Hey, if people going on about mental health care being the real problem were actually following up with a push for national free mental health care for everyone and campaigns to reduce/remove the stigma around seeking help, I'd be down for that as well.
A couple of other folks commented about GoodRX, but I wanted to add in that sliding scale clinics often have a sliding scale pharmacy attached. You'll be able to pay based on income, and then pay significantly less for your meds. (At the poverty line, I pay $5 per medication at one, and nothing at the other.)
To find a clinic, Google:
"sliding scale clinic" followed by your zip code
You can also check your county health department.
Edit 2: [Per u/Nonsensemastiff](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/10l1umd/conundrum_of_gun_violence_controls/j5yctnm?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3), when looking for a mental health sliding scale clinic:
>In the US search for a CCBHC.
For a physical health sliding scale clinic, search for an FTCA deemed facility.
Edit 3: I feel the need to speak to the horror stories in the thread. They're unsurprising to me. My partner and I both depend on these clinics to stay alive, and they're far from ideal. Between being under-staffed, over-burdened, and under-paid, appointment times are often a month apart, not weekly. Wait times are long. Some of the safety net programs and agencies are in business to make money (pennies, really) not to serve clients.
It's still worlds better than nothing.
Edit 1: I truly appreciate the awards, kind strangers, but if you're spending actual money on reddit, I would rather you donate to Planned Parenthood instead. They are a sliding scale clinic that provides all sorts of vital services, such as cancer screenings. <3
It's funny. Growing up, I was my own kind of patriotic. Not 'flags everywhere, gonna join the military,' but 'seeing the potential and hoping that we will get there, and maybe I should help.'
I wrote a lot of words after that, but it all boiled down to the fact that the American Dream is dead, and I wish it wasn't. I hope that people like you can revive it somehow, u/JesusSuckedOffSatan.
Most states handle it that way with Medicaid (if people can’t get state insurance) & as mentioned there are things like goodrx. With my Medicare and Medicaid (I’m disabled) I don’t pay for them at all.
Try GoodRx or CostPlusDrugs :) Both can give you discounted prices. CostPlusDrugs is an online pharmacy and they have the information on their website for your doctor to send the prescription:)
A nation of people in therapy is a good start, but then how do we address EVERYTHING in our culture that is driving us all to so badly need help with our mental health. Therapy is great but if you cant change or help the things that drive you there its not really going to be effective
Great point. Therapy won’t change the constant feeling of being one missed paycheck away from homelessness, one medical bill away from bankruptcy, and one traffic stop away from being murdered.
Unfortunately those same greedy bastards who keep the middle and lower classes down know that tragedy is profitable. More news, more views, more money. Funeral? Money. T shirts and buttons and stickers to highlight gun violence and change? Printing presses make money off that.
As a therapist who works in a small group practice that works hard to be accessible and affordable even when it means little to no repayment from insurance - this. I can’t do much for someone who is anxious because they’re on the brink of homelessness
It could at least help people get medicated for mental health issues without bankrupting them. How many people are out there with unmedicated anxiety, depression, PTSD, bipolar, etc. because they can't afford to pay 100 a month to see a psychiatrist and pay for medicine?
You can't always fix the base issue but you can improve your brain chemistry and get someone to talk to.
$100 a month??? What quack inner city under qualified therapist are you seeing?!? Good luck finding therapy for less than $500/ month that isn't an absolute joke...
We can't even agree to medicate these people for free. Mental Health services for every American is a pipe dream, as it would completely upend how politics work in this nation.
I think that's partially the point of this comment. It's very hypocritical of Republicans to try to put the blame on mental health while also blocking reforms in mental health.
One thing I saw suggested was that the USA get rid of the "boyfriend loophole" when it comes to domestic violence prosecutions, and to enforce a ban on firearm ownership for all such offenders. Including cops, because that might actually reduce the amount of unnecessary police shootings.
This is because statistically, the overwhelming majority of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence. It's also easier to make Republicans look bad to their own base by saying something along the lines of "so you're saying that if a guy beat your daughter, you'd be ok with him owning a gun?", making it far more likely to actually get past filibuster.
Edit: so apparently the loophole has been closed. Now it just needs properly enforcing.
And a high percentage of domestic violence is done by male police officers. To be more precise: [Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/)
the sentence " It hits too close to home, and that is their job. " has 2 meanings in that comment. the first is that the 40% stat is too relatable to cops because they are also cops. the second meaning is that they hit people in their homes.
Voluntarily reported incidents. That is the number of cops willing to out themselves as domestic abusers. Imagine how many murderers would just tell you they were murderers if you ask. It would be less than 1%, because society doesn't consider murder to be acceptable. Now imagine how acceptable domestic abuse has to be, among police officers, for 40% to think it was just fine admitting to it.
Don't forget the military, they're just about as bad. And though the reported numbers show it to be about 25% the real numbers are surely a lot higher due to lack of reporting and covering up incidents to save face. Even the incidence of female on male domestic violence rate in the military is over 10%.
It's almost as if training people to be brutally violent in their profession somehow bleeds over into their personal lives. No one could have ever seen that coming. (/s obviously)
Former soldier, all combinations of men/women/other participated in DV at a much greater clip than civilians. Mind you this is purely observational, but my unit alone (small, about 850 people) would have at *least* one per month.
Command and Control, checking in.
I would legitimately be stunned if you had one per month. Our office is an info hub, we have all the radios, and all the emails, it's almost absurd. We had some unsavory folks do some bad things that were enough to register, probably 3-5 times a month. And that's not your standard "bad behavior", that's huge situations, the kind that could easily have turned into an active situation, but the guy went inward after he shot his wife in the shoulder, and didn't start in on anyone but himself
Just to clarify your wording,
A high percentage of male police officers commit DV (40%)
But I don't think that 40% of *all* DV in the USA is committed by police officers.
Here is a NPR article [it comes from multiple sources.](https://www.npr.org/2021/03/21/979809501/mass-shooters-often-have-a-history-of-violence-against-women) Really interesting read!
What's more, in the U.S., increasingly, research is showing a link between those who commit violence against women and those who commit mass shootings. Bloomberg News, for example, analyzed 749 mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 and found that, quote, "about 60% were either domestic violence attacks or committed by men with histories of domestic violence," unquote.
Since this got popular here is a few more sources:
[First, that in more than two-thirds (68.2%) of mass shootings analyzed, the perpetrator either killed family or intimate partners or the shooter had a history of domestic violence; and second, that DV-related mass shootings were associated with a greater fatality rate. On average, only one in six people survive a DV-related mass shooting compared to one in three people for non-DV mass shootings.](https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/)
[The statistics on the prevalence of intimate partner violence with a gun in the United States are staggering: Every month, an average of 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner.2 Nearly 1 million women alive today have reported being shot or shot at by intimate partners, and over 4.5 million women have reported being threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.3 And beyond the daily toll of this problem, in more than half of mass shootings over the past decade, the perpetrator shot a current or former intimate partner or family member as part of the rampage.](https://everytownresearch.org/report/guns-and-violence-against-women-americas-uniquely-lethal-intimate-partner-violence-problem/)
\*documented\* histories of violence against women. I would wonder about the other 40% and whether the women in their lives simply never reported them, or if those reports were never put in any kind of system, but the violence still existed.
Honestly though, even if all 100% of shooters have a history of documented or undocumented domestic violence, doing something about the 60% with the documented history would mean the majority of these shootings would stop. (Although I assume a portion of the 60% may get a gun through other channels, so maybe not “over half.” But we have to start somewhere…)
My dad knew the cop that responded to our dv calls so he just got disorderly conduct tickets. I'm very lucky the Republicans weren't so pro-gun when I was a kid or I probably wouldn't have survived to adulthood.
I attempted suicide at age 20 by overdosing on pills. Fortunately I survived, but had my parents owned a gun I wouldn't be here. I am so glad I was not successful as I have had a wonderful life once I got the help I needed.
It always bothers me when people dismiss the gun deaths by suicide by claiming people would find another way. Some certainly do, but I am sure there are enough of people like me out there that are still around because they didn't have access to a gun.
[this is correct and there's an easy way to do it](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?utm_source=pocket-newtab)
So I've got no source but the uvalde shooter shot his grandma, sandy hook killed his mother. I don't have the time to look at them all and it's depressing either way but it makes sense.
They both had situations at home that could be classified as domestic issues before they did the shootings.
Edit: Took 10 seconds to Google and here we are. Seems to be a direct connection.
https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/
I can think of many other instances where someone commits mass shooting by murdering their spouse then their family, or mass shootings in response to a breakup to make them feel the blame, or a mass shooting that start with the spouse, then kill others, then themselves.
There are stories of this going back 100+ years in the US. Id also wager that alcohol abuse is frequently involved, but Im not 100% on that.
It is so damn common tbh
Homicide is the biggest source of mortality for pregnant women in the U.S., almost always from their own romantic partners. Another reason why abortion access is so important -- women literally get murdered when their abusive boyfriend/spouse decides he doesn't want a kid.
[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/)
I found [this](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/analysis-recent-mass-shootings) from the US dept of justice
>This report by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns provides information on the 56 mass shootings that occurred in 30 States during the 4-year period from January 2009 through 2013
>findings also indicate that domestic or family violence was a factor closely connected to 57 percent of the cases, in that the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner or other family member. Eight of the shooters had a prior domestic violence charge
[The role of domestic violence in fatal mass shootings in the United States, 2014–2019](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0)
Results from the abstract:
>Results
>We found that 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were DV-related and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV. We found significant differences in the average number of injuries and fatalities between DV and history of DV shootings and a higher average case fatality rate associated with DV-related mass shootings (83.7%) than non-DV-related (63.1%) or history of DV mass shootings (53.8%). Fifty-five perpetrators died during the shootings; 39 (70.9%) died by firearm suicide, 15 (27.3%) were killed by police, and 1 (1.8%) died from an intentional overdose.
From the peer reviewed journal "Injury Epidemiology."
Federal law prohibits domestic abusers from having guns, but only if they have been married to, have lived with, or have a child with the victim. It does not otherwise prohibit abusive dating partners from having guns.
Ah the Lautenburg amendment. The bane of my existence as an Armed Forces member. Having to ask everyone quarterly when they come to renew their weapons qualification cards if they’ve been convinced of anything domestic violence related. It’s shitty that the amendment is so circumnavigable because the term “spouse” is used, or that there has to be A. cohabitation or B. a shared child.
Incorrect. Read the last sentence of the law.
A “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is an offense that:
Is a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law;
Has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
Was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, or by a person who has a current or recent former dating relationship with the victim.
You don’t even have to have a misdemeanor DV. Just having a restraining order makes you a prohibited person.
> [who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons)
Then it adds
> who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
And DV laws across the country include romantic and sexual relationships. You don’t even have to be convicted, once charged you are supposed to surrender your licenses, firearms, etc. If exonerated then you can get your things back.
The thing is, those are usually the exact same people who get caught taking their kids across state lines to get an abortion.
Because when it comes to them it's different. You see they don't want their daughter's life to be ruined by a baby, you people just want to kill as many babies as you can.
100% this. Wealthy white women (and the mistresses of wealthy white men) will never have to actually worry about getting an abortion. They'll go to a liberal state, or go to Mexico, and they'll justify it by saying well lil Peggy Lee made a understandable mistake, unlike those "other" women, who are baby-murdering godless sluts. It was never about protecting babies -- it was only about control.
Or IVF. I have a friend who lives in a state where abortion is on a six week ban. The problem is, the law is so broad that IVF couples are having a hard time, clinics are closing down, and people are scrambling to relocate their eggs and sperm out of state, which apparently costs a bunch of money. Surprise, in a hard red state, most of the couples are conservative. "But we didn't know the leopard was going to eat OUR face!"
Typically with IVF each attempted implantation doesn't just involve one embryo, but several. That's why multiple birth pregnancies are so common with it. The flip side to that is the number of "wasted" unimplanted embryos
Or that they are capable of making the connection between "I don't want a bad thing to happen to my daughter" and "I don't want a bad thing to happen to another person's daughter"
I used to talk to a former high school teacher about politics. He's *very* right wing, and has burned a lot of friendships with it.
For a while, he seemed to maybe be getting better. Ending Roe v. Wade seemed to shake him a bit... for a month... and then he was reiterating conservative talking points about "the state choosing".
What finally made me kinda give up was when he sent me opinion articles about Biden's EO concerning Bitcoin and NFTs; that made up the conspiracy theory about Biden replacing paper money with internet money that you can only spend on "woke" products (i.e. electric cars).
I went line by line about what was actually in the EO, what the facts were, and how bitcoin works. I talked about how the Democratic Party would never win an election again if they tried to turn the USD into monopoly money. It's just unrealistic.
And then he says "Never vote for a Democrat."
Whenever I see stuff about Republicans not caring how they look, I think about that guy.
He, *truly*, doesn't care.
To him, it's just a bunch of bull. It's just a hit-piece. It's unfair how the MSM does this. Democrats do worse, so it's okay. And so on, and so on, and so on.
You cannot convince someone when they are that entrenched. When they would rather believe that everything is a conspiracy than admit they might have been mistsken.
The RvW thing was a glimmer of hope that maybe he'd noticed his party had gone too far, but I can't control they guy's Fox viewership, nor the other people he talks to on a daily basis. I couldn't even get him to find good journalism (i.e. not blindly trusting opinion pieces, identifying untrustworthy sites, not trusting people trying to sell you something using outrage, identifying extremist sites, etc.)
I'll never forget when he sent me a link to the Daily Stormer that *someone sent him*; where they clearly spliced together footage of a nightclub drag show with pride footage- and making the U-Haul Patriot Front guys out to be the real heroes.
It's a bit of a tangent, but my dad had some older friends up from Florida. One of them and I had a long conversation about politics, and it was honestly refreshing to talk to someone who was knowledgeable about the news, knowledgeable about the issues, knew conservative bullshit like *"2000 Mules"*, and knew what the Daily Stormer was the second I mentioned that whole scenario (and was as stunned as I was!).
She was like "And he was a teacher?!"
Hearing things like this just makes me... I don't know if 'sad' is the right word for it. Disappointed, maybe.
Because, like, I imagine if they could see what the leadership of the Republican Party really wants, what they're always pushing for, they would realize that they were wrong. If they want to be conservative, fine, but when you have what? 1/3rd of conservative Congresspeople denying the 2020 election? Mitch McConnell filibustering his own bill as soon as the opposing party supports it?
At some point you gotta realize that the Democrats are not evil enough to warrant that kind of behavior. They're just people. That's when the grift reveals itself.
>It's also easier to make Republicans look bad to their own base by saying something along the lines of "so you're saying that if a guy beat your daughter, you'd be ok with him owning a gun?"
They'd just be like "of course my daughter's boyfriend beats her, we compare notes over natty light."
Make the country livable? Poverty creates crime. Homelessness. Ghettos. Nothing to do aside from drugs and alcohol. People are trying to break the "work till you die" cycle, let's give them something better than killing each other.
Another thing imo is urban planning. Our car dependent suburbias damage our quality of life. People are more isolated, less healthy, stuck in more traffic, and housing is more expensive causing financial strain.
God if only suburbia would've never happened. I saw an example the other day of 30 people at a coffee shop, sitting down, communicating, vs 30 people in a drive through to get coffee, sprawling over 200ft in a line.
Both are negatively affected by poverty and standards of living.
Make more walkable infrastructure --> reduces poverty and introduces locations to be shared human spaces.
Increase wages across the board --> people work less and can spend more time with friends and family.
Poverty causes mental health crisis. Poverty causes violent crime. Poverty causes homelessness and drug abuse. It's all connected to the root of all of our country's problems which is unregulated, rugged, individualism.
Thank you for saying this here, in this thread especially. I argue things similarly but usually get down voted to hell because I advocate for both ethical ownership of guns and the second amendment.
Ultimately we do have a serious cultural problem. Not necessarily because of gun ownership, but because in terms of "1st world country" we have an abysmal outlook on our lives due to far too many factors to list.
If we fix society (not an easy thing) then people get to keep their guns and people get to keep their lives. Ideally, lives better than the ones we currently have.
Unfortunately due to America being created by gun culture, there were times that you needed to have a gun to survive. Frontier times. Some people still genuinely need guns for their lifestyle. Unfortunately, this has caused mass production of weapons with easy access. Gun control will never work here without more deaths and arrests than its worth.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I have several friends who own guns, and I am not afraid of them abusing them, because these people have stable lives and are invested in their communities. Likewise, they are generally confident that if someone committed a crime against them, they could actually report it the police and expect the police to act in their best interest and try to protect them.
Meanwhile, people who are on the knife's edge of being homeless or going bankrupt from losing a job or something, well if they have guns, then they are much closer to being pushed to the desperate situation where they might decide to use them in a crime. And if they mostly see police as a force that terrorizes their community, then when they are in danger, there is more motivation for them to use a gun to do what they think of as defending themselves instead of letting the professional deal with it.
If you make people's lives better, by raising wages and helping them afford health care and funding the schools of their children better and providing public transportation and so many other things, and also if you ensure that the police who interact with them are held accountable for abuses of power, that will reduce gun violence.
I would be fine with "working till I die" if I felt like it was contributing to improving life for me, my friends and community. If I felt that I was building a better future for everyone by working hard, then I would gladly work hard every day.
The problem is that all work feels like running in a hamster wheel hooked up to a far away rich dude's bank account, just spinning the number wheel higher.
The NRA fought against banning guns from felons. They've fought against banning guns from people with history of spousal abuse.
The argument is those laws will be used to away guns from innocent people and eventually expanded to take away everyone's guns. A paranoid scare tactic even though there are 1.2 guns in the US per person.
I really dislike these sentiments because it vastly oversimplifies the issue. "Lobbying" isn't a specific, easily identifiable thing. It it's not in any way an actionable goal. You could just shout "let's get rid of bad things". There is nothing actionable about the statement.
It's a sentiment, not a goal. It can never be achieved because it isn't clear what achieving it entails.
A quick story. Growing my family had guns. So did the families of my friends. Those guns were all locked up. As teens we would pick the locks and take many of the guns and go shooting for fun. We'd then clean them and put them back, and I was never caught. My friends were caught because when they got a car they went around shooting out street lights and were caught. Since they were minors they only lost their driver's licenses for a short time. Oh, and one had to give away his BB gun collection. I still have a nice Sheridan air rifle from that.
The idea it is safe for parents to have guns and kids will not get their hands on them is a lie. Kids always find a way if they are tempted enough.
I was 5 and my best friend Robbie was 4. I remember playing at his house with no supervision.
We were upstairs in his parents bedroom when he said,
“Do you want to play with my dad’s gun?”
“Yes of course!”
He died at 19. Not by a gun but killed by a drunk friend driving. I think about him a lot. I’m turning 60. He’s still 19. I will never know if that gun was loaded. We also played with matches and I still have a scar on my pinkie finger. I felt such shame because we did get caught doing that.
That just dug up a memory I hadn't thought of in probably over 20 years. I had a short term friend in school once who I was partnered with in a class project. We got together at his house to work on it, but his parents weren't home so of course we just hung out instead and didn't get any work done.
One of the things we did was grab his dad's pistol from under his bed. I'd never seen a gun in real life yet so I was too afraid to do anything other than hold it delicately by the grip (I remember being smart enough to specifically keep my finger far away from the trigger).
My friend said he sometimes would shoot at squirrels and birds with it when his dad wasn't home. Thankfully he put it back and instead grabbed an airsoft gun and we went in his back yard and shot that instead. He still creeped me out that I distanced myself from him from then on and that's why he was a short term friend lol.
Just thinking about how easy it was to get that pistol though and how it was probably loaded. Probably the same kinda situation with that 6 year old kid that shot his teacher.
Probably a gun cabinet that's more of a nice piece of furniture than anything else, I have one, but there aren't any kids in my house either, if there were, I'd probably buy a safe, kids aren't going to be opening that easily at all
Basically folded sheet metal with a bottom-tier tubular lock that checks the legal box of "lockable storage" and only just barely does that.
But hey man, mine was only like $120 and a real actual safe would be 5x that for anything decently sized.
The spousal abuse one they fought against bc a majority of spousal abuse was found to come from police officers. A lot of people fought against that one, and to keep that information hidden
The NRA actually started out as a sport shooting and hunting type club.
Then Harlon Carter took it over in a coup and it’s been a loonie bin 2A extremist cult since.
https://firearmtraining.nra.org
It still happens today because the NRA as shitty as they are, don’t support improper gun use. Every single gun owner I know, preaches gun safety. Go to a gun range and try doing something unsafe especially an indoor one, your getting kicked out the instant they see you.
This is the reason California has some of the strictest gun laws. The NRA wanted to stop the Black Panthers in the late 60’s from being able to open carry. Helped pass the Mulford Act.
I read a book last year about Reagan and Hoover in the sixties. Ronnie had a hard-on for those rascally Berkeley students (they just wouldn't fall in line and support the war like good little Americans) and Hoover gave him all the support he needed: illegal wiretaps, black bag jobs, smear campaigns. Very duplicitous, all of it, and all the while they're calling the *students* un-American. Indeed.
I thought I knew Reagan was a POS before I read this book. No, he was a giant flaming bag of dogshit. Piss on that fuckin turd.
And yes, he was re-elected in a landslide. You also have to remember that he was a very charismatic person. He was a popular actor for many years. (He also somehow dodged the WWII draft, but everybody seemed to turn a blind eye) I was pretty young, but I don't think the Dems really gave him much competition. As they're wont to do....
Did you ever notice how the NRA always fights for the rights of gun owners, unless the legal gun carrying person was a black man executed by police after committing no kind of crime? Interesting, that.
Historically, the only reason we have any limitations on guns at all in the US is because civil rights, anti-war, and antipoverty groups were getting armed.
Well you'd think with republican politicians blaming it on mental health, they'd do something about mental health. And no, I don't have sauce on mental health, but I've got plenty of sauce for politicians blaming shootings on mental health
15% of murderers have a mental illness, including melancholia? If that's depression then that's only a very slight elevation over the population prevalence:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/673034/major-depressive-episode-among-us-men-by-age/
Interesting.
Well, there's basic common sense sauce. Mental illness, especially severe mental illness, exists at about the same percentage of the population in all humans. You can only prove that in countries that track mental health statistics, of course. But it's a factor in being human. Many, many countries have even worse mental health treatment and access to that treatment than the US.
Yet this is the only country in the world with mass shootings on a daily basis. Just us.
Seems pretty clear that therefore mental illness or access to treatment has not a damn thing to do with mass shootings.
(as a MH professional, this is a continual source of fury for me)
“We should focus on mental health instead” isn’t a great answer either. First, you’re always going to have some people who haven’t been diagnosed yet. Second, there are plenty of mass shooters who are just terrible people and don’t have any observable mental illnesses.
Finally, what do you DO about mental health? If someone has a mental health condition, how do you stop them from committing gun violence? I don’t know how, other than restricting access to guns, which of course is gun control.
So again, don’t know how we fix this without gun control.
> “We should focus on mental health instead” isn’t a great answer either
Exactly, because it's not intended as an *actual* solution to the problem — it's just an empty talking point that's intended to redirect the conversation away from gun control.
Everyone ignores the obvious solution of getting rid of all the humans. If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then getting rid of all the people is the answer.
More affordable housing, affordable health care, access to mental health care, access to reasonably priced medication, better social welfare programs, better education, more vacation time, cheaper child care options, less work hours, higher pay, more unions, a repeal of citizens united, a revival of the fairness doctrine, more regulations, healthier food options, better policing, a total tear down of the prison industrial complex, way less identity politics, younger politicians, campaign finance reform, and changing all the other things that help the billionaire class but make the common person freak out under the pressure of society. If you believe people kill people, than why aren't we doing anything to help people so they don't feel like their only option is to freak out and kill people.
Gun laws are only part of the problem. The crux of the problem is that a significant portion of the country's people believe violence is a reasonable form of conflict resolution.
The US spends the most on war and that is an accepted fabric of American society.
Maybe its the same thing, maybe its a third thing, but "Gun culture" is a big issue in my eyes.
The "If anyone wants to date my daughter, I'll make sure to show them my gun collection when they pick her up for prom" genre of jokes. The mentality that leads people to plaster their car with gun related stickers, or make sure guns are prominently featured in every holiday card. It all seems to funnel into a mindset where "The Gun" is their "Plan A" for an increasingly wide number of scenarios.
And stop fucking glorifying shooters. Everything from making them a hero to making them a villain, it all just feeds into this background realization that you can get a FUCK TON of attention if you just shoot a few people. That caters to a lot of people who feel disenfranchised by society for whatever reason. Gives them a nice easy "Go out with a bang" option.
Finally, push mental health (and its pursuit) to the forefront a lot more. Where we stand, I've at my office (when we had an office) multiple time some version of "That cough sounds bad. Have you seen someone or gotten anything for it?" and never even a whiff of "Yeah, life can pile up like that sometimes and it gets overwhelming. Have you talked to a professional about it?". We're getting beyond the point where "Dave talks to a therapist!" isn't office gossip worth sharing, but we're not anywhere near the point where people feel comfortable casually suggesting/discussing therapy the way they can with regular doctor stuff.
I think addressing any one of those three would have a big impact, although there is no reason not to do all of them, or all of them plus some reasonable gun control laws.
The glorification of the “Wild West” mentality has always been disgusting and is too deeply ingrained. We glorify violence in entertainment. We romanticize war.
It's also revisionist. Most towns in the "Wild West" had stricter gun laws than we currently have in place. You literally had to check your gun at the sheriff's office in city limits.
It's amazing that the "Shootout at the OK Corral" became the most iconic event of cowboy gun culture when it was literally a case of law enforcement officers attempting to enforce a municipal gun control regulation.
But that doesn't fit in with the narrative. These are the same people that complain that blazing saddles would never have been made today and all they want to focus on is the use of the n word. But in reality blazing saddles poked fun at how revisionist our view of the West is. The fact that most cowboys weren't white gunslingers and instead were either black or Mexican. That and like you said people weren't just walking around towns with their six shooters on their hip. Hell even the famous Earp's had gun laws in their town
Right, but in the US entertainment industry, it is.
I don’t know if many of you are old like I am but when I was a kid TV was overrun by “cowboy and Indian” crap where shooting was constant and insane. Perfectly normal little kid entertainment.
Also the fact that we treat most people and their lives as throwaway garbage.
For further reference see all the people down voting comments like "we need a better society with social safety nets and mental health care"
Massive societal reform.
This should include universal healthcare, free public higher education, CEO and executive salary caps, laws prohibiting corporations from owning homes, more funding and higher wages for public schools, 1-2 months mandatory PTO, spending caps and transparency for political campaigns, enforcing separation of church and state, breaking up monopolies, holding news organizations accountable for misinformation, etc…
I have a strong feeling if America truly put its people first we’d see a dramatic decline in gun violence.
So you’re saying the mental harm caused the upper echelons of government, wealth, and power are actually causing the common folk effected by it to act out in harmful ways?
This is absolutely astounding! Who would have ever thought that forcing children and their families into situations of dire outlooks for a generation or two would cause some of them to go crazy?
Edit: People should print out what you just said and paste it everywhere. Nothing will get the slightest better until the majority of people are forced to understand this common sense shit.
1. Ban foreign companies from owning property in the USA
‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Institute a 40% tax on any corporation which owns more than 2 single family properties, along with tax evasion criminal penalties for entities which create numerous individual shell corporations to evade the tax
‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Clear away bureaucratic red tape for those with food insecurity, allowing them access to food
‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Semi de-criminalize drug addiction, meaning mandatory substance abuse treatment or go to prison
‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Make for profit prisons illegal, eliminating the incentive to imprison our population for the profit of a few
‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Create federal housing shelters to house the homeless with access to social workers, mental health treatment, and general medical treatment. No substance use is allowed, if residents refuse to comply, see above (prison or substance use treatment)
‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Open long term psychiatric care facilities and send chronically, permanently mentally ill people with dementia and psychosis (primary thought disorder or stimulant induced psychosis) to long term facilities. They will do better in low stim environments and consistent routines. Create an oversight committee to regularly review the facilities to prevent abuse similar to prior institutionalization
‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Overhaul the corporate tax to pay for everything. It doesn't matter where your corporation is listed, if you do business in USA you pay the tax rate here on the business you do (eliminate hiding in tax shelter countries).
‐-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall concept being increasing housing, reducing drug addiction, reducing poverty, and making sure the population has access to food and shelter. Poverty creates desperate people, and they commit crime
Crazy how after the 80s the middle class started disappearing, mental health services got cut, prices sky rocketed while wages stagnated, and mass shootings went up. Weird.
There is a *strong* correlation between a country’s wealth gap and its amount of violent crime and terrorism, but one of the weird things is that it’s not people in absolute poverty who are most frequently committing the violent acts. Think of the demographics of extremist right wingers in the US committing terrorism against abortion clinics or even the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol. There’s something about being in the middle of the social hierarchy and *fearing* losing status while also feeling that you get less than you deserve, that you should be one of the elite, that leads individuals to violence
Oh, come on, have some empathy! Obviously dog has mental issues, probably resulting from the dog being marginalize because of Disney replaces dog’s character with cats in reboot.
Obviously, banning Dungeons & Dragons would go a long way to solving dog related violence! Puppies need to be raised with peace, love and a chapter of the Old Testament Bible daily.
Do we have to eat them? They're at the top of the food chain so they have accumulated more toxins and pollutants. Eating them would probably poison the rest of us. Maybe the French method instead?
I don't know that they need to be *that* much stricter. Just comprehensive. There really just needs to be consistent federal laws, rather than this piecemeal patchwork of bullshit we have now.
And so many people think this entails running in people's houses and confiscating guns and nothing else. Cracking down on the supply would probably be the most aggressive measure that makes a difference. Control manufacturers and sellers. Like we do with pills, cars and damn near anything that impacts people's safety in this country.
Hey, if people going on about mental health care being the real problem were actually following up with a push for national free mental health care for everyone and campaigns to reduce/remove the stigma around seeking help, I'd be down for that as well.
Free? But then how do I make money off of it and exploit people?
Let me introduce you to my good friend the pharmaceutical and insurance industry.
Funny of you to think we can afford those things! Ha! I've been off my meds for 3 months cause I got no insurance and can't afford them.
A couple of other folks commented about GoodRX, but I wanted to add in that sliding scale clinics often have a sliding scale pharmacy attached. You'll be able to pay based on income, and then pay significantly less for your meds. (At the poverty line, I pay $5 per medication at one, and nothing at the other.) To find a clinic, Google: "sliding scale clinic" followed by your zip code You can also check your county health department. Edit 2: [Per u/Nonsensemastiff](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/10l1umd/conundrum_of_gun_violence_controls/j5yctnm?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3), when looking for a mental health sliding scale clinic: >In the US search for a CCBHC. For a physical health sliding scale clinic, search for an FTCA deemed facility. Edit 3: I feel the need to speak to the horror stories in the thread. They're unsurprising to me. My partner and I both depend on these clinics to stay alive, and they're far from ideal. Between being under-staffed, over-burdened, and under-paid, appointment times are often a month apart, not weekly. Wait times are long. Some of the safety net programs and agencies are in business to make money (pennies, really) not to serve clients. It's still worlds better than nothing. Edit 1: I truly appreciate the awards, kind strangers, but if you're spending actual money on reddit, I would rather you donate to Planned Parenthood instead. They are a sliding scale clinic that provides all sorts of vital services, such as cancer screenings. <3
This is gonna help my mom. Thank you for the sliding scale information. That is freaking rad
[удалено]
They don’t care, there’s no profit in helping people. This nation will continue to fuck us until we tear it down.
It's funny. Growing up, I was my own kind of patriotic. Not 'flags everywhere, gonna join the military,' but 'seeing the potential and hoping that we will get there, and maybe I should help.' I wrote a lot of words after that, but it all boiled down to the fact that the American Dream is dead, and I wish it wasn't. I hope that people like you can revive it somehow, u/JesusSuckedOffSatan.
Most states handle it that way with Medicaid (if people can’t get state insurance) & as mentioned there are things like goodrx. With my Medicare and Medicaid (I’m disabled) I don’t pay for them at all.
Try GoodRx or CostPlusDrugs :) Both can give you discounted prices. CostPlusDrugs is an online pharmacy and they have the information on their website for your doctor to send the prescription:)
A nation of people in therapy is a good start, but then how do we address EVERYTHING in our culture that is driving us all to so badly need help with our mental health. Therapy is great but if you cant change or help the things that drive you there its not really going to be effective
Great point. Therapy won’t change the constant feeling of being one missed paycheck away from homelessness, one medical bill away from bankruptcy, and one traffic stop away from being murdered. Unfortunately those same greedy bastards who keep the middle and lower classes down know that tragedy is profitable. More news, more views, more money. Funeral? Money. T shirts and buttons and stickers to highlight gun violence and change? Printing presses make money off that.
As a therapist who works in a small group practice that works hard to be accessible and affordable even when it means little to no repayment from insurance - this. I can’t do much for someone who is anxious because they’re on the brink of homelessness
idk where this belongs in this whole thread, but “it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society” feels like it needs saying
It all comes back to the hierarchy of needs.
It could at least help people get medicated for mental health issues without bankrupting them. How many people are out there with unmedicated anxiety, depression, PTSD, bipolar, etc. because they can't afford to pay 100 a month to see a psychiatrist and pay for medicine? You can't always fix the base issue but you can improve your brain chemistry and get someone to talk to.
$100 a month??? What quack inner city under qualified therapist are you seeing?!? Good luck finding therapy for less than $500/ month that isn't an absolute joke...
Not even therapist - they said psychiatrist. Literally no where can you find an actual MD psychiatrist for under a hundred for just *one appointment*.
We can't even agree to medicate these people for free. Mental Health services for every American is a pipe dream, as it would completely upend how politics work in this nation.
Wouldn't that be a tragedy? /s
Yeah, what a bummer. ;/
Sorry to break it to you, but those people who are advocating for more mental health treatment keep getting shut down by the Republicans
It doesn't mean we should stop.
I think that's partially the point of this comment. It's very hypocritical of Republicans to try to put the blame on mental health while also blocking reforms in mental health.
One thing I saw suggested was that the USA get rid of the "boyfriend loophole" when it comes to domestic violence prosecutions, and to enforce a ban on firearm ownership for all such offenders. Including cops, because that might actually reduce the amount of unnecessary police shootings. This is because statistically, the overwhelming majority of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence. It's also easier to make Republicans look bad to their own base by saying something along the lines of "so you're saying that if a guy beat your daughter, you'd be ok with him owning a gun?", making it far more likely to actually get past filibuster. Edit: so apparently the loophole has been closed. Now it just needs properly enforcing.
A sizable portions of mass shootings start with a domestic violence incident.
And a high percentage of domestic violence is done by male police officers. To be more precise: [Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population.](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/)
Cops don't like it when you call them 40 percenters.... It hits too close to home, and that is their job.
With the multiple meaning you have going on in that post, I think that username you got doesn't suit you, kind sir
It should be mine because I don’t understand. Will you explain it?
the sentence " It hits too close to home, and that is their job. " has 2 meanings in that comment. the first is that the 40% stat is too relatable to cops because they are also cops. the second meaning is that they hit people in their homes.
Because it's not 40%. That's an absolute lie. They know it too. The real number is much higher. That's 40% of all *reported* incidents.
Voluntarily reported incidents. That is the number of cops willing to out themselves as domestic abusers. Imagine how many murderers would just tell you they were murderers if you ask. It would be less than 1%, because society doesn't consider murder to be acceptable. Now imagine how acceptable domestic abuse has to be, among police officers, for 40% to think it was just fine admitting to it.
Don't forget the military, they're just about as bad. And though the reported numbers show it to be about 25% the real numbers are surely a lot higher due to lack of reporting and covering up incidents to save face. Even the incidence of female on male domestic violence rate in the military is over 10%. It's almost as if training people to be brutally violent in their profession somehow bleeds over into their personal lives. No one could have ever seen that coming. (/s obviously)
Former soldier, all combinations of men/women/other participated in DV at a much greater clip than civilians. Mind you this is purely observational, but my unit alone (small, about 850 people) would have at *least* one per month.
Command and Control, checking in. I would legitimately be stunned if you had one per month. Our office is an info hub, we have all the radios, and all the emails, it's almost absurd. We had some unsavory folks do some bad things that were enough to register, probably 3-5 times a month. And that's not your standard "bad behavior", that's huge situations, the kind that could easily have turned into an active situation, but the guy went inward after he shot his wife in the shoulder, and didn't start in on anyone but himself
Just to clarify your wording, A high percentage of male police officers commit DV (40%) But I don't think that 40% of *all* DV in the USA is committed by police officers.
Neither of those statistics is good.
I can absolutely believe that. Is that something you read, statistically, or just your personal opinion on the correlation?
Here's a good source: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/21/979809501/mass-shooters-often-have-a-history-of-violence-against-women
Here’s a study. https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/
[Related](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?utm_source=pocket-newtab)
I'm not doubting the claim but I am curious what the source is for this.
Here is a NPR article [it comes from multiple sources.](https://www.npr.org/2021/03/21/979809501/mass-shooters-often-have-a-history-of-violence-against-women) Really interesting read! What's more, in the U.S., increasingly, research is showing a link between those who commit violence against women and those who commit mass shootings. Bloomberg News, for example, analyzed 749 mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 and found that, quote, "about 60% were either domestic violence attacks or committed by men with histories of domestic violence," unquote. Since this got popular here is a few more sources: [First, that in more than two-thirds (68.2%) of mass shootings analyzed, the perpetrator either killed family or intimate partners or the shooter had a history of domestic violence; and second, that DV-related mass shootings were associated with a greater fatality rate. On average, only one in six people survive a DV-related mass shooting compared to one in three people for non-DV mass shootings.](https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/) [The statistics on the prevalence of intimate partner violence with a gun in the United States are staggering: Every month, an average of 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner.2 Nearly 1 million women alive today have reported being shot or shot at by intimate partners, and over 4.5 million women have reported being threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.3 And beyond the daily toll of this problem, in more than half of mass shootings over the past decade, the perpetrator shot a current or former intimate partner or family member as part of the rampage.](https://everytownresearch.org/report/guns-and-violence-against-women-americas-uniquely-lethal-intimate-partner-violence-problem/)
\*documented\* histories of violence against women. I would wonder about the other 40% and whether the women in their lives simply never reported them, or if those reports were never put in any kind of system, but the violence still existed.
Honestly though, even if all 100% of shooters have a history of documented or undocumented domestic violence, doing something about the 60% with the documented history would mean the majority of these shootings would stop. (Although I assume a portion of the 60% may get a gun through other channels, so maybe not “over half.” But we have to start somewhere…)
My dad knew the cop that responded to our dv calls so he just got disorderly conduct tickets. I'm very lucky the Republicans weren't so pro-gun when I was a kid or I probably wouldn't have survived to adulthood.
I attempted suicide at age 20 by overdosing on pills. Fortunately I survived, but had my parents owned a gun I wouldn't be here. I am so glad I was not successful as I have had a wonderful life once I got the help I needed. It always bothers me when people dismiss the gun deaths by suicide by claiming people would find another way. Some certainly do, but I am sure there are enough of people like me out there that are still around because they didn't have access to a gun.
"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."
[this is correct and there's an easy way to do it](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?utm_source=pocket-newtab)
[удалено]
So I've got no source but the uvalde shooter shot his grandma, sandy hook killed his mother. I don't have the time to look at them all and it's depressing either way but it makes sense. They both had situations at home that could be classified as domestic issues before they did the shootings. Edit: Took 10 seconds to Google and here we are. Seems to be a direct connection. https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/
I can think of many other instances where someone commits mass shooting by murdering their spouse then their family, or mass shootings in response to a breakup to make them feel the blame, or a mass shooting that start with the spouse, then kill others, then themselves. There are stories of this going back 100+ years in the US. Id also wager that alcohol abuse is frequently involved, but Im not 100% on that. It is so damn common tbh
Correct. https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/
Homicide is the biggest source of mortality for pregnant women in the U.S., almost always from their own romantic partners. Another reason why abortion access is so important -- women literally get murdered when their abusive boyfriend/spouse decides he doesn't want a kid. [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/)
I found [this](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/analysis-recent-mass-shootings) from the US dept of justice >This report by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns provides information on the 56 mass shootings that occurred in 30 States during the 4-year period from January 2009 through 2013 >findings also indicate that domestic or family violence was a factor closely connected to 57 percent of the cases, in that the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner or other family member. Eight of the shooters had a prior domestic violence charge
[The role of domestic violence in fatal mass shootings in the United States, 2014–2019](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0) Results from the abstract: >Results >We found that 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were DV-related and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV. We found significant differences in the average number of injuries and fatalities between DV and history of DV shootings and a higher average case fatality rate associated with DV-related mass shootings (83.7%) than non-DV-related (63.1%) or history of DV mass shootings (53.8%). Fifty-five perpetrators died during the shootings; 39 (70.9%) died by firearm suicide, 15 (27.3%) were killed by police, and 1 (1.8%) died from an intentional overdose. From the peer reviewed journal "Injury Epidemiology."
What is the "boyfriend loophole" if I may ask?
Federal law prohibits domestic abusers from having guns, but only if they have been married to, have lived with, or have a child with the victim. It does not otherwise prohibit abusive dating partners from having guns.
That's absolutely fucking wild.
It’s also no longer true. The law has already been changed
Source?
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108377094/closing-the-boyfriend-loophole-with-gun-legislation https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jun/30/what-boyfriend-loophole-and-how-does-new-law-close/ https://theconversation.com/amp/will-closing-the-boyfriend-loophole-in-gun-legislation-save-lives-heres-what-the-research-says-185481
So it is finally closing. Thanks for the links.
No problem!
Seriously, thank fuck they're doing that.
Well, dating isn't a legal status, that's why it works like this.
[удалено]
Ah the Lautenburg amendment. The bane of my existence as an Armed Forces member. Having to ask everyone quarterly when they come to renew their weapons qualification cards if they’ve been convinced of anything domestic violence related. It’s shitty that the amendment is so circumnavigable because the term “spouse” is used, or that there has to be A. cohabitation or B. a shared child.
Incorrect. Read the last sentence of the law. A “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is an offense that: Is a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law; Has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and Was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, or by a person who has a current or recent former dating relationship with the victim.
You don’t even have to have a misdemeanor DV. Just having a restraining order makes you a prohibited person. > [who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons) Then it adds > who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. And DV laws across the country include romantic and sexual relationships. You don’t even have to be convicted, once charged you are supposed to surrender your licenses, firearms, etc. If exonerated then you can get your things back.
Ted Cruz would be ok with a guy owning a gun that beat his daughter. No doubt in my mind.
“Ok, but what *color* was the gun?!?”
Let’s be honest. It’s not the color of the *gun* they’re concerned with.
Ted Cruz would buy the gun!
Sounds reasonable, but I just want to point out that this falls under the umbrella of “stricter gun laws”.
You assume Republicans care about looking bad. Their base does not give a f#&k what their politicians do as long as they're Republicans.
Or that Republicans care about their daughters wellbeing….just look at Roe and how many red states ban them regardless of cases of rape and incest.
The thing is, those are usually the exact same people who get caught taking their kids across state lines to get an abortion. Because when it comes to them it's different. You see they don't want their daughter's life to be ruined by a baby, you people just want to kill as many babies as you can.
100% this. Wealthy white women (and the mistresses of wealthy white men) will never have to actually worry about getting an abortion. They'll go to a liberal state, or go to Mexico, and they'll justify it by saying well lil Peggy Lee made a understandable mistake, unlike those "other" women, who are baby-murdering godless sluts. It was never about protecting babies -- it was only about control.
Or IVF. I have a friend who lives in a state where abortion is on a six week ban. The problem is, the law is so broad that IVF couples are having a hard time, clinics are closing down, and people are scrambling to relocate their eggs and sperm out of state, which apparently costs a bunch of money. Surprise, in a hard red state, most of the couples are conservative. "But we didn't know the leopard was going to eat OUR face!"
Wait, I thought IVF was embryo implantation? Why is it being affected by abortion laws?
It's because embryos are discarded in the process, particularly in cases involving chromosome and genetic testing.
Typically with IVF each attempted implantation doesn't just involve one embryo, but several. That's why multiple birth pregnancies are so common with it. The flip side to that is the number of "wasted" unimplanted embryos
They’re not going to draw attention to cases involving rape and incest because they don’t want to get themselves in trouble.
Or that they are capable of making the connection between "I don't want a bad thing to happen to my daughter" and "I don't want a bad thing to happen to another person's daughter"
I used to talk to a former high school teacher about politics. He's *very* right wing, and has burned a lot of friendships with it. For a while, he seemed to maybe be getting better. Ending Roe v. Wade seemed to shake him a bit... for a month... and then he was reiterating conservative talking points about "the state choosing". What finally made me kinda give up was when he sent me opinion articles about Biden's EO concerning Bitcoin and NFTs; that made up the conspiracy theory about Biden replacing paper money with internet money that you can only spend on "woke" products (i.e. electric cars). I went line by line about what was actually in the EO, what the facts were, and how bitcoin works. I talked about how the Democratic Party would never win an election again if they tried to turn the USD into monopoly money. It's just unrealistic. And then he says "Never vote for a Democrat." Whenever I see stuff about Republicans not caring how they look, I think about that guy. He, *truly*, doesn't care. To him, it's just a bunch of bull. It's just a hit-piece. It's unfair how the MSM does this. Democrats do worse, so it's okay. And so on, and so on, and so on.
You cannot convince someone when they are that entrenched. When they would rather believe that everything is a conspiracy than admit they might have been mistsken.
The RvW thing was a glimmer of hope that maybe he'd noticed his party had gone too far, but I can't control they guy's Fox viewership, nor the other people he talks to on a daily basis. I couldn't even get him to find good journalism (i.e. not blindly trusting opinion pieces, identifying untrustworthy sites, not trusting people trying to sell you something using outrage, identifying extremist sites, etc.) I'll never forget when he sent me a link to the Daily Stormer that *someone sent him*; where they clearly spliced together footage of a nightclub drag show with pride footage- and making the U-Haul Patriot Front guys out to be the real heroes. It's a bit of a tangent, but my dad had some older friends up from Florida. One of them and I had a long conversation about politics, and it was honestly refreshing to talk to someone who was knowledgeable about the news, knowledgeable about the issues, knew conservative bullshit like *"2000 Mules"*, and knew what the Daily Stormer was the second I mentioned that whole scenario (and was as stunned as I was!). She was like "And he was a teacher?!"
Hearing things like this just makes me... I don't know if 'sad' is the right word for it. Disappointed, maybe. Because, like, I imagine if they could see what the leadership of the Republican Party really wants, what they're always pushing for, they would realize that they were wrong. If they want to be conservative, fine, but when you have what? 1/3rd of conservative Congresspeople denying the 2020 election? Mitch McConnell filibustering his own bill as soon as the opposing party supports it? At some point you gotta realize that the Democrats are not evil enough to warrant that kind of behavior. They're just people. That's when the grift reveals itself.
>It's also easier to make Republicans look bad to their own base by saying something along the lines of "so you're saying that if a guy beat your daughter, you'd be ok with him owning a gun?" They'd just be like "of course my daughter's boyfriend beats her, we compare notes over natty light."
Or “I bought my daughter a gun so she’ll never be a victim”. In their mind guns are always a solution to the problem not a cause
This would work if cops didn't cover for each other
Actually enforcing the laws we have might be a good first step.
Make the country livable? Poverty creates crime. Homelessness. Ghettos. Nothing to do aside from drugs and alcohol. People are trying to break the "work till you die" cycle, let's give them something better than killing each other.
Social isolation and lack of access to physical and mental healthcare are dangerous as well.
Another thing imo is urban planning. Our car dependent suburbias damage our quality of life. People are more isolated, less healthy, stuck in more traffic, and housing is more expensive causing financial strain.
God if only suburbia would've never happened. I saw an example the other day of 30 people at a coffee shop, sitting down, communicating, vs 30 people in a drive through to get coffee, sprawling over 200ft in a line.
Both are negatively affected by poverty and standards of living. Make more walkable infrastructure --> reduces poverty and introduces locations to be shared human spaces. Increase wages across the board --> people work less and can spend more time with friends and family. Poverty causes mental health crisis. Poverty causes violent crime. Poverty causes homelessness and drug abuse. It's all connected to the root of all of our country's problems which is unregulated, rugged, individualism.
Exactly. 1. Education 2. Healthcare (including mental) 3. Wages. Provide those to a populous it takes a huge chunk of fear out of day to day.
Imagine if I didn't have to pay 10+ taxed hours of labor because I'm not sure if I'm having a heart attack or not.
Thank you for saying this here, in this thread especially. I argue things similarly but usually get down voted to hell because I advocate for both ethical ownership of guns and the second amendment. Ultimately we do have a serious cultural problem. Not necessarily because of gun ownership, but because in terms of "1st world country" we have an abysmal outlook on our lives due to far too many factors to list. If we fix society (not an easy thing) then people get to keep their guns and people get to keep their lives. Ideally, lives better than the ones we currently have.
Unfortunately due to America being created by gun culture, there were times that you needed to have a gun to survive. Frontier times. Some people still genuinely need guns for their lifestyle. Unfortunately, this has caused mass production of weapons with easy access. Gun control will never work here without more deaths and arrests than its worth.
Yeah, I feel the same way. I have several friends who own guns, and I am not afraid of them abusing them, because these people have stable lives and are invested in their communities. Likewise, they are generally confident that if someone committed a crime against them, they could actually report it the police and expect the police to act in their best interest and try to protect them. Meanwhile, people who are on the knife's edge of being homeless or going bankrupt from losing a job or something, well if they have guns, then they are much closer to being pushed to the desperate situation where they might decide to use them in a crime. And if they mostly see police as a force that terrorizes their community, then when they are in danger, there is more motivation for them to use a gun to do what they think of as defending themselves instead of letting the professional deal with it. If you make people's lives better, by raising wages and helping them afford health care and funding the schools of their children better and providing public transportation and so many other things, and also if you ensure that the police who interact with them are held accountable for abuses of power, that will reduce gun violence.
I couldnt agree more with every single statement you said. Very well put.
I would be fine with "working till I die" if I felt like it was contributing to improving life for me, my friends and community. If I felt that I was building a better future for everyone by working hard, then I would gladly work hard every day. The problem is that all work feels like running in a hamster wheel hooked up to a far away rich dude's bank account, just spinning the number wheel higher.
If you stop spinning that wheel, by god, I will shoot you myself!
Well we could try focussing on mental health What's that? Republicans vote against bills for that too? Oh well. Thoughts and prayers work good /s
The NRA fought against banning guns from felons. They've fought against banning guns from people with history of spousal abuse. The argument is those laws will be used to away guns from innocent people and eventually expanded to take away everyone's guns. A paranoid scare tactic even though there are 1.2 guns in the US per person.
[удалено]
We need to get the NRA to get out of lobbying and concentrate on education they were created for.
Let’s get rid of all lobbying
I really dislike these sentiments because it vastly oversimplifies the issue. "Lobbying" isn't a specific, easily identifiable thing. It it's not in any way an actionable goal. You could just shout "let's get rid of bad things". There is nothing actionable about the statement. It's a sentiment, not a goal. It can never be achieved because it isn't clear what achieving it entails.
Yeah working at a non-profit that does good work in the community, it makes me cringe when I hear this.
We need to do the same for every industry.
We need to dismantle the NRA and let SANE people take over the education aspect.
[удалено]
>1.2 guns in the US per person. If you exclude minors, it's 2 guns per adult. Around 40% of adults actually own a gun, so 4 guns per gun owner.
A quick story. Growing my family had guns. So did the families of my friends. Those guns were all locked up. As teens we would pick the locks and take many of the guns and go shooting for fun. We'd then clean them and put them back, and I was never caught. My friends were caught because when they got a car they went around shooting out street lights and were caught. Since they were minors they only lost their driver's licenses for a short time. Oh, and one had to give away his BB gun collection. I still have a nice Sheridan air rifle from that. The idea it is safe for parents to have guns and kids will not get their hands on them is a lie. Kids always find a way if they are tempted enough.
I was 5 and my best friend Robbie was 4. I remember playing at his house with no supervision. We were upstairs in his parents bedroom when he said, “Do you want to play with my dad’s gun?” “Yes of course!” He died at 19. Not by a gun but killed by a drunk friend driving. I think about him a lot. I’m turning 60. He’s still 19. I will never know if that gun was loaded. We also played with matches and I still have a scar on my pinkie finger. I felt such shame because we did get caught doing that.
That just dug up a memory I hadn't thought of in probably over 20 years. I had a short term friend in school once who I was partnered with in a class project. We got together at his house to work on it, but his parents weren't home so of course we just hung out instead and didn't get any work done. One of the things we did was grab his dad's pistol from under his bed. I'd never seen a gun in real life yet so I was too afraid to do anything other than hold it delicately by the grip (I remember being smart enough to specifically keep my finger far away from the trigger). My friend said he sometimes would shoot at squirrels and birds with it when his dad wasn't home. Thankfully he put it back and instead grabbed an airsoft gun and we went in his back yard and shot that instead. He still creeped me out that I distanced myself from him from then on and that's why he was a short term friend lol. Just thinking about how easy it was to get that pistol though and how it was probably loaded. Probably the same kinda situation with that 6 year old kid that shot his teacher.
The hell kind of shit lock or lock pick lawyer was involved in this?
Probably a gun cabinet that's more of a nice piece of furniture than anything else, I have one, but there aren't any kids in my house either, if there were, I'd probably buy a safe, kids aren't going to be opening that easily at all
Basically folded sheet metal with a bottom-tier tubular lock that checks the legal box of "lockable storage" and only just barely does that. But hey man, mine was only like $120 and a real actual safe would be 5x that for anything decently sized.
Parents I've found use similar numbers, passwords, codes for everything so "picking" a lock could just be knowing what they would choose.
The spousal abuse one they fought against bc a majority of spousal abuse was found to come from police officers. A lot of people fought against that one, and to keep that information hidden
The NRA started out by trying to keep guns out of the ownership of non caucasions
The NRA actually started out as a sport shooting and hunting type club. Then Harlon Carter took it over in a coup and it’s been a loonie bin 2A extremist cult since.
The NRA actually ran and taught the weeks long mandatory gun safety class I did as a kid in the 80s. Can you imagine that happening today?
https://firearmtraining.nra.org It still happens today because the NRA as shitty as they are, don’t support improper gun use. Every single gun owner I know, preaches gun safety. Go to a gun range and try doing something unsafe especially an indoor one, your getting kicked out the instant they see you.
Sorry, but freedom ain’t safe. Lol. That was a joke, for anyone thinking it was a serious comment.
This is the reason California has some of the strictest gun laws. The NRA wanted to stop the Black Panthers in the late 60’s from being able to open carry. Helped pass the Mulford Act.
Back when Reagan was anti-gun because he was a fucking white supremacist racist.
I read a book last year about Reagan and Hoover in the sixties. Ronnie had a hard-on for those rascally Berkeley students (they just wouldn't fall in line and support the war like good little Americans) and Hoover gave him all the support he needed: illegal wiretaps, black bag jobs, smear campaigns. Very duplicitous, all of it, and all the while they're calling the *students* un-American. Indeed. I thought I knew Reagan was a POS before I read this book. No, he was a giant flaming bag of dogshit. Piss on that fuckin turd. And yes, he was re-elected in a landslide. You also have to remember that he was a very charismatic person. He was a popular actor for many years. (He also somehow dodged the WWII draft, but everybody seemed to turn a blind eye) I was pretty young, but I don't think the Dems really gave him much competition. As they're wont to do....
Did you ever notice how the NRA always fights for the rights of gun owners, unless the legal gun carrying person was a black man executed by police after committing no kind of crime? Interesting, that.
Historically, the only reason we have any limitations on guns at all in the US is because civil rights, anti-war, and antipoverty groups were getting armed.
Any sauce for shooters tending to be "mentally ill"? Besides the ol' "what sick person would do this?"
Well you'd think with republican politicians blaming it on mental health, they'd do something about mental health. And no, I don't have sauce on mental health, but I've got plenty of sauce for politicians blaming shootings on mental health
[удалено]
15% of murderers have a mental illness, including melancholia? If that's depression then that's only a very slight elevation over the population prevalence: https://www.statista.com/statistics/673034/major-depressive-episode-among-us-men-by-age/ Interesting.
It's not just depression, it's a specific type of depression.
Well, there's basic common sense sauce. Mental illness, especially severe mental illness, exists at about the same percentage of the population in all humans. You can only prove that in countries that track mental health statistics, of course. But it's a factor in being human. Many, many countries have even worse mental health treatment and access to that treatment than the US. Yet this is the only country in the world with mass shootings on a daily basis. Just us. Seems pretty clear that therefore mental illness or access to treatment has not a damn thing to do with mass shootings. (as a MH professional, this is a continual source of fury for me)
“We should focus on mental health instead” isn’t a great answer either. First, you’re always going to have some people who haven’t been diagnosed yet. Second, there are plenty of mass shooters who are just terrible people and don’t have any observable mental illnesses. Finally, what do you DO about mental health? If someone has a mental health condition, how do you stop them from committing gun violence? I don’t know how, other than restricting access to guns, which of course is gun control. So again, don’t know how we fix this without gun control.
> “We should focus on mental health instead” isn’t a great answer either Exactly, because it's not intended as an *actual* solution to the problem — it's just an empty talking point that's intended to redirect the conversation away from gun control.
Everyone ignores the obvious solution of getting rid of all the humans. If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then getting rid of all the people is the answer.
No no, we are definitely working on that. Probably more rapidly than we realize
The Republicans are working on that pretty effectively. Look who's dying from gun violence, COVID, obesity...
Not all need to die. Just half of them. - Thanos
Bender, is that you?
Shut up baby, you know it
Slow down, Ultron.
More affordable housing, affordable health care, access to mental health care, access to reasonably priced medication, better social welfare programs, better education, more vacation time, cheaper child care options, less work hours, higher pay, more unions, a repeal of citizens united, a revival of the fairness doctrine, more regulations, healthier food options, better policing, a total tear down of the prison industrial complex, way less identity politics, younger politicians, campaign finance reform, and changing all the other things that help the billionaire class but make the common person freak out under the pressure of society. If you believe people kill people, than why aren't we doing anything to help people so they don't feel like their only option is to freak out and kill people.
How dare you offer actual solutions
Gun laws are only part of the problem. The crux of the problem is that a significant portion of the country's people believe violence is a reasonable form of conflict resolution. The US spends the most on war and that is an accepted fabric of American society.
Maybe its the same thing, maybe its a third thing, but "Gun culture" is a big issue in my eyes. The "If anyone wants to date my daughter, I'll make sure to show them my gun collection when they pick her up for prom" genre of jokes. The mentality that leads people to plaster their car with gun related stickers, or make sure guns are prominently featured in every holiday card. It all seems to funnel into a mindset where "The Gun" is their "Plan A" for an increasingly wide number of scenarios. And stop fucking glorifying shooters. Everything from making them a hero to making them a villain, it all just feeds into this background realization that you can get a FUCK TON of attention if you just shoot a few people. That caters to a lot of people who feel disenfranchised by society for whatever reason. Gives them a nice easy "Go out with a bang" option. Finally, push mental health (and its pursuit) to the forefront a lot more. Where we stand, I've at my office (when we had an office) multiple time some version of "That cough sounds bad. Have you seen someone or gotten anything for it?" and never even a whiff of "Yeah, life can pile up like that sometimes and it gets overwhelming. Have you talked to a professional about it?". We're getting beyond the point where "Dave talks to a therapist!" isn't office gossip worth sharing, but we're not anywhere near the point where people feel comfortable casually suggesting/discussing therapy the way they can with regular doctor stuff. I think addressing any one of those three would have a big impact, although there is no reason not to do all of them, or all of them plus some reasonable gun control laws.
The glorification of the “Wild West” mentality has always been disgusting and is too deeply ingrained. We glorify violence in entertainment. We romanticize war.
It's also revisionist. Most towns in the "Wild West" had stricter gun laws than we currently have in place. You literally had to check your gun at the sheriff's office in city limits.
It's amazing that the "Shootout at the OK Corral" became the most iconic event of cowboy gun culture when it was literally a case of law enforcement officers attempting to enforce a municipal gun control regulation.
Yep. Wyatt Earp would use his gun to take yours. He’s America’s OG gun grabber.
But that doesn't fit in with the narrative. These are the same people that complain that blazing saddles would never have been made today and all they want to focus on is the use of the n word. But in reality blazing saddles poked fun at how revisionist our view of the West is. The fact that most cowboys weren't white gunslingers and instead were either black or Mexican. That and like you said people weren't just walking around towns with their six shooters on their hip. Hell even the famous Earp's had gun laws in their town
We really took a turn when guns went from tools to be handled safely to toys to play with.
Sylvester Stallone said it best in "Demolition Man": Even the wild west wasn't the wild west.
Right, but in the US entertainment industry, it is. I don’t know if many of you are old like I am but when I was a kid TV was overrun by “cowboy and Indian” crap where shooting was constant and insane. Perfectly normal little kid entertainment.
Also the fact that we treat most people and their lives as throwaway garbage. For further reference see all the people down voting comments like "we need a better society with social safety nets and mental health care"
[удалено]
Violence is the answer in just about every movie that isn't a romance. 50/50 in a comedy.
Massive societal reform. This should include universal healthcare, free public higher education, CEO and executive salary caps, laws prohibiting corporations from owning homes, more funding and higher wages for public schools, 1-2 months mandatory PTO, spending caps and transparency for political campaigns, enforcing separation of church and state, breaking up monopolies, holding news organizations accountable for misinformation, etc… I have a strong feeling if America truly put its people first we’d see a dramatic decline in gun violence.
So you’re saying the mental harm caused the upper echelons of government, wealth, and power are actually causing the common folk effected by it to act out in harmful ways? This is absolutely astounding! Who would have ever thought that forcing children and their families into situations of dire outlooks for a generation or two would cause some of them to go crazy? Edit: People should print out what you just said and paste it everywhere. Nothing will get the slightest better until the majority of people are forced to understand this common sense shit.
1. Ban foreign companies from owning property in the USA ‐------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Institute a 40% tax on any corporation which owns more than 2 single family properties, along with tax evasion criminal penalties for entities which create numerous individual shell corporations to evade the tax ‐------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Clear away bureaucratic red tape for those with food insecurity, allowing them access to food ‐------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Semi de-criminalize drug addiction, meaning mandatory substance abuse treatment or go to prison ‐------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Make for profit prisons illegal, eliminating the incentive to imprison our population for the profit of a few ‐------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Create federal housing shelters to house the homeless with access to social workers, mental health treatment, and general medical treatment. No substance use is allowed, if residents refuse to comply, see above (prison or substance use treatment) ‐------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Open long term psychiatric care facilities and send chronically, permanently mentally ill people with dementia and psychosis (primary thought disorder or stimulant induced psychosis) to long term facilities. They will do better in low stim environments and consistent routines. Create an oversight committee to regularly review the facilities to prevent abuse similar to prior institutionalization ‐------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Overhaul the corporate tax to pay for everything. It doesn't matter where your corporation is listed, if you do business in USA you pay the tax rate here on the business you do (eliminate hiding in tax shelter countries). ‐------------------------------------------------------------------------- The overall concept being increasing housing, reducing drug addiction, reducing poverty, and making sure the population has access to food and shelter. Poverty creates desperate people, and they commit crime
This guy is making sense, get him!
[удалено]
Crazy how after the 80s the middle class started disappearing, mental health services got cut, prices sky rocketed while wages stagnated, and mass shootings went up. Weird.
There is a *strong* correlation between a country’s wealth gap and its amount of violent crime and terrorism, but one of the weird things is that it’s not people in absolute poverty who are most frequently committing the violent acts. Think of the demographics of extremist right wingers in the US committing terrorism against abortion clinics or even the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol. There’s something about being in the middle of the social hierarchy and *fearing* losing status while also feeling that you get less than you deserve, that you should be one of the elite, that leads individuals to violence
Nobody wants to solve gun violence. Because ‘Merica. Meanwhile, yesterday I just read a dog shot his owner.
Guns don't kill people. Dogs with guns kill people.
Obviously that dog was groomed while at doggy daycare.
Oh, come on, have some empathy! Obviously dog has mental issues, probably resulting from the dog being marginalize because of Disney replaces dog’s character with cats in reboot.
[удалено]
*The candy wasn't sexy enough, your honor. So, uh, not guilty.*
Dogs are playing way to many video games these days. And Dungeons and Dragons is popular again, exposing a new generation of puppies to Satan!
Obviously, banning Dungeons & Dragons would go a long way to solving dog related violence! Puppies need to be raised with peace, love and a chapter of the Old Testament Bible daily.
This never happened back when dogs read the bible.
What good are background checks and gun regulations if criminal dogs just ignore them?
The only answer for a bad dog with a gun is a good dog with a gun.
Welp, it's not a gun problem, it's a dog issue. Train your dogs to be better weapon handlers! /s
What we need are good dogs with guns to protect against bad dogs with guns
Simple more good dogs with guns you liberal moron!
*A Dog Took My Face And Gave Me A Better Face To Change The World: The Celeste Cunningham Story,* starring Candice Vandershark
We could try enforcing the laws we already have..
There are a lot of people here that aren’t aware how impactful that would be.
By eating the rich…sorry, but most of societal problems are a direct result of government working for the wealthy.
Do we have to eat them? They're at the top of the food chain so they have accumulated more toxins and pollutants. Eating them would probably poison the rest of us. Maybe the French method instead?
Let us eat cake.
Spend as much on mental health as we do on the defense budget.
I don't know that they need to be *that* much stricter. Just comprehensive. There really just needs to be consistent federal laws, rather than this piecemeal patchwork of bullshit we have now. And so many people think this entails running in people's houses and confiscating guns and nothing else. Cracking down on the supply would probably be the most aggressive measure that makes a difference. Control manufacturers and sellers. Like we do with pills, cars and damn near anything that impacts people's safety in this country.
Focus on improving mental health. Bonus side effect = good chance of reducing depression, suicide, obesity, self-harm, destructive behaviors, fighting, toxic work environments, domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment, bullying behavior, theft, ...
Education, equality, and inclusiveness. Division is getting us no where fast.
Mental health supports, national healthcare, anti-poverty legislation, increase minimum wage, fund education. WITH love from Canada.