere close to measuring up to the combined body count of all the more mundane, isolated shootings happening every day? I seriously doubt it.

There is something funny about the rise in right-wing domestic terrorists. It seems to me they're fighting a losing war. Or really just lashing out in desperation at a cultural war they've already lost. Or maybe their side of the war isn't down for the count just yet, and the ones lashing out violently are just the stupid ones. In private, the real brains behind the right wing conspiracy may be shaking their heads in dismay at these idiots shooting the cause in the foot.

 

[RavenSky]

and why is this important, so important that Jon Stewart had a comedy bit comparing the idea of wearing weapons in public by a white guy and a black guy that was tragically hilarious and very, very, true.

that sketch was priceless!

 

[Ford]

...Jon Stewart had a comedy bit comparing the idea of wearing weapons in public by a white guy and a black guy that was tragically hilarious and very, very, true.

Well clearly Jon Stewart is a racist. Perhaps I should contact the mods about banning his name from here?

 

[DBT]

What are we gonna do about white people and all their guns?

Come to an agreement that background checks, including medical history (mental health), for all prospective gun owners, white, black, yellow or whatever, is a necessity?

 

[bleubird]

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/10/320575201/second-amendment-s-only-sentence-generates-recurrent-debate
This is the way I have seen the 2nd amendment for a long time.
They are called amendments for a reason.
Things have changed.We need to move on.

 

[bleubird]

What did a well regulate militia mean when the constitutions was amended?
There is a long history of state and federal regulation of firearms in US history.
Gun ownership has been controlled.And should be controlled for the best interest of all.
And,I am a gun owner.Matter of fact I got some big ass guns.357mag,454 tarus ,303brit.A 1022ruger assault.

 

[fast]

We shouldn't do anything about white people and all their guns.

 

[Sabine Grant]

What are we gonna do about white people and all their guns?

Come to an agreement that background checks, including medical history (mental health), for all prospective gun owners, white, black, yellow or whatever, is a necessity?

The logistics involved with "including medical history (mental health)" would be extremely complex and I suspect that mental health care providers would be reluctant to dismiss HIPAA while also compromising confidentiality between patient and health care provider.

To add that even if the above were somehow workable, mental health based data would include ONLY individuals who were assessed/ evaluated by a mental health care professional. Leaving out non diagnosed individuals.

As to any suggestion that all potential gun owners be directed to a mental health care provider to get a clearance, mental health care professionals do not just conduct an assessment of their client/patient mental state based on one sole consultation. Meaning several consultations and ...at what cost? Who would assume payments for the rendered services?

I tend to think that the majority of NRA members are responsible gun owners and could play an important role in developing a sponsorship program where they assume the necessary liability in "clearing" potential gun owners.

 

[arkirk]

What are we gonna do about white people and all their guns?

Come to an agreement that background checks, including medical history (mental health), for all prospective gun owners, white, black, yellow or whatever, is a necessity?

The logistics involved with "including medical history (mental health)" would be extremely complex and I suspect that mental health care providers would be reluctant to dismiss HIPAA while also compromising confidentiality between patient and health care provider.

To add that even if the above were somehow workable, mental health based data would include ONLY individuals who were assessed/ evaluated by a mental health care professional. Leaving out non diagnosed individuals.

As to any suggestion that all potential gun owners be directed to a mental health care provider to get a clearance, mental health care professionals do not just conduct an assessment of their client/patient mental state based on one sole consultation. Meaning several consultations and ...at what cost? Who would assume payments for the rendered services?

I tend to think that the majority of NRA members are responsible gun owners and could play an important role in developing a sponsorship program where they assume the necessary liability in "clearing" potential gun owners.

Firearms are an ongoing problem in our society. It seems to me that people tend to drift in an attitudinal sense toward religion and things like guns when their lives seem unsatisfactory to them. You pump the public discourse full of fear and straw enemies and you immediately get an increase in gun sales...and church attendance. The recent incident between Bundy's followers and the federal law enforcement points to this. This is a matter of public relations and we make the mistake of treating it like it is a matter of law. In the Bundy conflict...these gun nuts are so pumped full of anti-government propaganda changes in gun laws would not change anything.

We cannot have adequate environmental protections provided by our government when those elected to insure this protection are opposed to it. Cliven Bundy and his people are in effect saying..."fuck the law, fuck the environment," and if you listen carefully, they are really saying "fuck you." Their blindness to the dangers of their actions is being cultivated by a media culture that promotes force and intimidation as the only method of doing anything effectively.

We need some help from our media. They are not helping. I have always felt that we need to see the promotion of a kinder gentler and more responsible media because the MEDIA does influence attitudes of a large swath of society. the reason several of my friends feel completely distrustful of government control is that our government has not been worthy of trust for a long long time, owned as it is by lobbyists...in particular the gun lobby, the military industrial lobby, the petrochemical lobby, etc. It focuses always on what it can do to the little guy to make things more orderly for the capitalists. This is part of the reason I sometimes appear to support NRA policies, when I really do not.

Before the obsession our public has for being armed can be ameliorated, we need to effectively transfer our public thinking from fear of hidden enemies, and fear of our government. Before that can happen, our government has to become far less dictatorial and punitive. Guns should only interest people who feel threatened. They really have no constructive uses at all. We need new concepts to take over from this notion of being constantly at war with "dark" "evil" forces that only exist as a creation of outfits like the NRA. We do not seek peaceful solutions to our problems anywhere near enough. We also do not spend our time learning about nature, the universe, and our environment.

I don't think things will change till we dial back the fear and intimidation on both sides of every line and work together with a cooperative media toward that end. Many white people definitely have a lot of guns and think about them all the time. If people of color were similarly armed to the teeth, they would be regarded as a threat. We simply have to talk and advertise and divert our culture from the basic fears that promote gun culture.

Our government has screwed itself by selling out to the NRA and other lobbies. That is why efforts at legal solutions to the problem will not work. We have to go to the source of this problem...the culture and ideology of "American Tradition." Spare time of workers should not be spent at reloading benches or ranges or confrontations with federal agents...or school children.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The OP is about how the press covers terrorist acts when the perpetrators are white and usually male, as opposed to black or brown and non-Christian.

This was not simply a shooting or even a mass shooting. This was a revolutionary act perpetrated as an act of terror meant to evoke an response from representative of govt.

now I know I should feel all hurt and ashamed at having my prejudice called racist, but I look at the source and all I can do is

Revolutionary, yes. Terrorism, no. These were a couple of loons that fell for their own propaganda and thought the country was primed for a revolution. This wasn't about fear, though, it's not terrorism.

- - - Updated - - -

Hokay. Hokay. Let's get back to the real problem. What proportion of whites who shoot blacks are killed or sentenced to death compared with the percentage of blacks who shoot whites who are killed or sentenced. ...and why is this important, so important that Jon Stewart had a comedy bit comparing the idea of wearing weapons in public by a white guy and a black guy that was tragically hilarious and very, very, true.

Bad question.

What's important is the nature of the victim, not the race of the victim.

We punish the killers of innocents harder than we punish the killers of criminals.

 

[arkirk]

Revolutionary, yes. Terrorism, no. These were a couple of loons that fell for their own propaganda and thought the country was primed for a revolution. This wasn't about fear, though, it's not terrorism.

- - - Updated - - -

Hokay. Hokay. Let's get back to the real problem. What proportion of whites who shoot blacks are killed or sentenced to death compared with the percentage of blacks who shoot whites who are killed or sentenced. ...and why is this important, so important that Jon Stewart had a comedy bit comparing the idea of wearing weapons in public by a white guy and a black guy that was tragically hilarious and very, very, true.

Bad question.

What's important is the nature of the victim, not the race of the victim.

We punish the killers of innocents harder than we punish the killers of criminals.

Is "nature of the victim" just another code word for respectable white guy? I think so, Loren. Killers are punished on the basis of whether or not they can afford to defend themselves in the clownshows that pass for trials here. That very often plays out to be black and poor get the harshest punishment. White and rich get the "affluenza" treatment.

When it comes to cops....anything goes. " The suspect appeared threatening and I could not tell whether he was armed so I shot him in the back. The ligature marks on his wrists must have come from another earlier incident." Cops in L.A. will swarm a guy if he steals so much as a sandwich from a 7-11 store.

In those cases, the "nature of the victim" is simply that there might be a victim somewhere. "Suspect" frequently = victim.

 

[Trausti]

Revolutionary, yes. Terrorism, no. These were a couple of loons that fell for their own propaganda and thought the country was primed for a revolution. This wasn't about fear, though, it's not terrorism.

- - - Updated - - -

Hokay. Hokay. Let's get back to the real problem. What proportion of whites who shoot blacks are killed or sentenced to death compared with the percentage of blacks who shoot whites who are killed or sentenced. ...and why is this important, so important that Jon Stewart had a comedy bit comparing the idea of wearing weapons in public by a white guy and a black guy that was tragically hilarious and very, very, true.

Bad question.

What's important is the nature of the victim, not the race of the victim.

We punish the killers of innocents harder than we punish the killers of criminals.

Eh, the victim's background, especially criminal background or bad acts, is rarely permitted at trial. If there is a disparity, it's more likely due to the quality of legal representation. A private attorney will probably get you better results than the public defender.

 

[jab]

Athena,
data does not support your racist prejudice. There are more blacks committing murder than whites, despite there being many more whites than blacks, according to FBI.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we sure that white people are overrepresented as shooters in gun killings?

Or are we just operating based on biases and preconceptions?

The latter.

You didn't bother to "reply with quot[ation]" of Athena's post: she's referring to mass shootings in America. The FBI stats are referring to all people convicted of murder in America, no matter how many victims and no matter what the means of murder.
Now, what in the world would cause you so to distort things?

 

[Underseer]

Athena,
data does not support your racist prejudice. There are more blacks committing murder than whites, despite there being many more whites than blacks, according to FBI.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we sure that white people are overrepresented as shooters in gun killings?

Or are we just operating based on biases and preconceptions?

The latter.

You didn't bother to "reply with quot[ation]" of Athena's post: she's referring to mass shootings in America. The FBI stats are referring to all people convicted of murder in America, no matter how many victims and no matter what the means of murder.
Now, what in the world would cause you so to distort things?

You're part of the gun-grabber conspiracy, aren't you? Why do you hate our freedom?

 

[laughing dog]

What's important is the nature of the victim, not the race of the victim.

Except when the race of the victim is used to judge the "nature" of the victim ala Trayvon Martin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Revolutionary, yes. Terrorism, no. These were a couple of loons that fell for their own propaganda and thought the country was primed for a revolution. This wasn't about fear, though, it's not terrorism.

- - - Updated - - -

Hokay. Hokay. Let's get back to the real problem. What proportion of whites who shoot blacks are killed or sentenced to death compared with the percentage of blacks who shoot whites who are killed or sentenced. ...and why is this important, so important that Jon Stewart had a comedy bit comparing the idea of wearing weapons in public by a white guy and a black guy that was tragically hilarious and very, very, true.

Bad question.

What's important is the nature of the victim, not the race of the victim.

We punish the killers of innocents harder than we punish the killers of criminals.

Is "nature of the victim" just another code word for respectable white guy? I think so, Loren. Killers are punished on the basis of whether or not they can afford to defend themselves in the clownshows that pass for trials here. That very often plays out to be black and poor get the harshest punishment. White and rich get the "affluenza" treatment.

I explained what the distinction means.

While there is also an economic effect the main "racial" effect is a matter of the victims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Revolutionary, yes. Terrorism, no. These were a couple of loons that fell for their own propaganda and thought the country was primed for a revolution. This wasn't about fear, though, it's not terrorism.

- - - Updated - - -

Hokay. Hokay. Let's get back to the real problem. What proportion of whites who shoot blacks are killed or sentenced to death compared with the percentage of blacks who shoot whites who are killed or sentenced. ...and why is this important, so important that Jon Stewart had a comedy bit comparing the idea of wearing weapons in public by a white guy and a black guy that was tragically hilarious and very, very, true.

Bad question.

What's important is the nature of the victim, not the race of the victim.

We punish the killers of innocents harder than we punish the killers of criminals.

Eh, the victim's background, especially criminal background or bad acts, is rarely permitted at trial. If there is a disparity, it's more likely due to the quality of legal representation. A private attorney will probably get you better results than the public defender.

1) I was talking about sentencing, not conviction.

2) The victim's background very often *IS* known at trial--because it's relevant to how the crime went down and the motivation for the crime. If someone dies in a drug deal gone bad you pretty much know they're a drug dealer. If someone dies in a turf war you pretty much know they're a gangbanger.

- - - Updated - - -

What's important is the nature of the victim, not the race of the victim.

Except when the race of the victim is used to judge the "nature" of the victim ala Trayvon Martin.

Remember that the burglars in the neighborhood were black. It's not that Trayvon was black, it's that he was the same race as the bad guys that had been spotted.

 

[RavenSky]

Nm. Not worth it.

 

[laughing dog]

Remember that the burglars in the neighborhood were black. It's not that Trayvon was black, it's that he was the same race as the bad guys that had been spotted.

That supports what I wrote, because the Martin was black - the same race as the alleged burglars. You seem to omit the cacophony of character assassination of Martin based on purple "drank", his hoodie and drug use, and Zimmerman's own words. Hard to imagine his race was not driving some of that bs (if not all of it). It is unbelievable that anyone would even attempt to argue that Martin's race was not a factor.

 

[DBT]

What are we gonna do about white people and all their guns?

Come to an agreement that background checks, including medical history (mental health), for all prospective gun owners, white, black, yellow or whatever, is a necessity?

The logistics involved with "including medical history (mental health)" would be extremely complex and I suspect that mental health care providers would be reluctant to dismiss HIPAA while also compromising confidentiality between patient and health care provider.

It is a requirement in Australia. The application form for a gun license in Australia has a section that allows the police licensing branch to access your medical record. You give permission by simply signing the release form, they do the rest. In practice, it seems to be working.

To add that even if the above were somehow workable, mental health based data would include ONLY individuals who were assessed/ evaluated by a mental health care professional. Leaving out non diagnosed individuals.

It isn't perfect but it does help weed out the most obvious cases of mental illness or instability. They even look for depression and evaluate risk on the basis of the diagnoses and ongoing treatment, how the individual is coping, etc.

As to any suggestion that all potential gun owners be directed to a mental health care provider to get a clearance, mental health care professionals do not just conduct an assessment of their client/patient mental state based on one sole consultation. Meaning several consultations and ...at what cost? Who would assume payments for the rendered services?

No, the licensing branch just evaluate your existing medical record. The applicant does not need to do anything unless their application has been rejected. Then they may go through a process of appeal.