Wabatuckian wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 11:15 am I'm not interested in all that. I doubt the folks getting killed are partisan. The shooters mostly aren't.

Regards,
Josh

I assume you mean that you're not interested in the culture war stuff I mentioned, rather than the article I posted regarding actual solutions?

I believe if the clubs position is going to be root cause mitigation then we need to go beyond just vault requirements, thats kind of the same as mag and gun action restrictions.

There is data that has been published by Blue cross blue shield that shows a 33% increase in depression between 2013 and 2016, that would be people being treated for it. Their study blames wide spread use of electronic devices.

The LA Times printed an article this past year that shows studies findings that in the past century at least 60% of all mass shootings have been done by people who they know for sure were diagnosed as mentally ill.

Even Michael Moore has dug into it deep enough since Columbine to discover that the drug companies hid the fact that the psychotropic drugs they sell cause very violent and anti social behavior in 4% of the people tested.

I'm not interested in liberal vs conservative bullshit, correct.

I haven't had a chance to read the article. I'd rather do that on the computer monitor.

Regards

CDFingers wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 11:19 am It takes an insane person to shoot an unarmed kid...
CDFingers

I must be misreading, or reading your statement out of context.

One doesn't need to be armed in order to be a deadly threat. I can think of a multitude of instances where shooting an unarmed kid would be the thing to do.

eelj wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 11:46 am I believe if the clubs position is going to be root cause mitigation then we need to go beyond just vault requirements, thats kind of the same as mag and gun action restrictions.

There is data that has been published by Blue cross blue shield that shows a 33% increase in depression between 2013 and 2016, that would be people being treated for it. Their study blames wide spread use of electronic devices.

The LA Times printed an article this past year that shows studies findings that in the past century at least 60% of all mass shootings have been done by people who they know for sure were diagnosed as mentally ill.

Even Michael Moore has dug into it deep enough since Columbine to discover that the drug companies hid the fact that the psychotropic drugs they sell cause very violent and anti social behavior in 4% of the people tested.

We have gone well beyond just safe storage, as that is certainly not a "root cause". It's a good idea, but definitely not addressing the why behind the what.

http://theliberalgunclub.com/why-root-causes-matter/

There's a good amount of information and things that have proven to be effective in the somewhat lengthy page there.

The Secret Service did a study on school shootings after Columbine. The number one finding was that in almost every instance, someone in authority knew the kid was trouble long before the incident.

How about developing a national intervention program? The side effect of this is that we might also help lower rates of suicide, bullying, drug use, child abuse and other bad outcomes for our nation's youth.

But that would cost money, which would require new taxes, which neither the NRA, nor Bloomberg and DiFi would be willing to support.

senorgrand wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 12:26 pm The Secret Service did a study on school shootings after Columbine. The number one finding was that in almost every instance, someone in authority knew the kid was trouble long before the incident.

How about developing a national intervention program? The side effect of this is that we might also help lower rates of suicide, bullying, drug use, child abuse and other bad outcomes for our nation's youth.

But that would cost money, which would require new taxes, which neither the NRA, nor Bloomberg and DiFi would be willing to support.

Any new taxes would have to be paid by all not just gun owners. The issue of violence is not tool specific and should not be linked to current owners of a specific tool. Knife tax anyone? Who do we tax for pipe bombs?

It's not about guns, it's about keeping kids safe, so I propose paying for it with a repeal of the 1% giveaways signed by Trump. I'd also be cool with a Robin Hood Tax.

senorgrand wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 12:45 pm It's not about guns, it's about keeping kids safe, so I propose paying for it with a repeal of the 1% giveaways signed by Trump. I'd also be cool with a Robin Hood Tax.

Except, the first people the gun restrictionists want to put on the hook is gun owners.

Well, that's gonna happen regardless.

senorgrand wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 1:16 pm Well, that's gonna happen regardless.

Well, like I said earlier they'll be a bunch of people on the hook for knives and kitchen utensils. I'm sure they'll figure out someone to stiff for the pipe bombs as well. Everyone and anyone but not them.

I'd like to finally see the "peace dividend" we were promised after the implosion of the USSR. The money wasted for the military and the stupid expansion of the most unnecessary nato would have gone a long way, hell the pentagon has even gotten their lovely cold war back again.

It's not to late to start, it won't be that instant quick fix that everybody seems to want but if demilitarizing will help to calm society down so be it.

Our health care system truly sucks in this country, our care for the mentally ill is even worse. I'm not just putting the blame on the mentally ill, but on how they are being treated.

There's a War on Drugs and a War on Terror -- we'll never get a peace dividend as long as we're at war.

eelj wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 1:52 pm I'd like to finally see the "peace dividend" we were promised after the implosion of the USSR. The money wasted for the military and the stupid expansion of the most unnecessary nato would have gone a long way, hell the pentagon has even gotten their lovely cold war back again.

It's not to late to start, it won't be that instant quick fix that everybody seems to want but if demilitarizing will help to calm society down so be it.

Our health care system truly sucks in this country, our care for the mentally ill is even worse. I'm not just putting the blame on the mentally ill, but on how they are being treated.

The only thing the Cold War did was establish a permanent military readiness state that guarantees corporations money and power. It has also conditioned the nation to believe it is a necessary state.

The very least is offer a tax-free weekend on selected gun safety merchandise. They already do that down here for Hurricane/Emergency Preparedness Supplies.

Go tax-free for safes, cabinets, gun-locks, hearing-pro...etc. I'd buy into that. I'd budget my spending based on that.

I think it's more complicated than naturally-occurring stress. I think stress is in part manufactured by our society so that our society can sell us stuff to make us feel better. Not just prescription drugs either, but beer and new cars and makeup. Even ideas and people.

Look at the ads on during the news and during sports -- drugs, alcohol and cars top the charts. Feeling stressed about your team losing? Feel hopeless from watching the news? Take two of these pills and drive away in a new Buick!

As someone who studied some psychology, I'd bet good money that people who are stressed are: 1) more susceptible to influence, and; 2) would spend more than their less stressed counterparts in a controlled study.

And if all you watch/read is Fox News or Huffington Post, then you're stress levels are going to need serious adjustment and capitalism is ready to supply you with what you need, for a price.

awshoot wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 3:46 am

AndyH wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 3:09 am... Well hell - let me just cancel my insurance for a few months to buy a safe. I'm sure the state police will understand when they pull me over.

I'm thinking we need more authoritarians to spend some time working for minimum wage for a bit.

Rich or poor, some things come with responsibilities. If a person can only afford the dangerous thing, whether that's a dog, a car, or a gun, but can't afford the accouterments required to protect the public at large, the person can't actually afford that dangerous thing. That isn't being authoritarian, it is being responsible.

No, that's not being responsible. At the heart of is, you're promoting an anti-gun plan at best, and an 'only the rich can have guns' at worst. This is a universal and natural right you're talking about here. So no - it's not reasonable to suggest that people in lower economic brackets - the ones most likely to actually need to defend themselves - should accept only your prescription in order to be 'responsible'.

I have a box of cable locks I'm willing to give to gun owners who can't afford the $15...

AndyH wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 2:45 pm...
No, that's not being responsible. At the heart of is, you're promoting an anti-gun plan at best, and an 'only the rich can have guns' at worst. This is a universal and natural right you're talking about here. So no - it's not reasonable to suggest that people in lower economic brackets - the ones most likely to actually need to defend themselves - should accept only your prescription in order to be 'responsible'.

With enough school shootings, none of us, rich/poor/middle, will be having any gun rights. Just south of me in OR there is in initiative that will go to the voters this fall and if it passes, it will ban virtually anything semi-auto -- just check out how broad the definition of "assault weapon" is: http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2018/043text.pdf Seriously -- explain how this law would not arguably describe every single SA rifle that has a stock, even a wood one:

(1)(a) “Assault weapon” means any:
(A) Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has at least
one of the following:
...
(iv) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel,
allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but
excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

Personally, I feel that if a person can't afford secure storage for their gun when it is not in their immediate possession, that person is being irresponsible toward people who are harmed by the gun when it escapes their control AND being especially irresponsible and cavalier toward the rights of their fellow gun owners. Insecure storage is selfish and only acts to unfairly shift the costs of that action, costs which include confiscatory legislation, to innocent bystanders. Besides that, when they ban the gun your hypothetical poor person owns, getting another is going to cost at least 3x more than a $50 safe.

Safes are fine, but not something mandated. Root cause is the ball we need to keep moving on. The why of why a 17 year old decides on violence, it has nothing to do with requiring safes. If you think that restrictive requirements are the solution I can tell you the next time we'll be talking about why some parent didn't lock up the common household products that some kid used to make a bomb. The root cause is the key to violence and it does vary by incident.

There is one single draconian thing that could be done to disrupt this chain of violence and I would put it on the parents to implement. Take away the kids internet privileges. All kids, good and bad absolutely no internet unless it is 100 percent supervised and necessary. Force kids to interact face to face, they need to touch their humanity and acknowledge the pain of social interaction in person and grow through the process. Force some closer parenting and community involvemen on kids. They simply don't know how to interact with each other, not all, but some. That is why I would call it draconian. Kids need to help each other learn and grow and adults have to be there to supervise. It's all about communication and misinformation. The future perpetrators of these events are already in schools and among us. We can't make schools any safer if we don't acknowledge that everything we plan and practice as a response to a shooting or bombing or any emergency, the future perpetrator will know because he or she is there practicing and observing among those that will be victims. I'm not saying the internet is a root cause or social media is. I think it's timeout time for children.

Seeing as this thread has wandered into root causes, in my position as at schools technology teacher and general person to stay up on the technology research, I see that there is a simple "tool" that would reduce student isolation, depression, and as a side benefit, would improve the students education. That tool is a ban on cell phones at school. The research keeps piling up that the cell phones are harmful. No, I do not mean some radio emissions, I mean the decreased human interaction and ability to concentrate.

I could burry all of you in research study after research study; however, we all know the facts. What the districts lack is the courage. The courage required is the courage to stand up to the parents. It should be understood that arguing for cell phones in school is arguing for less education, more bullying, more social isolation, and more mental health crises. . . Is that what we should be for, or against?

As I read was reading this, it struck me as to why we are having the same discussion every year with the same arguments. I am not just talking about the "LGC" I am talking about the country as a whole. Everyone is looking for a solution to the problem of "Kids bringing guns to school and shooting their classmates" through the prism of "What is differant now" from when I was a kid. We didn't have widespread violent video games that must be the problem, we didn't have mass social media pipped in through electronics that must be the problem, I didn't have access to guns when I was a kid that must be the problem. I am not seeing anything that says, this is how the world and or society has changed in the past two decades, how do we equip our children to handle the world as it is now and as it will be.

We equip them by letting them grow naturally and sometimes that means some restrictions in privileges and forced interactions. I don't blame technology, it's good. I propose human development needs to be given time to catch up. This is a community wide and nation wide issue, but laws won't fix it. It has to be done face to face one individual at a time. It means the parents step up and the community steps up.

It's a media contagion issue. The media whip up a frenzy of by-the-minute reporting, plaster the killer's face, name, hobbies, manifestoes, and instragram photos all over the TV for 3 days, and a nationwide hysteria erupts.

Consume advertising revenue, wash hands, repeat.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases ... agion.aspx

Johnston and her coauthor, Andrew Joy, BS, also of Western New Mexico University, reviewed data on mass shootings amassed by media outlets, the FBI and advocacy organizations, as well as scholarly articles, to conclude that “media contagion” is largely responsible for the increase in these often deadly outbursts. They defined mass shootings as either attempts to kill multiple people who are not relatives or those resulting in injuries or fatalities in public places.

“If the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in one to two years,” she said. “Even conservatively, if the calculations of contagion modelers are correct, we should see at least a one-third reduction in shootings if the contagion is removed.”

Media organizations will not simply "Make a pact." Not today, when they're starving for attention in a changing media landscape. We have to hit them in the Ads, just like they did to O'Reilly. Email the editor and tell them to stop it, and that you won't be reading their website anymore. Install a website blocker extension and ad blocker and block the site on your browser.

We can organize as a grassroots effort to boycott the advertisers and pressure them to withdraw from media organizations which are glamorizing shooters. It doesn't have to be about gun control, gun rights, the second amendment, self defense or freedom. It's simply about stopping the contagion. Stop glamorizing mass shooters, everybody can get on board. No thoughts or prayers needed. No divisive rhetoric applies. No wedge issues or identity politics.

Then take it to social media. Tell your friends and networks not to share information about the shooter or his identity or motives. Link the APA article. Spread the information and recruit them to the cause.

BKinzey wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 12:08 pm

CDFingers wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 11:19 am It takes an insane person to shoot an unarmed kid...
CDFingers

I must be misreading, or reading your statement out of context.

One doesn't need to be armed in order to be a deadly threat. I can think of a multitude of instances where shooting an unarmed kid would be the thing to do.

Yeah, the shit head in the White House isn't armed, and he's a deadly threat. Might be other moments too, where I'd be afraid of an unarmed person, but not many, especially if a kid is involved.

I'm referring to school shootings where an armed person goes in an shoots unarmed kids. That takes insanity, and root cause mitigation can address that issue.

CDFingers