Jump to content

Multiple victims at FedEx in Indianapolis


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Darrell said:

Turns out that the murderer has had firearms seized twice after voicing suicidal thoughts. His mother once called the police because she thought the guy was going to commit "suicide by police." I'm curious to learn how he obtained his firearms when he had a history of mental illness.

It doesn’t matter if his firearms were seized under some sort of red flag law, which Indiana does have. If you have not been adjudicated as a mental defective, you have the ability to purchase at an s FFL.  

Edited by Chucktshoes
  • Like 1
Link to post
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that more welfare-like programs are going to solve the issue of gun violence in the inner cities of America. We have been financially supporting people for decades n

I really do believe we need to bring back the asylums. While they absolutely had problems and needed reforms, they served a valuable societal role. In the zeal to address the abuses that went on withi

I understand the concerns, but our current method of dealing with the mentally ill by allowing them to end up on the streets until the commit serious enough crimes to warrant prison time isn’t working

I hate to say this, but repeatedly I have seen the suspect's previous issues and the LEO had done part of the job, don't you think that having him evaluated and maybe putting him on a probationary hold on purchasing guns for 6 months or so until the professionals could say one way or the other is he a menace to society. I have seen multiple shooters that had issues in the past, like several co-workers said Johnny is nuts and he is going to hurt somebody. Just saying. I don't like red flag laws unless there are some checks and balances and not the neighbor that doesn't like you saying something that isn't true.

Link to post
5 hours ago, Erik88 said:

You are correct but every time this is proposed others cry socialism when it comes to paying for this care. 

The investments we make towards society result in healthy dividends.

  • Like 2
Link to post
51 minutes ago, Dirtshooter said:

 I have seen multiple shooters that had issues in the past, like several co-workers said Johnny is nuts and he is going to hurt somebody. Just saying. 

I resent that comment🙃

Edited by Johnny Rotten
  • Haha 2
Link to post
On 4/16/2021 at 6:54 PM, Johnny Rotten said:

I resent that comment

Sorry Johnny, I used that name as an example and didn't note that. Are you sure you resent or resemble that remark?? LOL !!

Link to post

Obviously, Democrats will use this event to argue for more gun control.  Meanwhile, they ignore the weekly mayhem in Chicago, where strict gun laws are the rule.  A friend showed me this Chicago crime tracker website yesterday.  Memphis needs something similar.  

http://heyjackass.com/

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
23 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Obviously, Democrats will use this event to argue for more gun control.  Meanwhile, they ignore the weekly mayhem in Chicago, where strict gun laws are the rule.  A friend showed me this Chicago crime tracker website yesterday.  Memphis needs something similar.  

http://heyjackass.com/

 

I wish I could find the article again, but I saw something a while back that showed an insanely high % of total murders in the US occurred in just 3-4 counties. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I wish I could find the article again, but I saw something a while back that showed an insanely high % of total murders in the US occurred in just 3-4 counties. 

I wouldn’t doubt it and I bet Shelby County would be one of them.  Oddly, Memphis has much less restrictive guns laws than Chicago, but both are rampant with crime.  Gun control is irrelevant.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)

I remember the article and map. Approximately 80%+/- of murders occur in 2% of counties. The 2% of counties all contain poor inner cities. 
 

The problem is socioeconomic. The solutions will be socioeconomic. 

Edited by Chucktshoes
  • Like 4
Link to post
1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

I remember the article and map. Approximately 80%+/- of murders occur in 2% of counties. The 2% of counties all contain poor inner cities. 
 

The problem is socioeconomic. The solutions will be socioeconomic. 

Yes, it is related to socio-economic issues and thus Universal Basic Income and Healthcare (physical and mental) need to be more fully discussed, then.

It's just like with the drug problem, where it turns out that offering treatment options rather than punitive measures result in major savings.

It's actually cheaper to offer proactive measures than reactive ones!

Edited by Swamp ash
  • Like 1
Link to post

MSM is playing up every multiple shooting they can find. On the top of my news feed this morning there was a story of 5 people shot in a Shreveport drive by last night. And yesterday it was several people shot somewhere else. Over the last week or so it seems like every shooting anywhere in the country that involves more than two victims is making the national news. Also noteworthy is at the end of every one of these stories, they make a point to mention a previous shooting and the recent rash of shootings with the Fed Ex and Texas things being real popular.

What MSM isn't saying is that this level of violence is perfectly normal in many of these places. Crime and violence in this nation is out of control. Multiple people are shot and killed every single day. Normally, any of these stories would have made the local news headlines, a follow up story for a couple of days and then faded from the news cycle and forgotten until new facts come to light or an arrest is made. 

But because Joe is pushing his gun control agenda, these stories are making the national news headlines and tied together to further scare the sheep who want to take our guns. The sad fact is that to the Antis its a national tragedy that deserves major headlines. In Shreveport, it was just another weekend.

Edited by Grayfox54
  • Like 1
Link to post
49 minutes ago, Swamp ash said:

Universal Basic Income

I don’t see how getting people more permanently hooked on the government tit will solve anything. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Just now, deerslayer said:

I don’t see how getting people more permanently hooked on the government tit will solve anything. 

Research suggests otherwise.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, Swamp ash said:

Research suggests otherwise.

Have any links to this research?  I’m fresh out of entertaining reading material.  

Edited by deerslayer
  • Like 1
Link to post
19 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Have any links to this research?  I’m fresh out of entertaining reading material.  

Just google DNC.

  • Haha 1
Link to post

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that more welfare-like programs are going to solve the issue of gun violence in the inner cities of America. We have been financially supporting people for decades now and if anything, it's just getting worse. I think we've created a system of dependency and fraud where you have millions of people that are healthy enough to work but choose not to because it's too easy to survive without a paycheck. I'm in favor of helping people with drug addiction and mental health issues but giving them a monthly check to continue being a non-contributor is the wrong approach. I also don't believe that poverty alone is the reason why certain neighborhoods are full of gun violence. If that were the case, every trailer park in America would be a death trap. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that more welfare-like programs are going to solve the issue of gun violence in the inner cities of America. We have been financially supporting people for decades now and if anything, it's just getting worse. I think we've created a system of dependency and fraud where you have millions of people that are healthy enough to work but choose not to because it's too easy to survive without a paycheck. I'm in favor of helping people with drug addiction and mental health issues but giving them a monthly check to continue being a non-contributor is the wrong approach. I also don't believe that poverty alone is the reason why certain neighborhoods are full of gun violence. If that were the case, every trailer park in America would be a death trap. 

 

Like this a million times, hits the nail on the head with 10 pound hammer!!!

  • Like 3
Link to post

I am sure this will be seen as Racist by some, but why don't we see the same level of shootings in other "poor" areas.  There are plenty of poor areas in the US.  The "socio" is more of a problem than the "poor".  

 

Edited by Hozzie
spelling
  • Like 3
Link to post
22 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that more welfare-like programs are going to solve the issue of gun violence in the inner cities of America. We have been financially supporting people for decades now and if anything, it's just getting worse. I think we've created a system of dependency and fraud where you have millions of people that are healthy enough to work but choose not to because it's too easy to survive without a paycheck. I'm in favor of helping people with drug addiction and mental health issues but giving them a monthly check to continue being a non-contributor is the wrong approach. I also don't believe that poverty alone is the reason why certain neighborhoods are full of gun violence. If that were the case, every trailer park in America would be a death trap. 

 

I could not agree more, Erik!

Link to post
On 4/16/2021 at 7:08 PM, Chucktshoes said:

I’d be curious as to your thoughts  @Luckyforward considering this sort of thing is at least related to your wheelhouse. 

So as a therapist, I wish we still had mental hospitals; a short history on why we don't anymore.   In 1955 there were 559,000 people in mental hospitals in America.  (Would be over a million in today's numbers.)  Through the late 50s and early Sixties, a trend called "deinstitutionalization" started in mental health.  This trend was aided with the first psychotropic drugs that lessened the need for inpatient.  In 1963 the "Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act" went into effect to build between 1,500 - 2,500 community mental health centers to get patients out of the hospitals and into community care.  By 1977 only 650 centers had been built.  In 1981 the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act shifted funding to the states in the form of block grants and states decided to spend more money on community mental health rather than hospitals, so it is from the early 80s we began to have more homeless mental patients on the streets.  The lack of institutionalization plus the reality that you cannot force someone to get or stay on medication makes it difficult to treat the pervasively mentally ill.   

Edited by Luckyforward
Error on my part!
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that more welfare-like programs are going to solve the issue of gun violence in the inner cities of America. We have been financially supporting people for decades now and if anything, it's just getting worse. I think we've created a system of dependency and fraud where you have millions of people that are healthy enough to work but choose not to because it's too easy to survive without a paycheck. I'm in favor of helping people with drug addiction and mental health issues but giving them a monthly check to continue being a non-contributor is the wrong approach. I also don't believe that poverty alone is the reason why certain neighborhoods are full of gun violence. If that were the case, every trailer park in America would be a death trap. 

 

I understand what you are saying but I'm not suggesting welfare at all. I'm suggesting Universal Basic Income, for everyone. Along with adequate mental and physical healthcare.

This isn't about my concern for fellow people, either. I actually think it is the most cost-effective path.

It streamlines and simplifies matters. All the other "programs"  become obsolete.

UBI is a particular consideration for the near-future, as well, when quite simply, automation and AI will render many human activities obsolete.

Please consider, if the gun problem is a social problem, then it needs to be addressed by social solutions. What we have now is NOT working and jeopardizes 2nd Amendment guarantees. Sometimes we need to challenge ourselves and think outside of the box. And if it produces liberal allies, then that is great, too ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
53 minutes ago, Swamp ash said:

I'm suggesting Universal Basic Income, for everyone. Along with adequate mental and physical healthcare.

Just where does all this money come from. If everybody gets a basic income and has basic medical needs given then why work. If no one is working no taxes with no taxes where does the money come from?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Luckyforward said:

So as a therapist, I wish we still had mental hospitals; a short history on why we don't anymore.   In 1955 there were 559,000 people in mental hospitals in America.  (Would be over a million in today's numbers.)  Through the late 50s and early Sixties, a trend called "deinstitutionalization" started in mental health.  This trend was aided with the first psychotropic drugs that lessened the need for inpatient.  In 1963 the "Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act" went into effect to build between 1,500 - 2,500 community mental health centers to get patients out of the hospitals and into community care.  By 1977 only 650 centers had been built.  In 1981 the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act shifted funding to the states in the form of block grants and states decided to spend more money on community mental health rather than hospitals, so it is from the early 80s we began to have more homeless mental patients on the streets.  The lack of institutionalization plus the reality that you cannot force someone to get or stay on medication makes it difficult to treat the pervasively mentally ill.   

I've been on this position for quite some time. It is clear that what we are doing is ineffective, and that's got to change. If someone is demonstrably ill then sociecty should be allowed to force that person into mental healthcare as long as there are checks and balances in place - such as a panel of psychologies/psychiatrists that are independent of the institution that review cases. This would minimize the chances of someone who was been successfully treated from being held longer than they should be held.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.