Mental health practitioners, the ones licensed to prescribe, have no interest in residing and practicing where the most untreated per capitaMore restrictions on all firearms (explain)
- I think we need a required background check and at least 15 day waiting period for every single transfer of a firearm, even if it's a gift and not a sale.
- The background check to (hopefully) prevent people who have a serious record from acquiring one, and the waiting period to ensure someone who wanted a firearm to act on a "heat of the moment" rage of some kind has a cooling off period (won't work in all cases probably, but it should help).
Overhaul mental health care (explain)
- I think we need to make mental health care subsidized so it's completely free for people who can't afford it otherwise. This has to include everyone who needs it, even if they're not a citizen and even if they're in the country illegally.
- I think we need to educate the population so they know at least some basics about how to respond to someone who has a mental health issue, and beyond that so it's not a stigmatized and taboo subject, as it currently is in all too many areas of culture and territory.
- This will, quite obviously, take years and probably decades to accomplish.
I say we ban the media from turning mass shooters and other mass murderers into instant celebs. that means ban the media from releasing the name and picture of the mass murderer.That means prevent the media from interviewing people about the mass shooter and speculating as to why he did what he did.Also means banning the media from reading any of his suicide notes, diaries, manifestos or anything else written by the mass shooter. Studies show that mass shootings happen in clusters and the media is responsible for that.I think we all agree that something has to be done to thwart mass shootings and violence, in general, in the US.
Which do you consider the "something" that should be done?
Okay! Abolish both 1A and 2A !I say we ban the media from turning mass shooters and other mass murderers into instant celebs. that means ban the media from releasing the name and picture of the mass murderer.That means prevent the media from interviewing people about the mass shooter and speculating as to why he did what he did.Also means banning the media from reading any of his suicide notes, diaries, manifestos or anything else written by the mass shooter. Studies show that mass shootings happen in clusters and the media is responsible for that.
Mass Shootings Can Be Contagious, Research Shows
It may not be a coincidence that several mass shootings took place in one week. Research shows perpetrators are often inspired by media coverage of other shootings.www.npr.org
How Columbine Went Viral
Twenty years ago, two teenage gunmen killed 13 people at their suburban Colorado high school before taking their own lives. It became one of the largest news stories of the 1990s. Now, researchers are calling on media outlets to rethink coverage of mass shootings to prevent future tragedies...www.the74million.org
Mass shootings: Experts say violence is contagious, and 24/7 news cycle doesn't help
"We know that mass shootings are socially contagious and tend to occur in clusters," said Jillian Peterson, a criminology professor.www.nbcnews.com
Source for your claim?Most of the (serious) crime in the US (or any country) is committed by a small percentage of the total population. In other words, most of the (serious) crime is committed by a small subset of the population. That is why recidivism rates are such a big deal.
I don't believe your opinion. Any sources that support your claim?Both are factors - if the penalty is light then it reduces the fear of being caught.
Source for your claim?
Don't worry, not much is going to change. The kids will continue to be slaughtered. Along with a bunch of adults.I think we all agree that something has to be done to thwart mass shootings and violence, in general, in the US.
Which do you consider the "something" that should be done?
As the most incarcerating nation in the world, your claim is incorrect.A lot of violent crime is in response to other violent crimes. So if someone is locked up for violent crime, then you are not just preventing their future violent crime, but also some violent crime that would have possibly been in response to their future violent crime.
I don't believe your opinion. Any sources that support your claim?
You supplied no link to support your assertion (in post #70), thus are in no position to demand that from me.
Don't waste your time with the link trolling posters
Yeah, the possibility of infringing the rights of innocent peope is intolerable but the possibility of executing them is acceptable.The death penalty is 100% effective in eliminating repeat offenders.
Nope, too long. Highlight the part that proves your point.I included the link - read it.
Would you say most personns who are convicted of a major violent crime are actually innocent?Yeah, the possibility of infringing the rights of innocent peope is intolerable but the possibility of executing them is acceptable.
There a reason why capital punishment is just a Muslim and Asian thing nowadays. Those are the only people who have such a trust of and obedience to authority that they allow the State the right to execute citizens. Them and American conservatives.
Talk about reading it...You supplied no link to support your assertion (in post #70), thus are in no position to demand that from me.
Nope, too long. Highlight the part that proves your point.
Talk about reading it...
#70 clearly states that it is my opinion.
Of course I wouldnt. Would you say nobody has ever been wrongly convicted of a major violent crime?Would you say most personns who are convicted of a major violent crime are actually innocent?
No, but when there is no doubt?Of course I wouldnt. Would you say nobody has ever been wrongly convicted of a major violent crime?
There's supposed to be no doubt every time. It would be abysmally wrong-headed to say we'll only execute when there's no doubt. If there is doubt, what should the sentence be?No, but when there is no doubt?
There's supposed to be no doubt every time. It would be abysmally wrong-headed to say we'll only execute when there's no doubt. If there is doubt, what should the sentence be?
I dont trust the government or any other authorities to cut the grass in the parks or issue fishing licences without corruption and incompetence. I sure as hell dont support them having the power to execute citizens.
What is your problem with that? If you don't provide a source for an opinion, it remains an opinion. I(f you choose not to provide a source, I discount your opinion, and I could care less what you think of mine.Yep and in post #106 you stated “I don‘t believe your opinion.” and then asked for sources. Maybe it’s time for you to take your nap.
Most of the (serious) crime in the US (or any country) is committed by a small percentage of the total population. In other words, most of the (serious) crime is committed by a small subset of the population. That is why recidivism rates are such a big deal.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf
As far as criminal activity in the political arena, he must be describing elected G.O.P., their friends, and members of their staffs, if Trump's campaign, presidency, and the data here are an indication. It is reasonable to believe the same is true in other categories of crime, folks in each segment "cornering their market," so to speak!Source for your claim?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?