What is the profile of most of these shooters? White male mid 20's internet poster, heavy user of social media, sometimes a victim of bullying many times on several anti depressants loner single parent family no meaningful relationships with the opposite sex
Not sure all this is correct, just things I remember from some of the earlier events Now, anything we could do with the info above? You know, besides taking the entire populations guns? Would it involve changes to doctor patient privacy? Would it be better for instance to take a certain sector of society and "profile" them? Are the only answers to be discussed the disarming of everyone. I am just throwing out some different things for discussion
I would disagree. These guys know they will die, but pick places where others are not armed for maximum damage. Heck, even Ft Hood and Chattanooga shootings were in places where others could not be armed. Doubt this is all just coincidence.
Some of the things Panthro mentioned obviously have merit, but would take a good while before being effective. Still, going forward, there are lots of possibilities. But for this guy, what "common sense solutions" would have worked? He had determined to be embraced by the devil, so to speak. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/oregon-shooting-umpqua-gunman-chris-harper-mercer-what-we-know-n437351
If, in a situation, you already had a gun free zone, waiting periods, background checks, etc, and they did not work to stop the shooting being discussed, then what would you think that the demands from the left were all about wanting to do the same for other communities? Especially, if they say, "let's try em and see". Everyone seems to think that passing a few more laws will keep a psychotic murderer from acting. I have a carry conceal but have never carried a weapon on my person, but if I did and if I saw a gun inside a circle on a store entrance door, I would leave my weapon in the car. Unless of course, I was planning on killing a bunch of "unarmed" people. Then, no amount of door stickers or gun free zones or anything else would stop me. So, in this instance, would a bigger sticker help? Maybe a half dozen stickers? Stickers in multiple languages? Flashing stickers? What are the common sense solutions that actually stop the guy we are speaking of in this thread? Let's approach it that way.
Well, at least you gave it some thought, huh. Here is the deal. You and Mav are about the only guys on the left that are capable of debate, and there are few on the right also, but the point I am getting at was exactly what was shown on the MSNBC interview that someone posted. Just because you are against the killing of school children, does not make your solutions perfect, if you have solutions at all. As the video showed, gun free zones, background checks, blah, blah, blah, did not help this situation. "WE HAVE GOT TO DO SOMETHING" only comes up during these horrific school shootings it seems. So is it all deaths that have you up in arms, or the media blast, sensational ones? Is it compassion or opportunistic for the list of gun control desires to come out of the bag at each occurrence? If they would or would not work, we seem to hear that they are "common sense" measures. Here is the thing Tee, there has to be a bigger discussion of things surrounding these killings and they won't all line up with the democratic talking points nor the pub talking points. Everyone feels terrible when something like this happens, but I see many as using these situations to drive their agenda and not look for an overall solution. Many have mentioned Chicago, and it should not be used as an excuse for inaction, but it should also not be dismissed just because they deaths are not sensationalized like the school shootings. Single Parent Families Gangs Mental Health Pharmaceuticals Divorce Social Media Privacy Liberties and Rights Tons of things that have to go into a discussion, not just, "I care, so you should all adopt my views, whether they would work or not"? Trust, if I think the left is only after their agenda and not a solution, then I would balk. Same with the right, if they are only wanting to do the bidding of the money hungry NRA, then you wouldn't trust them either. No quick solutions here
The agendas here are not about saving lives, from either side. The agenda is to keep guns flowing freely at all costs and to get rid of guns at all costs. Neither side in the media wastes over 5 minutes (less than 30 seconds on the Huddle) to be shocked or saddened about the people, then immediately reach back behind the seat and grab their doctors bag of stupid, canned responses that we see in every tragedy. These same dumb ass comments are reflective of the lofty dialogue we see in DC, yet you guys make fun of THEM. You are the same, look in the mirror. You care about getting your story told and want an opportunity when the most people might be listening. And you mask it all under the umbrella that you care. You are just trying to score points and win the internet. Politicians in training. Guns are the most popular tool at this point, for crazy people, angry people, scorned lovers, bullied people, and sometimes religious and anti religious people. This is true. But do we look beyond the incident? "Common sense gun laws" vs "2nd amendment rights". There is no trust that either side wants what they say, same as in DC. The people of the country do not trust their lying leaders, so compromise is never reached. Same here. Sadly, the Huddle is the country right now. The peoples lives and solutions are not the goal, just the platform, carry on
Yep, this would be the quickest way to get him on the field, but just wondering if we are looking at him as having potential at LB at some point? Better choice might be to have him gain 10 lbs of muscle if it does not slow him down and compete with Horton/Ealy and the rest at DE. Playing him at LB would be a bigger learning curve I would figure