Actually bodyman has a good point. I believe one of the reasons this happens so frequently is because of the attention the shooter receives.
we should ban guns from S2 in case we trigger one of our resident whack jobs..problem solved...he's going to get plenty of attention in prison though where guns are also banned
He specifically mentioned the bomber in Austin to try to make this a mental health discussion. The NRA just sent him an extra $40k for that.
In America today a teenager is more likely to die in a school shooting than a armed forces member is in a war abroad.
Yes he does. That and we have not hung a one of the attentions seeking shooters in the public square by his nuts until the sun bakes him dry.
Here's the thing, I'm fine with having the mental health discussion. The problem is these MFs don't want to do ONE THING to prevent a mental person from getting a gun. They always come with that bullshit: "Define mentally ill." If severe mental illness can prevent someone from getting a license to drive how does it not prevent said person from obtaining a firearm?? The bottom line is this: WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE GONNA DO ABOUT IT??? All these shootings give us the ability to have debate and talk but again: WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE GONNA DO ABOUT IT??? "It's all about mental illness" Well, yes and no. Most people with mental illness aren’t violent. In fact, they are as a group more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators. On the other hand, most mass shooters are clearly disturbed. But focusing on people with mental illness is likely to increase stigma and prevent, not encourage, treatment and access to services. And the fact is, mental health professionals already have the power to hospitalize dangerous people. States could certainly examine those laws to see if they’re working as written. Psychiatric evaluations for gun ownership make sense (and might be one way Congress could address mental health, since guns fall under interstate commerce). And, when people come in contact with the mental health system because they present a danger to themselves or others, determining whether they have firearms, and whether they can safely possess them, should be routine (and often is). But keep in mind mental illness is largely a state issue, with little the Federal government can do but send money (important!), and keep in mind people have civil rights other than the right to own a gun. Locking up everyone with a psychiatric illness and a bad attitude not only doesn’t work (we’ve tried it), and not only is extremely expensive, it requires taking away people’s liberty. If we’re talking about civil rights — would you rather be locked up without a gun, or free without a gun? Or does Trump think the only way to keep guns out of people’s hands is to lock them up? Because if that’s going to be the new stupid argument, I wish he’d make it explicit. The de-institutionlization process in psychiatry hasn’t worked perfectly, but going backwards to the time of mass hospitalization isn’t the answer. Better community supports at every level, from childhood on, is. But the folks calling this a mental health issue are only cutting resources instead of adding them.
This kid got the guns from his dad's collection...registered to his dad....the kid hadn't registered anything
The logic is that these wackos sometimes crave the attention such a heinous act generates. The statement is not related to doing nothing.
not necessarily...hate and rage mixed with Nazi aspirations and racist beliefs....KKK hid under hoods when they lynched people..they didn't want to be recognized at all. this kid had Nazi shit and killing fantasies on his facebook page already.
