The existence of one type of violent crime does not mean that we should not address a different type of violent crime.
And yeah, my hunch was right, fired last week. Louisville Bank Massacre Suspect ID’d as Varsity Hoop Star-Turned-Banker
Folks want to blame an inanimate object as the bad guy This story will go away it doesn't fit the narrative which sucks
They largely are because they are never turned into specific policies. It is always something along the lines of "looking into" or, to use your word, "reviewing." Put it this way, if you really want to address the mental health aspects of this, make a recent mental health exam a requirement for gun ownership (not purchase, ownership, make somebody get one at regular intervals, say, once a year). That eliminates the issue of discouraging mental health evaluations for people who want to own guns but will likely pop something that will stop them from being able to do so. It also would provide much better actual coverage than just at the time of purchase or prior to purchase (as mental instability can develop over time). But I doubt anybody would seriously consider this policy as it would be inconvenient to gun owners and increase the expense of gun ownership. Much easier to do as little as possible on the issue as that solves both problems: it creates the feeling that somebody really wants to do something to help the issue (and makes them feel like better people when they then shoot down just about any policies that restrict guns in any manner) while not having to eat any of the costs of actually doing something to help.
Wouldn't seem to apply to most mass shooters and maybe not even relevant in this case. But this is an interesting paragraph: He said Sturgeon always wore a helmet during basketball games because he had suffered so many concussions. “The big thing I keep going back to is that in the first year of high school, we played football together in eighth grade, he was out most of the year because he had multiple concussions. Then he had a couple more in high school,” he said. “I’m not saying it’s the cause but I always think back to that… There were times I’d wonder, will this catch up with him? But never in this way. He’s the last person I'd expect would do this.”
Okay, now that he confirmed that you were incorrect, and he really doesn't think guns are a problem (because we would have mass stabbings regularly without guns or something), will you return and admit that you were wrong and that your actions on this thread have been doing little other than trying to make that position, which does exist, contrary to your claims, more palatable?
Are you in favor of having background checks to help identify people with mental health issues so that they are not handed a gun?
All these stories eventually go away. Because there will be more mass shootings very soon. And very few mass deadly stick assaults.
Aggrieved, narcissistic, individualistic, and few guard rails. But hey, guns and live streaming your suicide pact.
I just don't appreciate it in this context. People were shot and killed today (again) and a certain segment of folks are more inclined to discuss mental health issues than they are to discuss the obvious gun violence issue that is right in front of our faces. For me personally, and I believe for at least one or two others on board, this is objectionable.
The Tennessee Three (who are Democrats) tried to make sure that story didn't go away of the Nashville shooting, perpetrated by what you are probably referring to as a "doesn't fit the narrative" shooter. It was the 2A supporting conservatives in the Tennessee House that booted them out. So... who exactly was trying to let the story just go away?
I don't believe I've seen what you are alleging. I know they wanted gun control, but I don't recall seeing or hearing them advocate for a repeal of the 2A. Regardless, they kept alive the story of the shooting in Nashville, by the "doesn't fit the narrative" shooter while their conservative counterparts did not.
DUI’s and medical-incident-related traffic deaths have cars in common but it doesn’t mean that cars are the thing that we need to restrict. They have lawful uses, just like guns do, and correlation =/= causation.
not sure of the actual breakdown as this is anecdotal, but from what I’ve seen most cops wear at a minimum soft armor on their day to day for comfort reasons (they are hot, heavy, and reduce mobility) but will have a plate carrier in their vehicle with hard armor that they will put on when responding and to a call. Some will wear a level III or III+ plate day to day. Traffic cops, higher risk areas, etc are more likely to do this. Generally you’ll only find level VI plates on SWAT
Would you, unarmed, rather face someone with a club or knife or someone with a gun? Does this question really need to be asked?
