Disturbing family facebook post

[Deltaboy1984]

This is a good time to ignore your kins facebook.

 

[Old Fuff]

A family member of mine just posted this on her Facebook page. How would you respond?

I wouldn't, at least for the time being. Wait and see what the picture looks like after all of the facts are in. Then you might (just might) consider a reasoned reply. Being objective in the face of pure emotionalism seldom works.

Personally I'm not on Facebook or any other social media site. If I want to share I come here.

 

[Tirod]

Except these trolls rock the cradle and if we do nothing, the next generation will be even more opposed to guns.

This is a false assumption and doesn't recognize the millions of 2A supporters and the trend to beat back many of the restrictions we previously suffered.

We've gone from just a few states having "shall issue" CCW to the impending enactment of national reciprocity. There are dozens of other examples. It's not wrong to consider the laws passed in CO, NY, and CT as actually helping our cause. The political and financial fallout has been to strengthen supporters there, remove people from office, and clog the courts with lawsuits questioning the Constitutionality, or even the legality of the law or it's passage.

And nobody is telling the LEO's to go house to house and seize guns, who largely oppose it. Not even being considered by any rational officeholder. They already know and fear the civil disobedience they already face.

Stop hand wringing and take an interested non shooter out to try it.

 

[Walkalong]

Ideas?

Make them spell it out exactly what they mean, or do not bother to respond to cryptic one liners.

The other idea I have when reading that it's just another anti mimicking what they hear from the mainstream media, completely ignoring the facts as usual.

And yet another idea is to ask what you are asking and why? Spell it out.

 

[4v50 Gary]

What AZ Mike says. I'm glad I'm not on Facebook. Nothing good comes from it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The California killer stabbed three to death, shot two to death, and ran over and killed one with a car, before committing suicide I read.

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/25/suspect-in-california-rampage-blamed-aloof-women/20892159/

And all the antigun folks focus on is the two murdered and one suicide by shooting. Why is being killed with a knife or with a car lesser than being shot? If he had stuck to killing with the knife and car, he may have called less attention to himself and killed more.

The problem with violence is an actor with motive; means is really not a causative factor. The four non-gun deaths in this incident should drive that home.

This killer sent up red flag warnings, the family was concerned, the police did nothing, then boom. The answer is, more gun control rhetoric: focus on 80 million gun owners, not on unstable individuals. "Authorities had had three contacts with Rodger in the past year, ...." That's not a red flag or three? The family attorney "The family is staunchly against guns, ..." Unstable kids conditioned to think guns are for killing only; seems to be a pattern. Going off some of these mental meds can trigger psychosis. Then there's the think guns = kill, kill = guns conditioning. And its always reported killed by a gun, not with a gun (and car and knife in this case), to fit the meme of banniing the guns will stop the killings.

 

[gamestalker]

What C. brown said.

Within the first few minutes of hearing this incident, the mainstream media referred to it as a "shooting rampage". It was clearly highlighted as a shooting rampage, when in fact three different weapons were employed, one of which were firearms. So a more accurate description would have been "murderous rampage" being that 3 individuals were stabbed to death at the very onset, and at least 2 others were assaulted with his automobile. And 50% of the innocent who were murdered, were stabbed to death. This individual would have most certainly carried out his intentions, with or without his firearms.

GS

 

[george burns]

Post pro gun articles on Facebook, let them know the truth, how guns save lives. It's a good tool if you use it to show that crime falls when people are armed. This works both ways, show them that it's just ignorance that causes people to believe that guns are the problem.
Get the VA hospitals up and running, and better programs in schools, and stop kids from dropping out and losing hope.

 

[Bobson]

Sounds like simple complaining about the societal situation with respect to guns. I wouldn't bother feeling disturbed, nor would I bother replying if I were you.

Agreed. Nothing alarming there, other than an ignorant perspective on crime.

 

[slumlord44]

Facebook is not the place to get in a pissing contest. My oldest daughter is always posting things from the Mothers group that is anti gun and I usually just ignore it. I will not change her mind and she will not change my mind. This is the same person whose reaction when someone bounced a chunk of concrete off of both her cars in front of her house was to want to get a gun and sit on the front porch all night and wait for them to come back.

 

[traveler106]

This would probably be a poorly chosen time to start accusing people of being stupid, "needing their heads examined," or being driven by emotion. That kind of utterly tone-deaf response gives the other side ammo to use against us. Just acknowledge that a tragedy occurred and that options have to be considered.

Well said.

If I were in the OP's situation, whether I would say anything and what I might say would depend heavily on who the family member is, but I do know that callous insults to other people's intelligence, thought processes, and so forth never help you to get your point across. All that does is stop people from listening.

 

[Baba Louie]

"Behavioral health issues & guns: "perfect" storm will only intensify. How many deaths/incidents will it take to rectify?"

Thanks for any ideas!

Now that a 3 day cooling off period has passed...

A lengthy, wordy Response might need to be broken down, but... here goes

In a Nation, founded and based on individual Liberty and Freedom, that had contradictory issues built in from day one regarding same, in a nation where the largest City in Illinois has untold stories of violence and has for years outlawed guns; the number of deaths/incidents when compared to number of law abiding gunowners has been and will continue to be miniscule, thanks to responsible citizens safeguarding their liberty and freedom.

The majority of these deaths/incidents seem to happen in places where gun control is most strict and most if not all law abiding citizens are unarmed due to the local political machine.

As to behavioral health issues, in a land of liberty and freedom, those so affected have rights as well.

Combining the two will always be problematic, but I will not argue to deny those affected any of their rights or judge them incapable, unless I know them specifically and know they present or will bring harm to others.

In which case, I had best be correct and proper in denying them their critical rights by calling the proper authorities or intervening myself.

Henry Rifle, How did you respond to your family members FB post, if I may be so bold as to ask? Prudently, but with proper conviction, one would hope.

 

[Theohazard]

This is not necessarily an anti-gun Facebook post. Many of you guys are overreacting. Sure, she's probably anti-gun, and she probably posted this from an anti-gun point of view, but nothing she posted is anti-gun per se. Some people are advocating the OP go completely overboard in his response, which wouldn't help the situation any and would only serve to solidify her position against gun owners. When debating anti-gun folks, it doesn't make any sense to assume anything; you should only argue against what they actually say.

Her post is almost certainly in response to the recent California stabbing/shooting rampage. So let's break down what she posted:

Behavioral health issues & guns:

She's implying that when crazy people go on rampages, their possession of a gun usually makes the situation worse. And that's a completely true statement, regardless of who says it. There's no question whether guns usually make murderous rampages worse, that's pretty obvious; the only questions are "how much worse do they make it" and "what should we do about it".

"perfect" storm will only intensify.

I assume she's replying that mass-killings by crazy people are getting worse, which is debatable but not worth arguing about on its own.

How many deaths/incidents will it take to rectify?

I don't think anyone here can argue that this problem isn't worth addressing. You can assume she means more gun control, but that's not what she actually said. What if she's advocating addressing mental health issues?

All of you guys advocating confronting this woman on Facebook about her post: Our strategy isn't to brow-beat anti-gun folks, our strategy is to make reasonable arguments that help convince them (or at least someone else who is listening) that gun owners aren't all crazy people. But overreacting to an ambiguous Facebook post won't help achieve that goal.