The American Constitution

[JoeKitchen]

Indeed, no shortage of gunplay. Ever read what happened in Matewan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan back in 1920. You have often explained the omnipresence of guns with Americans' desire to protect yourselves from government incursion, how do you feel about the same when perpetrated by private companies? The labour "war" in Matewan was one of the the largest battles ever to take place on American soil. How many people know about it?

Another fascinating piece of history are the so-called "race riots" in the early 1900s https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/america-s-other-civil-war-1.5151203 where black and immigrant neighbourhoods in American cities were attacked by avowed white supremacist groups resulting in thousands of deaths with few prosecutions. These incidents may not be taught in schools or mentioned in popular media but that doesn't mean that people don't remember them.

By those standards, today's fringe groups are wimps!

Certainly a positive!  The problem with history is, historians tend to write more on the positives then the negatives (aside from wars).  So we have too much nostalgia for the past and some how feel it was better.  It wasn't. 

FYI, looks like the Dayton shooter was an extreme left winger and Warren fan.  Dayton shooter appeared to tweet extreme left views and had an abiding interest in violence

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Or just the other day:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dayton-killer-left-winger-elizabeth-warren

Fox news published Wall Street Journal Editorial Board's opinion (I am linking Fox News simply because it is not beyond a paywall; emphasis mine):

... his politics appear to have been left of center. The shooter recently tweeted that he would “happily” vote for Senator Warren. His Twitter profile also read: “he/him/anime fan/metalhead/leftist/i’m going to hell and i’m not coming back.” In December last he wrote: “This is America: Guns on every corner, guns in every house, no freedom but to kill.” A month before that, he wrote: “Vote blue for gods sake.”

If you have access to WSJ, here is a direct link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/politics-and-the-shooters-11565047588

Another angle, friends' testimonies:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/dayton-gunman-anti-2nd-amendment-not-conservative-right-leaning-left-tweets-conner-betts-will-el-fakir

... his former pal was “definitely not a right-leaning person. His political views definitely leaned to the left. And believe it or not, he was actually pro-gun control. He was actually anti-Second Amendment.”

[JoeKitchen]

Regardless of all this, I still think his motive had something to do with his sister.  I just can't believe it was purely happenstance that she was there and then killed by him. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Regardless of all this, I still think his motive had something to do with his sister.  I just can't believe it was purely happenstance that she was there and then killed by him. 

My point in posting the above is that when you are a nut job, it doesn't matter what triggers you: left rhetoric or right rhetoric, you are still a nut job.

[JoeKitchen]

My point in posting the above is that when you are a nut job, it doesn't matter what triggers you: left rhetoric or right rhetoric, you are still a nut job.

Yes, good point. 

[RSL]

Exactly, Slobodan. And it's why we need to begin confining nut jobs again the way we did until sixty or so years ago.

[Alan Klein]

Indeed, no shortage of gunplay. Ever read what happened in Matewan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan back in 1920. You have often explained the omnipresence of guns with Americans' desire to protect yourselves from government incursion, how do you feel about the same when perpetrated by private companies? The labour "war" in Matewan was one of the the largest battles ever to take place on American soil. How many people know about it?

Another fascinating piece of history are the so-called "race riots" in the early 1900s https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/america-s-other-civil-war-1.5151203 where black and immigrant neighbourhoods in American cities were attacked by avowed white supremacist groups resulting in thousands of deaths with few prosecutions. These incidents may not be taught in schools or mentioned in popular media but that doesn't mean that people don't remember them.

By those standards, today's fringe groups are wimps!

I wasn't around for the race riots of the early 1900's.  But I did live during the race riots after Martin Luther King was assassinated.  Cities burned and dozens were killed across America although my home town of NYC was mostly calm.   Baltimore, which needed 5000 paratroopers to restore order,  never recovered fully as the current arguments between the president and Baltimore's congressmen have reminded people. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots

[Alan Klein]

Exactly, Slobodan. And it's why we need to begin confining nut jobs again the way we did until sixty or so years ago.

Not sure that's the solution either. After all, the reason the hospitals were closed, was because they were inhumane, breeding grounds for violence and sexual abuse of patients.  Which reminds me of the movie and book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There is not a single group that has exclusivity on terrorism (other than that most of them are home-grown). The terrorists come in many colors, and they find excuses in different ideologies (if any). And then there are those who are not out to sow terror, but rather death and destruction is the single goal.

But, how does it help if a President stokes racism and division (and he already started before he was elected into office)? And that in a country with easy access to (semi-)automatic assault guns. It's asking for trouble, and it appears that 'El Paso' was a result of it.

Think of it, more Americans have died in the USA by gun violence, than in all wars combined. Obviously, having more guns doesn't help. In fact, a smaller percentage of Americans have guns. But those who do have guns, have many more guns than they used to have. The total number of guns is increasing. Surely, there has to be a way to reduce the number of guns in circulation, even without banning gun ownership.

What's so horrible about a bipartisan gun background check bill, passed by Congress in February (2019), that the Senate Majority leader is not willing to bring to vote? That makes McConnell's tweet on Saturday that he and the country were "horrified" by the "senseless violence" in El Paso, very disingenuous.

Ocasio-Cortez demands McConnell stop 'giving bogus excuses' and pass gun background check bill
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-demands-mcconnell-stop-giving-bogus-excuses-and-pass-gun-background-check-bill

"The House passed HR8, a Bipartisan Background Checks Act, *5 months ago* and the Senate has yet to vote on it," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to McConnell’s own tweet. "It was one of our 1st major priorities after ending the gov shutdown. You’ve been sitting on it since February giving bogus excuses. Care to explain the people why?"

The measure, HR 8, was passed back in February with overwhelming support from the newly elected Democratic majority and some Republican support.

Those who do nothing about the issue, or even block (part of) a solution, are part of the problem. They make themselves complicit in prolonging the unnecessary suffering of American families.

And that's only part of the issues. Talk about nut jobs ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

There is not a single group that has exclusivity on terrorism (other than that most of them are home-grown). The terrorists come in many colors, and they find excuses in different ideologies (if any). And then there are those who are not out to sow terror, but rather death and destruction is the single goal.

But, how does it help if a President stokes racism and division (and he already started before he was elected into office)? And that in a country with easy access to (semi-)automatic assault guns. It's asking for trouble, and it appears that 'El Paso' was a result of it.

Think of it, more Americans have died in the USA by gun violence, than in all wars combined. Obviously, having more guns doesn't help. In fact, a smaller percentage of Americans have guns. But those who do have guns, have many more guns than they used to have. The total number of guns is increasing. Surely, there has to be a way to reduce the number of guns in circulation, even without banning gun ownership.

What's so horrible about a bipartisan gun background check bill, passed by Congress in February (2019), that the Senate Majority leader is not willing to bring to vote? That makes McConnell's tweet on Saturday that he and the country were "horrified" by the "senseless violence" in El Paso, very disingenuous.

Ocasio-Cortez demands McConnell stop 'giving bogus excuses' and pass gun background check bill
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-demands-mcconnell-stop-giving-bogus-excuses-and-pass-gun-background-check-bill
Those who do nothing about the issue, or even block (part of) a solution, are part of the problem. They make themselves complicit in prolonging the unnecessary suffering of American families.

And that's only part of the issues. Talk about nut jobs ...

Cheers,
Bart

People are horrified when a drunk driver kills a family of five.  Yet, states are passing laws making marijuana use legal knowing that it's going to add more carnage on the roads as more people drive impaired.  Where's the sense in that?  The fact is, people are willing to sacrifice death and destruction for certain freedoms.  I'm sure we all read about all those people who died taking selfies by edges of cliffs they slipped off from.    There's no good accounting for stupidity.  But with guns, at least there is a constitutional protection for the right to have them. 

[RSL]

Not sure that's the solution either. After all, the reason the hospitals were closed, was because they were inhumane, breeding grounds for violence and sexual abuse of patients.  Which reminds me of the movie and book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

I don't know where you're getting your information, Alan, but I was there. I was in my late twenties when the crap started, and what I remember is a bleeding heart onslaught from the left about how unfair it was to keep these people locked up. After all, they hadn't committed a crime, and modern pharmaceutical help will keep them in line. Yes, there were some bad situations in the asylums, just as there are in today's nursing homes. But those problems weren't as bad as massacres in gun-free zones.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... how does it help if a President stokes racism and division...

He doesn’t. Except in your mind.

[Alan Klein]

I don't know where you're getting your information, Alan, but I was there. I was in my late twenties when the crap started, and what I remember is a bleeding heart onslaught from the left about how unfair it was to keep these people locked up. After all, they hadn't committed a crime, and modern pharmaceutical help will keep them in line. Yes, there were some bad situations in the asylums, just as there are in today's nursing homes. But those problems weren't as bad as massacres in gun-free zones.

I agree there was a lot of hyperbole on the left.  But drugs did help these people for the most part.  No need to lock them up.  I don;t think the killers in EL Paso or Dayton would have qualified for a mental hospital had they been open.  Most terrorist type killings are done either by people with political agendas.  Or they flip out before the incident like the guy who loses his job and then goes back and kills half a dozen employees.  Their past history is not severe enough to imprison them otherwise we would have 5 million slightly disturbed people eligible for these hospitals.  The courts would not approve it not do I think they should.  Obviously, we have a problem with people who flip out.  But, like I said previously, we have a much larger problem with drunken driving which causes thousands of deaths.  Yet we live with it.  Either we jail drunken drivers if they killed someone.  Or if they just got caught with a DUI, the court might give them the option of going to rehabilitation rather than jail.  Maybe we can figure out a way of doing that with mental cases although I suspect a lot of that goes on now with families getting their family members help.  It's a tough situation with no easy solution. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As Alan pointed out, not a single mass shooter would have qualified for a mental institution. You can’t lock up someone just because they are weird. You can’t even put them under FBI monitoring without ACLU complaining. Probably the best approach would be those “red flag” laws, though I know nothing about it in greater detail.

[Alan Klein]

As Alan pointed out, not a single mass shooter would have qualified for a mental institution. You can’t lock up someone just because they are weird. You can’t even put them under FBI monitoring without ACLU complaining. Probably the best approach would be those “red flag” laws, though I know nothing about it in greater detail.

The FBI doesn't have the resources anyway to follow people around.  They couldn't keep up with potential Al Qaeda terrorists.  It takes like a dozen agents to follow just one suspect.  What could they do with millions of like you said "weird" people.  In any case, if you want to see "weird", just visit my city, New York. 


Here's one I met in Coney Island.  (This is a photo site, after all.)
Pals by Alan Klein, on Flickr

and another, a whole group of them, I think they were devil worshipers or something like that in Central Park

Ceremony by Alan Klein, on Flickr

these women in mid-Manhattan might qualify if someone reported them.  But you'd have to arrest half the people there if that was the case.

Smile by Alan Klein, on Flickr

[RSL]

As Alan pointed out, not a single mass shooter would have qualified for a mental institution. You can’t lock up someone just because they are weird. You can’t even put them under FBI monitoring without ACLU complaining. Probably the best approach would be those “red flag” laws, though I know nothing about it in greater detail.

That's certainly strange. Somehow we managed to do it until about sixty years ago.

Oh, and there was one kid turned in by his grandma. He was about to shoot up the place.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Somehow we managed to do it until about sixty years ago...

Sixty years ago we had families, family values, and family ties that lessened the sense of loneliness (the lone in lone wolf), social isolation and social rejection. And we had no opportunity for instant infamy via social media. Having guns was not a problem then.

[Robert Roaldi]

I wasn't around for the race riots of the early 1900's.  But I did live during the race riots after Martin Luther King was assassinated.  Cities burned and dozens were killed across America although my home town of NYC was mostly calm.   Baltimore, which needed 5000 paratroopers to restore order,  never recovered fully as the current arguments between the president and Baltimore's congressmen have reminded people. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots

You may have missed my point. Those "riots" in the 1920s were not "race riots", some people just choose to call them that to mask what really went on, which was white supremacists going into non-white and immigrant neighbourhoods killing people, setting fire to their homes, and in large measure getting away with it, as some states declined to investigate and prosecute. It was a longish podcast that I posted a link to, about 50 min, so it requires some effort to listen and not everyone is so inclined. That's understandable, but the reference is there for anyone who wants to listen.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ilhan Omar issued a statement regarding the latest mass shootings:

"Some people did something and we all are losing our rights."

[Alan Klein]

You may have missed my point. Those "riots" in the 1920s were not "race riots", some people just choose to call them that to mask what really went on, which was white supremacists going into non-white and immigrant neighbourhoods killing people, setting fire to their homes, and in large measure getting away with it, as some states declined to investigate and prosecute. It was a longish podcast that I posted a link to, about 50 min, so it requires some effort to listen and not everyone is so inclined. That's understandable, but the reference is there for anyone who wants to listen.

America today is not the America of the 1920's any more than it is the America before 1863 when slavery was legal.  Would you believe, we actually have had a black president who was re-elected for a second term.