Gun Control Debate #2

[EuTuCroquet?]

You're asking what's the point? I think you're kidding, like concern trolling? Or playing devil's advocate?

If you're not, for real, please scroll back a page or two and read the links where doctors and experts explain the graphically horrific trauma caused by these firearms.

800+ wounded or killed in Vegas.

100 injured (half were killed) at Pulse night club.

14 wounded, 17 killed at Parkland.

The other firearms you mention don't shoot up to 50 rounds a minute (up to 400 if modded) at 2,300 feet per second. Firing dozens of bullets from large-capacity magazines and easily reloadable, compared to the five-bullet cartridge you mention. (?!?!) Like you admitted earlier, AR-15s are lousy for deer hunting! They're designed for human slaughter. IMOOMGLOL

Those arguments make false equivalencies when they're clearly, demonstrably unequal.

Thank you for asking, though. I can't explain it any clearer.

So, guns that are designed to kill, cause bodily harm, and do in fact kill. True. But not exactly breaking news is it? The higher velocity of a rifle cartridge does more damage than a bullet fired from a handgun at less velocity. Again, not breaking news. What is the reason for pointing out the damage a bullet might cause from a particular model of rifle? Just wondering, because as I’ve mentioned previously, the AR-15 uses what would be considered to be a small caliber bullet (.223). And some people are apparently thinking that a good reason to ban such rifles is because of the terrible wounds they might cause to a human body. I have to ask- what about a bolt action rifle with a magazine that holds five of the same cartridge, the 223 Remington? Do you want to ban these rifles as well? What about even bigger calibers that cause even bigger wounds? Like the ones used for deer and elk hunting? Do away with those as well? Just curious as to which guns are deemed okay for people to have, and which ones are not? Because they ALL kill. Where do you draw the line?

 

[kittythehare]

You're asking what's the point? I think you're kidding, like concern trolling? Or playing devil's advocate?

If you're not, for real, please scroll back a page or two and read the links where doctors and experts explain the graphically horrific trauma caused by these firearms.

800+ wounded or killed in Vegas.

100 injured (half were killed) at Pulse night club.

14 wounded, 17 killed at Parkland.

The other firearms you mention don't shoot up to 50 rounds a minute (up to 400 if modded) at 3,200 feet per second. Firing dozens of bullets from large-capacity magazines and easily reloadable, compared to the five-bullet cartridge you mention. (?!?!) Like you admitted, they're lousy for deer hunting! They're designed for human slaughter. IMOOMGLOL

These are false equivalencies. I can't explain it any clearer.

You explained it well.
The links are all there , it's a matter of reading them.

 

[Tawny]

So, guns that are designed to kill, cause bodily harm, and do in fact kill. True. But not exactly breaking news is it? The higher velocity of a rifle cartridge does more damage than a bullet fired from a handgun at less velocity. Again, not breaking news. What is the reason for pointing out the damage a bullet might cause from a particular model of rifle? Just wondering, because as I’ve mentioned previously, the AR-15 uses what would be considered to be a small caliber bullet (.223). And some people are apparently thinking that a good reason to ban such rifles is because of the terrible wounds they might cause to a human body. I have to ask- what about a bolt action rifle with a magazine that holds five of the same cartridge, the 223 Remington? Do you want to ban these rifles as well? What about even bigger calibers that cause even bigger wounds? Like the ones used for deer and elk hunting? Do away with those as well? Just curious as to which guns are deemed okay for people to have, and which ones are not? Because they ALL kill. Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at untrained, inexperienced, unregistered civilians purchasing rifles that can fire 600 rounds per minute with a bump stock and 285 rounds per minute without.

Explain to the group why anyone would NEED that.

 

[bobcat]

You're asking what's the point? I think you're kidding, like concern trolling? Or playing devil's advocate?

If you're not, for real, please scroll back a page or two and read the links where doctors and experts explain the graphically horrific trauma caused by these firearms.

800+ wounded or killed in Vegas.

100 injured (half killed) at Pulse night club.

14 wounded, 17 killed at Parkland.

The other firearms you mention don't shoot up to 50 rounds a minute (up to 400 if modded) at 3,200 feet per second. Firing dozens of bullets from large-capacity magazines and easily reloadable, compared to the five-bullet cartridge you mention. (?!?!) Like you admitted, they're lousy for deer hunting! They're designed for human slaughter. IMOOMGWTFLOL

I can't explain it any clearer.

Well, first of all, Vegas isn’t a good example as we still don’t know what really happened there. Lots of people were shot, true. But that’s all we know. We don’t know who did it, how many shooters there were, or what guns they were using. Unless you believe the fabricated story we’ve been told by the FBI and the LVMPD.

But anyway, so you’re not concerned with bolt action rifles. Okay. But what about semi-automatic 22 rimfire rifles that will accept magazines with a capacity of 100? Or even larger caliber deer hunting rifles that typically only come with 5 or 10 round magazines, but could be easily modified to hold more. What about semi automatic shotguns that hold 5 to 10, or more shells, in the magazine?

I’m asking because many of us have these types of guns that we’ve owned for decades, and used for hunting. I don’t own an AR-15 and probably never will, as I have no use for one. But I have plenty of other guns that are semi automatic, and really not that different from an AR -15, other than mine are not black and have wood stocks instead of plastic.

 

[Tawny]

Well, first of all, Vegas isn’t a good example as we still don’t know what really happened there. Lots of people were shot, true. But that’s all we know. We don’t know who did it, how many shooters there were, or what guns they were using. Unless you believe the fabricated story we’ve been told by the FBI and the LVMPD.

But anyway, so you’re not concerned with bolt action rifles. Okay. But what about semi-automatic 22 rimfire rifles that will accept magazines with a capacity of 100? Or even larger caliber deer hunting rifles that typically only come with 5 or 10 round magazines, but could be easily modified to hold more. What about semi automatic shotguns that hold 5 to 10, or more shells, in the magazine?

I’m asking because many of us have these types of guns that we’ve owned for decades, and used for hunting. I don’t own an AR-15 and probably never will, as I have no use for one. But I have plenty of other guns that are semi automatic, and really not that different from an AR -15, other than mine are not black and have wood stocks instead of plastic.

High capacity magazines should be illegal. And a shotgun holding 5-10 rounds is much easier to stop than a rifle that can fire 285 rpm unmodded. ANY rifle that can do that should be on the Class III weapons list.

 

[kittythehare]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/ (2015)

[h=1]Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms[/h]
[FONT=&quot]It is undeniable that persons who have shown violent tendencies should not have access to weapons that could be used to harm themselves or others. However, notions that mental illness caused any particular shooting, or that advance psychiatric attention might prevent these crimes, are more complicated than they often seem.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]From this review we critically addressed 4 central assumptions that frequently arise in the aftermath of mass shootings:[/FONT]

• (1) Mental illness causes gun violence,
• (2) Psychiatric diagnosis can predict gun crime before it happens,
• (3) US mass shootings teach us to fear mentally ill loners, and
• (4) Because of the complex psychiatric histories of mass shooters, gun control “won’t prevent” another Tucson, Aurora, or Newtown.

[FONT=&quot]At the same time, the literatures we surveyed suggest that these seemingly self-evident assumptions about mass shootings are replete with problematic assumptions, particularly when read against current and historical literatures that address guns, violence, and mental illness more broadly. On the aggregate level, the notion that mental illness causes gun violence stereotypes a vast and diverse population of persons diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and oversimplifies links between violence and mental illness. Notions of mental illness that emerge in relation to mass shootings frequently reflect larger cultural issues that become obscured when mass shootings come to stand in for all gun crime and when “mentally ill” ceases to be a medical designation and becomes a sign of violent threat.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,[/FONT]25[FONT=&quot] less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.[/FONT]26

[FONT=&quot]Links between mental illness and other types of violence are similarly contentious among researchers who study such trends. Several studies[/FONT]33–35[FONT=&quot] suggest that subgroups of persons with severe or untreated mental illness might be at increased risk for violence in periods surrounding psychotic episodes or psychiatric hospitalizations. Writing in the [/FONT]American Journal of Psychiatry[FONT=&quot], Keers et al. found that the emergence of “persecutory delusions” partially explained associations between untreated schizophrenia and violence.[/FONT]36[FONT=&quot] At the same time, a number of seminal studies asserting links between violence and mental illness—including a 1990 study by Swanson et al.[/FONT]37[FONT=&quot] cited as fact by the [/FONT]New York Times[FONT=&quot] in 2013[/FONT]38[FONT=&quot]—have been critiqued for overstating connections between serious mental illness and violent acts.[/FONT]39

[FONT=&quot]Media reports often assume a binary distinction between mild and severe mental illness, and connect the latter form to unpredictability and lack of self-control. However, this distinction, too, is called into question by mental health research. To be sure, a number of the most common psychiatric diagnoses, including depressive, anxiety, and attention-deficit disorders, have no correlation with violence whatsoever.[/FONT]18

[FONT=&quot]his is not to suggest that researchers know nothing about predictive factors for gun violence. However, credible studies suggest that a number of risk factors more strongly correlate with gun violence than mental illness alone. For instance, alcohol and drug use increase the risk of violent crime by as much as 7-fold, even among persons with no history of mental illness—a concerning statistic in the face of recent legislation that allows persons in certain US states to bring loaded handguns into bars and nightclubs.[/FONT]49,50[FONT=&quot] According to Van Dorn et al., a history of childhood abuse, binge drinking, and male gender are all predictive risk factors for serious violence.[/FONT]51

[FONT=&quot]A number of studies suggest that laws and policies that enable firearm access during emotionally charged moments also seem to correlate with gun violence more strongly than does mental illness alone. Belying Lott’s argument that “more guns” lead to “less crime,”[/FONT]52[FONT=&quot] Miller et al. found that homicide was more common in areas where household firearms ownership was higher.[/FONT]53[FONT=&quot] Siegel et al. found that states with high rates of gun ownership had disproportionately high numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.[/FONT]54[FONT=&quot] Webster’s analysis uncovered that the repeal of Missouri’s background check law led to an additional 49 to 68 murders per year,[/FONT]55[FONT=&quot]and the rate of interpersonal conflicts resolved by fatal shootings jumped by 200% after Florida passed “stand your ground” in 2005.[/FONT]56[FONT=&quot] Availability of guns is also considered a more predictive factor than is psychiatric diagnosis in many of the 19 000 US completed gun suicides each year.[/FONT]11,57,58[FONT=&quot] (By comparison, gun-related homicides and suicides fell precipitously, and mass-shootings dropped to zero, when the Australian government passed a series of gun-access restrictions in 1996.[/FONT]59[FONT=&quot])

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Contrary to the image of the marauding lone gunman, social relationships also predict gun violence. Regression analyses by Papachristos et al. demonstrate that up to 85% of shootings occur within social networks.[/FONT]60[FONT=&quot] In other words, people are far more likely to be shot by relatives, friends, enemies, or acquaintances than they are by lone violent psychopaths. Meanwhile, a report by the police department of New York City found that, in 2013, a person was “more likely to die in a plane crash, drown in a bathtub or perish in an earthquake” than be murdered by a crazed stranger in that city.[/FONT]61

[FONT=&quot]Contrary to the image of the marauding lone gunman, social relationships also predict gun violence. Regression analyses by Papachristos et al. demonstrate that up to 85% of shootings occur within social networks.[/FONT]60[FONT=&quot] In other words, people are far more likely to be shot by relatives, friends, enemies, or acquaintances than they are by lone violent psychopaths. Meanwhile, a report by the police department of New York City found that, in 2013, a person was “more likely to die in a plane crash, drown in a bathtub or perish in an earthquake” than be murdered by a crazed stranger in that city.[/FONT]61


There's an awful lot of info here, Article is peer reviewed and cited.. hopefully will encourage us to look at different aspects

Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD

and Kenneth T. MacLeish, PhD

Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Yes, we absolutely know about 800 people were wounded or killed, and the man responsible for it is dead.

This isn't a conspiracy thread.

I want to know what type of gun reform you'd prefer. Because something will likely pass, imho. What could you live with?

O/T, but another logic fallacy is called the "appeal to ignorance." Interesting read, if I may suggest one: https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

Well, first of all, Vegas isn’t a good example as we still don’t know what really happened there. Lots of people were shot, true. But that’s all we know. We don’t know who did it, how many shooters there were, or what guns they were using. Unless you believe the fabricated story we’ve been told by the FBI and the LVMPD.

But anyway, so you’re not concerned with bolt action rifles. Okay. But what about semi-automatic 22 rimfire rifles that will accept magazines with a capacity of 100? Or even larger caliber deer hunting rifles that typically only come with 5 or 10 round magazines, but could be easily modified to hold more. What about semi automatic shotguns that hold 5 to 10, or more shells, in the magazine?

I’m asking because many of us have these types of guns that we’ve owned for decades, and used for hunting. I don’t own an AR-15 and probably never will, as I have no use for one. But I have plenty of other guns that are semi automatic, and really not that different from an AR -15, other than mine are not black and have wood stocks instead of plastic.

 

[Knozzmoeking]

Obama endlessly tried congress would not cooperate

Not picking presidential sides but - if a President who had control of all three branches of government and believed in greater (or even total) gun control couldn't get anything moved into law, how is it reasonable to expect different results today?

 

[bobcat]

High capacity magazines should be illegal. And a shotgun holding 5-10 rounds is much easier to stop than a rifle that can fire 285 rpm unmodded. ANY rifle that can do that should be on the Class III weapons list.

So you’d be good with just a ban on high capacity magazines?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

It's reasonable, regardless of political affiliation, congressional leadership or presidential partisanship.

It's unreasonable, imho, to tolerate game-playing when the overwhelming majority of Americans call for some form of basic, common-sense gun reform. To feign helplessness. Either they work for us or we vote them out.

MOO

Obama endlessly tried congress would not cooperate

Not picking presidential sides but - if a President who had control of all three branches of government and believed in greater (or even total) gun control couldn't get anything moved into law, how is it reasonable to expect different results today?

 

[Tawny]

So you’d be good with just a ban on high capacity magazines?

No and I said as much.

 

[bobcat]

I want to know what type of gun reform you'd prefer. Because something will likely pass, imho. What could you live with?

I could live with the minimum age of 21 for purchasing an AR-15 style rifle that’s been talked about. The problem is in defining exactly what “AR-15 style” means. Which guns does that include?

I think I’d also be okay with a limit to the capacity of magazines, but I’m not sure what that limit should be. Maybe 20 would be reasonable?

 

[Tawny]

I could live with the minimum age of 21 for purchasing an AR-15 style rifle that’s been talked about. The problem is in defining exactly what “AR-15 style” means. Which guns does that include?

I think I’d also be okay with a limit to the capacity of magazines, but I’m not sure what that limit should be. Maybe 20 would be reasonable?

The problem is getting gun advocates to agree on what that means because when we attempt to define it, our points are picked apart one by one, thread by thread, letter by letter.

 

[kittythehare]

This is a very sad story about a mother's efforts to stop her daughter obtaining a gun.. she did sue gun seller successfully but she lost her husband and her daughter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/lo...n-with-tragic-results/?utm_term=.a3fb4ff2cdc8

 

[rsd1200]

Your concerns about psych meds, the role of psychiatrists, and the state of our mental health care are spot on.

The difficult and harsh truth to accept is that for the vast majority of seriously mentally ill people, there is no "cure". Those who have a brief situational mental health crisis, such as grief following the death of a loved one, a relationship break up, situational depression, even maternal post partum depression-- these kind of mental health conditions often resolve without life long impairment.

But for many, many people, the approach to their mental health needs is lifelong. Often a combination of meds with intensive and/ or regular, perpetual therapy is needed for them to be maximally functional, and appropriately supervised and monitored.

Lots of people being treated for mental illness, and/ or their families, are resistant to this kind of plan.

Lots of people being treated for serious mental illness and/ or behavioral conditions arising from organic brain problems, and their families, WANT this kind of plan. They want them to be closely monitored, with regular therapy, respite/ overnight care available for families, and the option of short term AND long term residential care.

The harsh issue is that no one wants to pay for the HUMAN component of care and supervision, which is astoundingly costly, relative to even expensive psychotherapeutic drugs. Educating, training, hiring, retaining, and paying for all of the levels of providers is HUGELY expensive. This encompasses all levels from aides, to psychiatrists.

With outcome evidence so depressing and dismal, and relapses and deterioration so common, it's my opinion that the entire industry from payers (insurance sources) and providers has HAD to shift to a crisis-oriented outpatient approach for intensive mental health care, and relies on meds to "control and supervise" seriously ill patients. Meds are still, IMO, vastly cheaper than HUMAN resources to nurture, care, comfort, and supervise. Supervision and regimen compliance (meds and appointments) has been outsourced to families.

When families reach their breaking points, need respite, or need to have their loved one removed into residential long term or short term care, the bar is VERY high to get those services, except for brief hospitalizations. The plan is ALWAYS to return the patient into the care of their family members, until the family abandons the patient, AND the patient FINALLY demonstrates they are "enough" of a "danger to themselves and others."

Civil outpatient commitment, IMO, is a management strategy that is underutilized to mandate compliance to a treatment regimen.

To get to the point where someone CAN be put into a civil committment status, or guardianship status, there has to be a LONG paper trail of a lot of contact with the mental health system, social services involvement, school involvement (for minors), and yes, the justice system when they display violent or criminal behaviors, threats, and tendencies.

So it's easy to see the leap to how the criminal justice system has become the de-facto network of residential care for a lot of mentally ill people.

And when we shield mentally ill kids, young adults, and adults from developing that needed HISTORY within the criminal justice system AND mental health system, it is virtually impossible to keep them from doing things like buying weapons. Until they have ENOUGH history officially in the background system, and they have not had their rights removed by a court, or put in guardianship status, then they CAN pass background checks and buy weapons.

And we can't seem to "fix" the problems with adequate supervision, mandatory compliance to treatment regimens, adequate ACCESS to competent mental health treatment regimens, enough mental health workers at all levels of care, and willingness to pay for the millions of people who need lifelong care and supervision.

So what you have is a system that preserves the "rights" of seriously mentally ill people to refuse or avoid care, above the "rights" of the rest of the public not to be hurt or injured by them.

Coupled with a liberal/ progressive ideology that abhors the involvement of any level of police or criminal justice consequences with violent behavior by mentally ill people.

Coupled with the relatively easy access and affordability of psychotropic drugs that blunt and control violent behavior, and frequently improve the societal functioning of the mentally ill.

So that's where the money has gone. We pay for psych drugs fairly readily, and are thrilled when patients and their families are in compliance with the process of outpatient medical psych appointments, because we have done "something" that can be demonstrated with actual outcome data, that works, to improve the lives of the ill person, and everyone around them.

Psych drugs DO work to control violent behavior and impulses in the correctly identified and diagnosed population of the mentally ill.

I think we clearly know what "doesn't work" at this point.

The trick is determining how, as a society, we are going to compel treatment from those that are unwilling. The challenge is deciding who is "mentally ill enough" to compel them to have a care regimen, and consequences/ interventions when they don't comply. The challenge is deciding from which people we will restrict their rights.

Currently, it seems (IMO) that a lot of anti-gun ideologists would prefer to work on these "people problems" by creating more restrictions on the rights of the many (law abiding gun owners to have), in order that "the few" criminally impulsive/ criminally insane "might" have less access to guns.

The sheer raw emotion of these mass killings by very troubled people has shifted the focus of attention to "gun control", rather than "controlling bad people". Why? Because guns are inanimate objects that are far easier to control than people. And passing more laws to control law abiding people is far easier than actually tackling the issues of deciding how we are going to structure a process to remove rights from some people who are seriously ill and/ or permanently impaired.

There is also an unrealistic/ childish "wish" by a lot of people that "if only" someone like NC had had just a little more "talk therapy", he would have been "cured" of his "mental illness". I've heard and read a lot of people lamenting that "If only" he had continued to take his prescribed meds, he wouldn't have shot and killed 17 people. Neither is correct.

Someone like NC was seriously, permanently, and organically impaired, and IMO, should have been in multidisciplinary mandated treatment, coupled with legal restrictions on his "rights". He needed lifelong supervision and treatment; now he will get it.

NC avoided treatment, or was only sporadically compliant, and the rest of the adults in the mental health, school, and law enforcement systems avoided doing ANYTHING legal and official that would have restricted his rights to buy a gun. They enabled him, at every level, to become the killer he now is, IMO.

Nobody, but nobody, wanted to stick their neck out to start the process of civil commitment for this massively disturbed youth. Nobody wanted to bring criminal charges against him. Lots of people begged LE for help, and "said something". Those who could have *done* something, didn't do the RIGHT thing.

Timothy McVeigh bought fertilizer and rented a truck. He killed 168 people without a gun. But IIRC, he was a veteran, and had knowledge of, access to, and interest in guns. He chose to use a bomb to carry out his murderous intent. The Columbine killers didn't need AR-15s. The Virginia tech shooter used handguns. Numerous school shootings have been carried out with handguns. Terrorists have used knives to slash, and trucks to run over groups of vulnerable pedestrians.

Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem-- people with bad intentions.

But guns are an easy villain. Guns are inanimate and don't talk back. They don't vote. They are scary looking, and can kill. Gun control activists who have never handled, or shot a gun, are regarded as "experts" by the anti-gun media and activists. The media won't publish very many occurrences where a "good guy" with a gun prevented, or stopped, a "bad person with a gun" from more mayhem. That is simply too controversial for the anti-gun agenda.

The serious issues we cannot seem to get a handle on is how to identify and control the PEOPLE who have murderous intentions.

But yes, it is easy to medicate those that are willing to be medicated to control their serious manifestations of mental illness. So I don't see that stopping any time soon. Other than incarceration in the criminal justice system, it's pretty much the only effective thing we have for the mentally ill with criminal and violent behaviors.

God, it's so depressing.

My kid has worked in a mental hospital for several years. For the most part, she's had no harm come to her. However, they get them straightened out on meds. Some will be there for a very, very, long time. Others, when they go back out into the world, don't have someone to help them stay on meds, and some are homeless, and live in poverty , and don't have access to meds or even a place to keep their meds. So, in a few weeks/months, they are brought back to the hospital.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

I could live with the minimum age of 21 for purchasing an AR-15 style rifle that’s been talked about. The problem is in defining exactly what “AR-15 style” means. Which guns does that include?

I think I’d also be okay with a limit to the capacity of magazines, but I’m not sure what that limit should be. Maybe 20 would be reasonable?

I 100% agree, bobcat. It’s easy to define the rifle we’re all talking about, imo. Maybe we should write the definition. Lol. ... as much as we’ve discussed it in this thread. [emoji6]

 

[branmuffin]

I found it very worrying that Dana Loesch during the town hall meeting characterized all individuals with mental health issues as 'nuts'. Individuals with mental health issues rarely pose a danger to anyone but themselves. Having mental health issues doesn't mean you should automatically be treated like a pariah, have your rights trampled on, segregated from society through misapplication of the Baker Act. Have a psychiatric condition is not predictive behavior. Every person who has ever undergone counselling is suspect based on some of the statements made by the NRA folks. That meant people I know who've been depressed over a death of a spouse, an end to a relationship are deemed crazy and should have their lives examined under the microscope when really the only thing that needs to be done is to limit access to weapons capable of multiple deaths within seconds without any type of training.

I can't tell you how many videos I have seen on YouTube extolling the virtues of weapons that can do maximum damage if only for the user's entertainment. Even the guy who blew his leg off using tannerite in an old lawnmower he used as target practice is probably entitled to legally own as many weapons as he wants but his judgement seems very questionable to me.

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

I found it very worrying that Dana Loesch during the town hall meeting characterized all individuals with mental health issues as 'nuts'.

SBM and this has probably been covered elsewhere but if she said the word "crazy" when she was taking about mental health one more time I was going to scream. I wanted to hear her out but language is power and I wasn't giving her any after that.

 

[Tawny]

SBM and this has probably been covered elsewhere but if she said the word "crazy" when she was taking about mental health one more time I was going to scream. I wanted to hear her out but language is power and I wasn't giving her any after that.

She is a terrible person, IMHO. Her mannerisms and speech are 100% meant to incite emotion, anger, and fear, and is not meant for reasonable, adult discourse. I'm a public speaker and she is a textbook provocateur.

 

[watergirl62]

Here is a table of states and proposed gun legislation (restrictive only) since 2/14.
I pulled these from the NRA ILA site so excuse any NRA-esque wordcrafting I may not have edited out.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RqeINBhT1h6ZLP-zJOJjCHPm15SQxIlo