Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stinky The Clown

(67,808 posts)
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:09 AM Jul 2012

A movie plot doesn't make one crazy. A costume is not the mark of a mass murderer.

The lack of access to health care - including mental health care - IS an issue. But here in We're Number One America, we aren't talking about that, except to demonize the guy who has made an attempt to fix the problem (not a big enough attempt for me, but that's for another time). We're making fun of his health care plan, with half the country calling for its repeal.

Meantime, we're banning costumes at theaters after a man who is clearly not normal shot at people in costumes while watching a movie about a crazy man shooting people. We will also be required to submit to bag searches to be let into movies showing any title, not just Batman at midnight. I guess, you know, it happened, and you know, it could, you know, happen again.

Yessirree, we're square on top of it, we are.

The man who did the shooting this time had a .43 cal Glock, an S&W .223 assault rifle, a 12 ga. shotgun, and another.43 Glock. He also had more than 6,000 rounds. In buckets. They list this list. Everyone wants the list. I will bet anything that sales of those guns will go up for a time, like Bushmaster sales went up after an earlier not normal person and his not normal teenage companion shot up the DC area a few years back.

A man known to be a loner, known to have social issues, known to be despondent at being highly educated and unemployed, highly educated and working at McDonalds, highly educated and dropping out of grad school due to poor grades, is not a normal man. When such a man amasses an arsenal, it underscores his not being normal.

When such a man orders body armor over the internet and has it delivered by priority, we all need to worry.

But, of course, it wasn't the guns that did the killing. It was the man who used the guns inappropriately who did the killing.

Is that right?

Had he taken a gun safety course, we'd be cool today, right?

A background check would have . . . . wait . . . . it would have turned up nothing. In this case, one parking (speeding??) ticket.

So those seem to be the essential ingredients here.

A man who is not normal

A man who is not normal going untreated

A man who has free access to guns.

A man who was able to buy a shitload of body armor by expedited delivery and raising no red flags in so doing

And our reaction is to pull the more violent trailers of the movie that was playing when his bullets hit over fifty moviegoers, killing a dozen of them.

Our reaction is to ban costumes at movie theaters.

Our reaction to increase "theater security" and subject all patrons to a bag check. (How long until the surplus, well used TSA magnetometers find their way here???)

Our reaction is to call for new laws.

The result will be another demonstration of the strength of the NRA.

We're Number One.

In gun ownership. We own more guns than there are people.

This is one issue where I side with Michael Bloomberg: Mr. Obama and Mr. Rmoney, as you ask for my vote, please talk about guns and what YOU intend to do about them.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A movie plot doesn't make one crazy. A costume is not the mark of a mass murderer. (Original Post) Stinky The Clown Jul 2012 OP
Know what would probably be more effective than banning guns? Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #1
Now that you mention the lack of access to health care TouchOfGray Jul 2012 #2

Marcia Brady

(108 posts)
1. Know what would probably be more effective than banning guns?
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:45 PM
Jul 2012

Involuntary commitment!

Because--all the health care in the world, including mental health care, won't do any good if someone won't seek treatment. Loughner, the VT killer, hundreds more, all have this in common: People knew there was something wrong, they set off alarms for other people, but no one, not parents, not teachers, not police, no one could do anything until the guy had committed a crime.

The idea of banning guns to prevent a very tiny minority of people from committing heinous crimes is simply overkill. (NPI) And will only serve to punish sane, law-abiding citizens. And throw the Constitution under the bus.

Why go there, when we can use some common sense and get mental health help for those who need it, and are unable or unwilling to seek it on their ownA?

 

TouchOfGray

(82 posts)
2. Now that you mention the lack of access to health care
Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:26 PM
Jul 2012

It seems that more often than not these mass murderers do have access. Loughner was under his mothers very good benefits she had from the county job of hers. The Columbine killers were already being treated with prescribed "psyc" drugs. The VT shooter was a student with access.

And this latest nut case was not only a student but because of Obamacare was eligible under his well to do parents policy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A movie plot doesn't make...