The Trump administration is considering “novel” approaches to stop mass-shootings. Of course, the administration is not considering restricting the sale of military armaments to the nation’s average HVAC installer or PE teacher. No, the latest ideas focus upon monitoring the “mentally ill,” perhaps from their phones. Via the Washington Post: Advisers to Wright quickly pulled together a three-page proposal — called SAFEHOME for Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes – which calls for exploring whether technology like phones and smart watches can be used to detect when mentally ill people are about to turn violent. Under no circumstances will you ever hear me make light of the ravages of mental illness, or pass up an opportunity to highlight the need for better, more compassionate healthcare for such insidious diseases. And we do certainly need to discuss mental health issues with regard to the mass-shooting epidemic. However, fighting mental illness as the primary approach to decreasing mass-shootings is, well, insane. As you might guess, it is exceedingly difficult to effectively predict which people needing care are the type that will soon turn to violence. “I would love if some new technology suddenly came along that would help us identify violent risk, but there’s so many things about this idea of predicting violence that doesn’t make sense,” said Marisa Randazzo, former chief research psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service. True. Nor does it make any sense to take a gun designed to mow down fifty enemy fighters on a battlefield and sell that gun to the average produce section manager in Tulsa. There are a few other pragmatic concerns about monitoring the phones of select at-risk people: Beyond the civil liberty concerns about monitoring people through their gadgets, Randazzo said, there’s the problem of false positives. Even if the technology could be developed, such a program would likely flag tens, or hundreds of thousands, more possible suspects than actual shooters. How, she asked, would you sort through them? And how would you know you were right, given the difficulty of proving something that hasn’t happened? Yes, I can see how it might be a difficult correlation. However, I have no difficulty correlating mass-shootings, especially those involving double digit victims, with the AR-15 and variants thereof. Indeed, we are getting to a point where it is a near 1:1 “correlation.” This nation once had the good sense to ban assault rifles like the AR-15. Of course, addressing the AR-15 correlation is off the table, a non-starter. This country lacks the requisite mental health to gauge cause and effect, benefits versus costs, freedom to arm versus freedom to go out in public. I would like to be able to take the Administration’s concern about mental illness and its role in mass shootings more seriously. But Republicans have been indefatigable in their effort to rid many Americans of access to healthcare generally (especially those with pre-existing conditions, such as mental illness). It is exceedingly difficult to imagine Republicans funding medical interventions that both help the sick and protect the innocent. The current focus on mental illness” seems designed primarily to distract from the real question about deranged thought. Just what the fck are we doing selling military weaponry to the average Dorito-eating American? **** Peace, y’all Jason firstname.lastname@example.org, and please follow me on Twitter @MiciakZoom […]
Meghan McCain made an unceremonious return to The View by declaring that gun owners would “resort to violence” if their gun rights were to be restricted (nothing like “good guys with guns, huh?). This is terrifying, brought to us by RawStory from The View: “The AR-15 is by far the most popular gun in America, by far,” McCain told her co-hosts. “I was just in middle-of-nowhere Wyoming, (and) if you’re talking about taking people’s guns from them, there’s going to be a lot of violence.” Ironically, the type of people who resort to violence if angry about the law are precisely the same people who should not own firearms. What happened to needing a gun to protect one’s family? I guess they believe guns may properly used to protect one’s own view of what the law should be. I was not the only one who saw the insane juxtaposition of such a claim: So your saying “responsible” law abiding gun owners would turn to violence and disobey a law??? — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) September 4, 2019 Yes, that appears to be exactly what she is saying. So, a “good guy with a gun” is only a “good guy” so long as he’s happy with the laws. There is a word for that type of guy, but it’s escaping me … criminal seems to be close. Were that our only problem. McCain’s husband, some nut named Ben Domenech, also believes he sits above both Congress and the Supreme Court, in determining the exact meaning of the Bill of Rights, especially the rights imbued by the Second Amendment. “Yes, you fake conservative dipsh*t, people tend to fight back when you disrespect the Bill of Rights and try to illegally take their guns,” Domenech tweeted. “The Black Panthers did it in California when Reagan tried. We would do it too.” See? Even if Congress passed a law, even if the president signed the law, and even if the Supreme Court upheld the law, Meghan McCain’s non-fake, non-dipshit, husband has already determined it would, regardless, be “illegal” and he would be within his rights to fight using those same guns. I have no idea what the Black Panthers have to do with anything, other to invoke black people in a struggle. On this, be clear. When it comes to guns, these people do not believe any law could apply to them. They will not recognize the law, no matter how valid. They have given unto themselves their own “right” and will not be giving it up to any government. With respect to guns, they are above the government, above the very idea of democracy. This is the end-result of a gun industry campaign to equate guns to “freedom.” These people will shoot, and kill – according to McCain and husband – if “we the people” determine we want the laws changed. There is a word for people who invoke terror in the name of their personal belief, threatening violence against those who disagree. We call them terrorists. And make no mistake, these terrorists base their beliefs in large part because of their race. How long do you think a group of young black men would last “open carrying” their AR-15s to a “Black Power” rally. How long do you think the Meghan McCain’s of the world […]
Liked it? Take a second to support IIMAGINE EDITOR on Patreon!
Sometimes people in Washington get it plain wrong!
If conservatives support police killing citizens without justification, climate denial, fact denial, science denial, racist and misogynistic behavior, or a litany of other absurd points of view about numerous important issues, we call them out.