• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mass Shootings and Fatherlessness

Yes, and every day of my life I still thank my parents for being who they were & for always putting their family first


Then why would you support the political ideology that will destroy that experience for others? At one time, being a Democrat was about fighting for the common man and family, that sure as heck isn’t true in 2018.
 
Perhaps because that was an emergency situation which was rather temporary compared to a entire childhood of growing up fatherless? I do not know this but its just an answer that might explain it.

...except for the 300-plus thousand who never came home.
 
Then why would you support the political ideology that will destroy that experience for others? At one time, being a Democrat was about fighting for the common man and family, that sure as heck isn’t true in 2018.

Same reason you support guns which definitely destroy the experience of breathing for thousands every year.
 
Wonder why their are not more mass shootings in Canada or other industrialized countries. Less crazy people or less guns you decide
 
I have always viewed you as a more reasonable person on this issue who supports gun ownership. So I would like to ask you a question and see where you fall on it.

If we do not want government to have more power to decide who gets and who does not get a gun, is it possible that we as citizens must become more nosy.... more intrusive ... more of a pain-in-the-ass to the possible weirdo types in our own communities and get involved and get in their face and begin speaking up and start to say we are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore?

I really think this is the only alternative to sweeping governmental laws on guns - laws which the right will rail against .... laws which the NRA will oppose and campaign against ... laws which will only divide society even more than we already are today.

What do you think?

I agree that calls for LEO assistance should be taken seriously but we must also avoid making them into SWATing events. I don't see any need for national gun registration which is a requirement for enforcing any UBGC laws covering "private" transfers. The problem is loose "nuts" allowed to roam freely among us, not their ability to acquire any particular tools to enhance their criminal careers or victim counts.

A gun is simply a tool, like gasoline in to go containers, explosive compound ingredients or rental trucks. This FL mass shooter had no fear of openly buying guns, showing them to "the world" on the internet (under his real name, no less) or with leaving ample paper trails (including his "registered" gun) at the crime scene - he even carried out his final (blaze of glory?) attack where he was known and was 100% likely to be recognized.

To pretend that UBGCs would have had any impact on preventing this loon from carrying out his mass killing mission is nonsense. The FL mass shooter did everything possible to call attention to himself in advance yet those "clues" were not enough to warrant any Floriduh "official" (legal system?) intervention.

Let's fix what we have (actually enforce our current laws) before we decide that all legal gun owners must pay a higher price (user fee?) for merely keeping their constitutional rights intact. I see no reason why taxing those owning guns in Texas should be used to grant more federal LEO aid to folks in Floriduh who simply refuse to take action on the "weird kids" living among them.
 
Wonder why their are not more mass shootings in Canada or other industrialized countries. Less crazy people or less guns you decide

Fewer crazy people and far fewer black people in those countries.

You can't compare other monocultural nations to a heavily multicultural nation with a history of slavery, civil war, economic oppression and violent racism.
 
72 percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers; the same for 60 percent of all rapists.

70 percent of juveniles in state institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations

The number of single-parent households is a good predictor of violent crime in a community, while poverty rate is not.

Gun control won't solve this problem. The rage of fatherless young men will find an outlet.

https://www.amazon.com/Boy-Crisis-B...qid=1518894950&sr=8-1&keywords=the+boy+crisis

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/will-guts-link-fatherlessness-school-shootings/

So are fathers better in Canada, Japan, UK, Germany, Australia and every other first world countries then the US? Because all those countries have far less mass shootings then the US. So either, despite right wing claims that the US is the greatest country in the world that these other countries have better parents, better culture and more mentally fit people or the difference is the easy access to guns we see in the US vs. those other countries. So which is it?
 
Same reason you support guns which definitely destroy the experience of breathing for thousands every year.

Excuse me, were did I give support for guns in this thread or in any other thread?
 
Excuse me, were did I give support for guns in this thread or in any other thread?

"You" as in the Right...seeing how as you (as in you) attacked the Left.
 
"You" as in the Right...seeing how as you (as in you) attacked the Left.



So by your rational, because I’m not a liberal I automatically own gun violence, Wow……

Curious, do all the other tags also apply, Nazi, homophobic,Islamaphobic and puppy killer?
 
...except for the 300-plus thousand who never came home.

Yes - that is 100% true.

I do think that a world war - being a national emergency and paramount in the mind of almost every citizen - and of a temporary nature for over 95% who participated who then came home - is a different situation that millions of young men raised in homes where the fathers were nor present for their entire childhood - or the vast majority of it. Especially if one grows up in a neighborhood where that is the norm.
 
I agree that calls for LEO assistance should be taken seriously but we must also avoid making them into SWATing events. I don't see any need for national gun registration which is a requirement for enforcing any UBGC laws covering "private" transfers. The problem is loose "nuts" allowed to roam freely among us, not their ability to acquire any particular tools to enhance their criminal careers or victim counts.

I favor national registration. I favor stricter universal background checks on all firearms purchases and transfers. Why would the law exempt transfers since it is a gun going to a person just like a sale puts a gun with a person?

So what do we do about those "loose nuts"? And how do we identify them in advance of them committing criminal mayhem?

A gun is simply a tool, like gasoline in to go containers, explosive compound ingredients or rental trucks. This FL mass shooter had no fear of openly buying guns, showing them to "the world" on the internet (under his real name, no less) or with leaving ample paper trails (including his "registered" gun) at the crime scene - he even carried out his final (blaze of glory?) attack where he was known and was 100% likely to be recognized.

On one level - yes, a gun is simply a tool. On another level, it is much much more and pretending that it is not is both foolish and living in denial. To be brutal honest about it, yes, a person can get some gas and put it in a container and set fire to another person with it and kill them. Sure, if they are good and fast with it - maybe even a few people. But it falls far far far short of the Vegas shooter with guns or the Sandy Hook shooter with guns or the Virginia shooter with guns or the gay nightclub shooter with guns. So lets not pretend otherwise.

Guns are special. We need to treat them as such.

To pretend that UBGCs would have had any impact on preventing this loon from carrying out his mass killing mission is nonsense. The FL mass shooter did everything possible to call attention to himself in advance yet those "clues" were not enough to warrant any Floriduh "official" (legal system?) intervention.

That depends on what the background check would turn up and how it was acted upon. We have much information that this guy was a loon - so why wouldn't the right kind of thorough background check turn that up?

Let's fix what we have (actually enforce our current laws) before we decide that all legal gun owners must pay a higher price (user fee?) for merely keeping their constitutional rights intact. I see no reason why taxing those owning guns in Texas should be used to grant more federal LEO aid to folks in Floriduh who simply refuse to take action on the "weird kids" living among them

Which current laws did you have in mind?
 
I would agree that boys growing up fatherless is a problem. But, I'm not sure that the correlation you found is causation. For example, why were there no mass shootings in the US during WW2? Most children were fatherless then too. Right?

There is a difference between losing a father due to death and not having a father because your father either abandoned you or your mother is selfish.
 
I favor national registration. I favor stricter universal background checks on all firearms purchases and transfers. Why would the law exempt transfers since it is a gun going to a person just like a sale puts a gun with a person?

So what do we do about those "loose nuts"? And how do we identify them in advance of them committing criminal mayhem?



On one level - yes, a gun is simply a tool. On another level, it is much much more and pretending that it is not is both foolish and living in denial. To be brutal honest about it, yes, a person can get some gas and put it in a container and set fire to another person with it and kill them. Sure, if they are good and fast with it - maybe even a few people. But it falls far far far short of the Vegas shooter with guns or the Sandy Hook shooter with guns or the Virginia shooter with guns or the gay nightclub shooter with guns. So lets not pretend otherwise.

Guns are special. We need to treat them as such.



That depends on what the background check would turn up and how it was acted upon. We have much information that this guy was a loon - so why wouldn't the right kind of thorough background check turn that up?



Which current laws did you have in mind?

OK, let's get real here. This "weird kid" was visited multiple (39?) times by LEOs yet never charged (or at least not convicted) of anything much less a felony. He was also suspended/expelled from school multiple times - also apparently with no criminal convictions or demands for a mental evaluation. We obviously cannot (and should not) use "police contacts" (with no charges filed) as a "red flag" in a BGC or anyone could get that "nutty" guy next door (or in their workplace) to lose their gun rights (for life?) by making an "anonymous tip" call to the local LEOs.

I would bet that this loon's alleged "victims" were scared to press charges for fear that he would "get them" because the odds of any conviction (or psychiatric commitment) were slim (at best). They (foolishly?) thought that an occasional visit from "the authorities" would calm him down and make him behave in a less frightening manner for a while, at least.

You can have what you see as a rock solid case that someone has clearly committed a crime and is very dangerous yet getting "the state" to take that seriously enough to take that case, prosecute them, convict them and lock them up (for long enough for you to move away at your own expense) is a horse of a different color. What you can be assured of is that your aid in getting someone dangerous (and likely criminally insane) locked up will likely not end well.
 
Then why would you support the political ideology that will destroy that experience for others? At one time, being a Democrat was about fighting for the common man and family, that sure as heck isn’t true in 2018.

I fully support The Second Amendment which IMO has no political ideology aka it is apolitical.
I fully support the right of every law abiding American to lawfully defend themselves via the use of lawfully acquired firearms.
The Second Amendment has been perverted by GIGANTIC political factions within the US which is a shame & a sham.
 
I fully support The Second Amendment which IMO has no political ideology aka it is apolitical.
I fully support the right of every law abiding American to lawfully defend themselves via the use of lawfully acquired firearms.
The Second Amendment has been perverted by GIGANTIC political factions within the US which is a shame & a sham.

Aren’t you missing the point of the OP (not surprising) whom or what political ideology keeps those statistics in place and why?
 
Aren’t you missing the point of the OP (not surprising) whom or what political ideology keeps those statistics in place and why?

I'm not sure what point it is you are trying to make; could you just say it plainly?

AFA the Second Amendment becoming a political football, IMO it has gotten that treatment from more than one side of the political coin.
 
is it possible that we as citizens must become more nosy.... more intrusive ... more of a pain-in-the-ass to the possible weirdo types in our own communities and get involved and get in their face and begin speaking up and start to say we are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore?

So......let me get this straight.

You're going to harass and get right up in the faces of weirdos who have guns?

Be sure and let us know how that turns out.

:D
 
Bottom line:

The Constitution is not negotiable.

You can't have our guns.

STFU.
 
I'm not sure what point it is you are trying to make; could you just say it plainly?

AFA the Second Amendment becoming a political football, IMO it has gotten that treatment from more than one side of the political coin.

I thought I was being direct, maybe you should re-read the OP, you did give it a “like” tic. You could also reference post #20 if you still don’t get it.
 
I thought I was being direct, maybe you should re-read the OP, you did give it a “like” tic. You could also reference post #20 if you still don’t get it.

If someone desires to have a conversation then maybe they could speak their mind instead of hoping others can mind read.

If you have something to say then say it; I'm not here to play stupid ****ing games .............
 
Last edited:
OK, let's get real here. This "weird kid" was visited multiple (39?) times by LEOs yet never charged (or at least not convicted) of anything much less a felony. He was also suspended/expelled from school multiple times - also apparently with no criminal convictions or demands for a mental evaluation. We obviously cannot (and should not) use "police contacts" (with no charges filed) as a "red flag" in a BGC or anyone could get that "nutty" guy next door (or in their workplace) to lose their gun rights (for life?) by making an "anonymous tip" call to the local LEOs.

I would bet that this loon's alleged "victims" were scared to press charges for fear that he would "get them" because the odds of any conviction (or psychiatric commitment) were slim (at best). They (foolishly?) thought that an occasional visit from "the authorities" would calm him down and make him behave in a less frightening manner for a while, at least.

You can have what you see as a rock solid case that someone has clearly committed a crime and is very dangerous yet getting "the state" to take that seriously enough to take that case, prosecute them, convict them and lock them up (for long enough for you to move away at your own expense) is a horse of a different color. What you can be assured of is that your aid in getting someone dangerous (and likely criminally insane) locked up will likely not end well.

I suspect you are correct that people were just afraid of him and declined to press charges. So at what point does the government of the people come in and take that responsibility upon themselves and then build a case from there?
 
So......let me get this straight.

You're going to harass and get right up in the faces of weirdos who have guns?

Be sure and let us know how that turns out.

:D

A duly empowered representative of out society will do that - yes.

Or are you simply willing to let children continue to die as collateral damage for a society where there are more guns than people - providing of course that they are not yours?
 
Hooray for abortion.If this kids mom had an abortion all this wouldn't have happened.Maybe doctors can find a way to see if the fetus has mass killing dna before 6 months in the womb.

Actually I was thinking along similar lines. Imagine how many more fatherless children would exist if abortion was made illegal. Scary thought especially with the proliferation of guns in our society. Thank god for Roe v. Wade.
 
I suspect you are correct that people were just afraid of him and declined to press charges. So at what point does the government of the people come in and take that responsibility upon themselves and then build a case from there?

The concept you are referring to is having LE be a proactive partner; good luck because that is not going to ****ing happen.

The only thing IMO that LE actually will do is to react to a crisis; they absolutely SUCK ass at being proactive.

Maybe being proactive is not the function of LE; it certainly seems they suck at it ............
 
Back
Top Bottom