America`s Gun Culture

[J70]

See the ex marine who subdued the mentally ill man on subway in nyc is going to be charged with manslaughter, why would anyone intervene in a situation like this in cities like New York

You think everything he did is ok, that there is no possible justification for bringing this charge?

don't know the full facts so don't know , my point is why would you intervene in a situation in these cities anymore .

What do you mean?

Overzealous DA offices?

That's hardly restricted to large liberal cities, depending on the issue in question.

But yeah, I think people will be less inclined to intervene physically depending on the outcome of this, for better or worse.

these lunatics are  everywhere on public transport in cities and are a nuisance at least and a serious danger in most cases but they are still there every day even after being arrested 40+ times
So you must ask yourself who do these cities care about the paying customer or the mentally ill/violent people ? Someone was attacked with a meat cleaver on Bart yesterday and the Bart spokesman says they have more police, mental health professionals and intervention ambassadors on board most trains
How about locking these people away and arrest people who won't pay the fares and arrest anyone intimidating people for no reason?  Most cities ruining regular people's lives to accommodate.05 % of population

NYC is looking at the issue of involuntary commitment at the moment. I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard the SF mayor on Jon Stewart's podcast a little while back saying similar. There are personal freedom issues involved, as well as funding. What do you with someone who recovers after a week because while in hospital, they've been on their meds? Do you hold them indefinitely if they've a history of relapsing when released?

[armaghniac]

See the ex marine who subdued the mentally ill man on subway in nyc is going to be charged with manslaughter, why would anyone intervene in a situation like this in cities like New York

You think everything he did is ok, that there is no possible justification for bringing this charge?

don't know the full facts so don't know , my point is why would you intervene in a situation in these cities anymore .

What do you mean?

Overzealous DA offices?

That's hardly restricted to large liberal cities, depending on the issue in question.

But yeah, I think people will be less inclined to intervene physically depending on the outcome of this, for better or worse.

these lunatics are  everywhere on public transport in cities and are a nuisance at least and a serious danger in most cases but they are still there every day even after being arrested 40+ times
So you must ask yourself who do these cities care about the paying customer or the mentally ill/violent people ? Someone was attacked with a meat cleaver on Bart yesterday and the Bart spokesman says they have more police, mental health professionals and intervention ambassadors on board most trains
How about locking these people away and arrest people who won't pay the fares and arrest anyone intimidating people for no reason?  Most cities ruining regular people's lives to accommodate.05 % of population

NYC is looking at the issue of involuntary commitment at the moment. I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard the SF mayor on Jon Stewart's podcast a little while back saying similar. There are personal freedom issues involved, as well as funding. What do you with someone who recovers after a week because while in hospital, they've been on their meds? Do you hold them indefinitely if they've a history of relapsing when released?

It should be possible to ban people from public transport if they cause hassle there, even if you do not lock them up.
I'd also favour a one strike approach for people acting the maggot on aircraft.

[Gmac]

See the ex marine who subdued the mentally ill man on subway in nyc is going to be charged with manslaughter, why would anyone intervene in a situation like this in cities like New York

You think everything he did is ok, that there is no possible justification for bringing this charge?

don't know the full facts so don't know , my point is why would you intervene in a situation in these cities anymore .

What do you mean?

Overzealous DA offices?

That's hardly restricted to large liberal cities, depending on the issue in question.

But yeah, I think people will be less inclined to intervene physically depending on the outcome of this, for better or worse.

these lunatics are  everywhere on public transport in cities and are a nuisance at least and a serious danger in most cases but they are still there every day even after being arrested 40+ times
So you must ask yourself who do these cities care about the paying customer or the mentally ill/violent people ? Someone was attacked with a meat cleaver on Bart yesterday and the Bart spokesman says they have more police, mental health professionals and intervention ambassadors on board most trains
How about locking these people away and arrest people who won't pay the fares and arrest anyone intimidating people for no reason?  Most cities ruining regular people's lives to accommodate.05 % of population

NYC is looking at the issue of involuntary commitment at the moment. I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard the SF mayor on Jon Stewart's podcast a little while back saying similar. There are personal freedom issues involved, as well as funding. What do you with someone who recovers after a week because while in hospital, they've been on their meds? Do you hold them indefinitely if they've a history of relapsing when released?

from my experience of walking around sf and observing the homeless pandemic a large portion of them are never coming back to normalcy,  their brains are fried and they need to be permanently locked up in a mental institution for their and the public's safety , sf politicians seem to favor let them die in the streets of a fentanyl overdose after years of torture. I know which solution I would want for a family member of mine

[J70]

Plane is one thing, but how do you enforce entry into something like a metro/subway in a large city or even buses or suburban rail?

In NYC, I'd say, based purely on my personal observations, that 10% of people don't even pay bus or subway fares. There's literally millions of people using the NYC Transit system daily. I guarantee you the destitute, mentally ill homeless person jumps the turnstile or goes through an open emergency gate. And you can't have a cop in every subway car or bus.

[J70]

See the ex marine who subdued the mentally ill man on subway in nyc is going to be charged with manslaughter, why would anyone intervene in a situation like this in cities like New York

You think everything he did is ok, that there is no possible justification for bringing this charge?

don't know the full facts so don't know , my point is why would you intervene in a situation in these cities anymore .

What do you mean?

Overzealous DA offices?

That's hardly restricted to large liberal cities, depending on the issue in question.

But yeah, I think people will be less inclined to intervene physically depending on the outcome of this, for better or worse.

these lunatics are  everywhere on public transport in cities and are a nuisance at least and a serious danger in most cases but they are still there every day even after being arrested 40+ times
So you must ask yourself who do these cities care about the paying customer or the mentally ill/violent people ? Someone was attacked with a meat cleaver on Bart yesterday and the Bart spokesman says they have more police, mental health professionals and intervention ambassadors on board most trains
How about locking these people away and arrest people who won't pay the fares and arrest anyone intimidating people for no reason?  Most cities ruining regular people's lives to accommodate.05 % of population

NYC is looking at the issue of involuntary commitment at the moment. I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard the SF mayor on Jon Stewart's podcast a little while back saying similar. There are personal freedom issues involved, as well as funding. What do you with someone who recovers after a week because while in hospital, they've been on their meds? Do you hold them indefinitely if they've a history of relapsing when released?

from my experience of walking around sf and observing the homeless pandemic a large portion of them are never coming back to normalcy,  their brains are fried and they need to be permanently locked up in a mental institution for their and the public's safety , sf politicians seem to favor let them die in the streets of a fentanyl overdose after years of torture. I know which solution I would want for a family member of mine

No argument with that.

[J70]

BTW this case is only going to the Grand Jury. There is no indictment yet. They might decline to charge him at all, or they may change it from second degree manslaughter to a lesser charge.

[Jell 0 Biafra]

Hard to see how he doesn't get charged for anything. He killed a man who was only talking out loud. I've encountered plenty of verbally aggressive homeless people on the subway, and elsewhere in the US.   I've never had to kill any of them yet though.

[Skeletor]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65829241

[blasmere]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65829241

I know it's much more nuanced but contrast the reaction in Serbia to the shootings to the US where life goes on very quickly after holdings a memoriam or two
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65597622

[J70]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65829241

I know it's much more nuanced but contrast the reaction in Serbia to the shootings to the US where life goes on very quickly after holdings a memoriam or two
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65597622

Nothing nuanced about it. You have a completely irrational section of the US population who are entrenched zealots who will tolerate no limits whatsoever to their "constitutional" right to carry any weapon their delicate, insecure masculinity desires. Then you have the rest of the population who have basically given up because there is no prospect for change and mass shootings are now a mundane background feature of US life, same as car accidents or heart attacks. You just hope that it doesn't hit your family and that the active shooter drills your kids do in school (and you do at work) will limit the damage if it should happen.

[Skeletor]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65829241

I know it's much more nuanced but contrast the reaction in Serbia to the shootings to the US where life goes on very quickly after holdings a memoriam or two
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65597622

Nothing nuanced about it. You have a completely irrational section of the US population who are entrenched zealots who will tolerate no limits whatsoever to their "constitutional" right to carry any weapon their delicate, insecure masculinity desires. Then you have the rest of the population who have basically given up because there is no prospect for change and mass shootings are now a mundane background feature of US life, same as car accidents or heart attacks. You just hope that it doesn't hit your family and that the active shooter drills your kids do in school (and you do at work) will limit the damage if it should happen.

It's easy to see why the Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment. In 1791, the United States had no police force, was under threat from Native American tribes and a probable British re-invasion and was a rural nation where farmers had to deal with wild animals. Allowing gun ownership was feasible in that society. However in 2023, when there is a police presence and the murder rate has skyrocketed, therefore allowing guns makes no sense. So, while the Constitution may grant these rights, they are antiquated and should be repealed.

[Milltown Row2]

The constitution has nothing to do with it, it's pure money and greed and marketing by the NRA oh and the people who make guns!

[whitey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65829241

I know it's much more nuanced but contrast the reaction in Serbia to the shootings to the US where life goes on very quickly after holdings a memoriam or two
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65597622

Nothing nuanced about it. You have a completely irrational section of the US population who are entrenched zealots who will tolerate no limits whatsoever to their "constitutional" right to carry any weapon their delicate, insecure masculinity desires. Then you have the rest of the population who have basically given up because there is no prospect for change and mass shootings are now a mundane background feature of US life, same as car accidents or heart attacks. You just hope that it doesn't hit your family and that the active shooter drills your kids do in school (and you do at work) will limit the damage if it should happen.

It's easy to see why the Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment. In 1791, the United States had no police force, was under threat from Native American tribes and a probable British re-invasion and was a rural nation where farmers had to deal with wild animals. Allowing gun ownership was feasible in that society. However in 2023, when there is a police presence and the murder rate has skyrocketed, therefore allowing guns makes no sense. So, while the Constitution may grant these rights, they are antiquated and should be repealed.

They won't be repealed

People, rightly or wrongly, believe that they have a constitutional right to bear arms

And at this stage there are so many guns in circulation, even if they banned all guns tomorrow, there would still be hundreds of millions of guns in circulation ( in the hands of criminals who wouldn't turn their guns in)

And the gun lobby is in some regards like the abortion lobby.....any limitation on gun ownership is seen as the beginning of a slippery slope

There are plenty of gun laws and restrictions in place that aren't being enforced. Maybe they should start there

[Gmac]

The constitution has nothing to do with it, it's pure money and greed and marketing by the NRA oh and the people who make guns!

how many NRA members have committed mass shootings you think ?
Gun ownership is at an all time high in the USA and if you have been to a city lately it won't be changing anytime soon

[J70]

I wonder how many young male mass shooters have either got their guns directly from NRA member relatives or were able to get them as a result of the lax restrictions on gun ownership and availability for which we can thank the NRA.

The comment about cities reminds me of a conversation I had with my cousin on a recent trip to Florida. My cousin is a bit of a Trumper, but probably more due to the environment she's in than any major personal conviction or belief. She had been up in NYC for Paddy's Day to meet myself and some of our Irish-based cousins who'd come over. When I subsequently saw her in Florida, she told me her friends down there had been pleading with her not to make the trip to NYC, that it was extremely dangerous and she'd be taking her life into her hands if she went! Which really goes to show the kind of hysterical nonsense that is circulating through right wing new bubbles.

Three people whom I didn't personally know but who were connected or related to extended family were murdered by gunshot this year. None in a big city. One was in Florida when the person was killed by their housemate over some stupid disagreement. Just got angry (probably on something), whipped out a gun and shot him in the chest. The other two were killed by a mass shooter they just happened to cross paths with while he was on his random rampage.