News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Curious what set the shooter off
ATM, this is all I could find. It’s from Newsweek.
This is from USA Today
*Austin PD Chief Lisa Davis
Some articles say a history of mental illness.
Even this article says he had a "mental health history."
Whatever you think of gun ownership, I think almost everybody should agree that people with a "mental health history" should probably not be allowed to have guns in Target parking lots.
Okay, long rant, but important topic: Way too vague. One of the maddening things about health care is how rarely medical terminology lines up with legal. I know YOU aren't proposing a law, but this is the kind of language they like to tap into, so... Through a layman's lens, saying a person has a "mental health history" paints a pretty clear picture of instability, but what actually constitutes a mental health history? You've been to marriage counseling? Gone to the ER for a killer headache that turned out to be 'just' stress? Been required by a prospective employer to take the Myer's Briggs? "Sorry, your results came back as ISTP, we're going to need to confiscate your firearms."
It takes almost nothing to have a 'mental health history'. And even if you have a history of something noteworthy, it can be managed or gone. I have a history of a fractured and degloved thumb, cuz when I was a dumbass kid I managed to get it slammed into a heavy sliding glass door... then panicked and pulled it out as hard as I could. Today? Not even a scar - looks and functions completely normally. ...should I be barred from activities that require use of my hands due to a history of debilitating thumb injury? Shit can heal, and your brain is no different. So back to mental, let's say you have a history of severe depression w/ suicidal ideation. Sounds like a bad combo with firearms, yeah? But if the underlying causes were identified and treated and you're no longer struggling with your mental health, should that old diagnosis still prevent you from doing things that require a sound state of mind?
When lawmakers start tossing terms like that around, crank your skepticism up to 11 - it's up there with "protecting the children!"'s level of not doing shit to protect children while doing quite a lot to cripple your rights.
We see similar examples written in as cop-outs to make oppressive legislation easier to sell. i.e., abortion is illegal - unless the mother's life is at risk - wtf does it mean for her life to be at risk? Like, okay, her blood pressure is 90/60 and dropping... that's pretty low, but she's not going to die like right now... I guess let's check again in 5 mins? ...85/57, yup, still some internal bleeding... but she's still got some color in her cheeks, maybe it'll still turn itself around? 5 more mins. Aw fuck, the BP machine isn't getting a reading a reading anymore, where the fuck did the manual cuff go?! There it is, go go go she's turning fucking blue... 68/43, that placenta needs to gtfo like RIGHT NOW, tell the OR to start setting up for an emergency surgery- fuck fuck fuck we just lost heart beat, get the crash cart, overhead a Code Blue... 20 mins of compressions on a fucking corpse later and she's finally declared dead. Had the abortion happened when she was at 90/60, she'd have been fine; but NO doctor is going to put their license (and freedom) on the line to claim that 90/60 is life threatening, and waiting to start those interventions until it looks like an emergency is basically a death sentence.
Any non-specificity in legal definitions for medical criteria should be rejected automatically. Give me ranges. Actual lab values. Vitals. Times. Put those in the fucking law - there should be zero ambiguity about this kind of shit.
Some doctors actually make stress a diagnosis for something they don’t have a clue. A family friend was diagnosed with stress, turned out to be cancer.
As long as it’s identified and treated; some cases need ongoing care and attention.
Exactly, too vague.
Physicians don’t want to do that IRL because of a probable malpractice suit let alone sit down with policy makers…ugh.
Thanks for the long rant; I agree.
I think it’s time we stop swallowing the “mental health issues” excuse and pretending the real problem is just how a mentally ill person got a gun. That’s a distraction, a way to avoid talking about why so many people are desperate, untreated, and breaking.
How exactly do you plan to “screen for mental illness” in gun ownership? A psychic hotline? A vibes check at the gun counter? It’s absurd. If mental health is truly the concern, then the solution isn’t in background checks, it’s in actual, accessible, affordable mental health care.
But here’s the reality: in the richest country on Earth, getting mental health treatment can cost more than rent. People get put on months-long waitlists. Insurance companies deny coverage for therapy while covering opioids and antidepressants like candy. And then everyone acts shocked when someone cracks under the weight of it all and lashes out, sometimes violently, sometimes in a Target parking lot.
If you’re serious about preventing this, you don’t start with the gun store. You start with making sure people never get to that breaking point in the first place.
Being convinced everyone bears arms from birth until death.