- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,136
They said "Yes I approve" and qualified why. That seems like an answer to me, and one I agree with.
Seven dead: three children killed plus the shooter dead at The Covenant School on Monday
- Thread starter Eric
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 5,334
they dont you cant just have surgery it costs a lot of money and it is not happening in children it hardly happens in adults so its a non argument.
Homelessness is a critical issue for America’s youth. According to the True Colors Fund, a nonprofit organization working to end homelessness in the LGBT community, 1.6 million
youth are homeless each year and up to 40 percent of them identify as LGBT. Because LGBT youth represent only 7 percent of the total youth population, there is a staggering disproportion of homelessness among these populations.
Despite this sobering statistic, there are currently no federal programs specifically designed to meet the needs of gay and transgender homeless youth. This means that, in many cases, LGBT youth are left without the resources and assistance provided to other homeless populations.
Human services professionals should have a clear understanding of the unique needs, risk factors, and challenges facing LGBT homeless youth in order to design and deliver the best possible services to their clients.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,593
The answer to the question of whether their opinion would change if they knew 15 year olds were having gender surgery.
They answered "but they are not". That is not an answer to the question I asked.
Well, it is happening. Does this change your opinion?
Trans kids' treatment can start younger, new guidelines say
A leading transgender health association has lowered its recommended minimum age for gender transition treatment in teens, including starting sex hormones at age 14 and some surgeries at 15.
apnews.com
I guess they must have started for it to be paused.
Vanderbilt hospital agrees to pause gender-affirming surgery on minors, officials say
Officials say VUMC has agreed to pause gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth following backlash.
www.wsmv.com
Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.
About 42,000 U.S. children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2021, nearly triple the number in 2017, a unique data analysis for Reuters found.
rdrr
Elite Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2020
- Posts
- 1,633
- Main Camera
- Sony
The first one is a BS question. A minor cannot have medical procedures done unless a guardian signs off on it. The only cases where that gets squashed, is if it's a life or death trama situation or the minor goes to court and wins their case.
Wouldn't it be better to decide how to best manage patients with gender dysphoria based on actual medical evidence and expertise, as opposed to viewing everything though a narrow political lens? And, as @Eric pointed out, why did this thread about yet another school shooting devolve into a discussion about trans care?The answer to the question of whether their opinion would change if they knew 15 year olds were having gender surgery.
They answered "but they are not". That is not an answer to the question I asked.
Well, it is happening. Does this change your opinion?
Trans kids' treatment can start younger, new guidelines say
A leading transgender health association has lowered its recommended minimum age for gender transition treatment in teens, including starting sex hormones at age 14 and some surgeries at 15.
I guess they must have started for it to be paused.
Vanderbilt hospital agrees to pause gender-affirming surgery on minors, officials say
Officials say VUMC has agreed to pause gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth following backlash.
View attachment 22639
Number of transgender children seeking treatment surges in U.S.
About 42,000 U.S. children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2021, nearly triple the number in 2017, a unique data analysis for Reuters found.www.reuters.com
I don’t want to go down this rabbit hole, but I thought I feel the need to say to take this figures with a grain of salt… or perhaps rather more in context. At the least this should not be interpreted as ~700k (40% of 1.6m) LGBT youth who were kicked out of their homes or were forced to escape abuse.
RE: 1.6m “homeless”- I believe they are considering all missing/runaway children (or possibly all chronicle homeless youth including those with homeless parents). The majority are runaways and 99%+ runaways come home. Missing children that do not return either don’t want to be found or have met other outcomes I prefer not to think about and there isn’t always an answer. The number of children that runaway/go missing and don’t come back is probably is probably in the low single digit thousands. Of course, not all children who go missing/runaway kids are reported.
And just because someone is LGBT and runs away doesn’t mean they’ve been kicked out. It may be related or unrelated abuse. It may have nothing to do with the parents or sexuality at all.
7% LGBT sounds reasonable, though it may be an actually be higher if you look at recent surveys of youth sexuality. Some surveys report as high as 30-40% identifying as LGBTQ or non-heterosexual. That’s a whole different discussion but I would think 7-10% is reasonable-conservative.
Studies for LGBT representation in homelessness vary widely from 40% to 10% (or sometimes even lower in specific areas- which may have to do with kids being more likely to be closeted).
In summary- No child should EVER be in a situation where they are not safe in their homes. Nor should parents ever abandon their children. I would think LGBT youth having higher rates But I think the number of kids who are kicked out of their homes or abused because of their sexuality by their parents to run away are far, far less than 40% of 1.6m.
I would guess to some extent this issue was far more common in the past when there was far less tolerance for LGBT individuals. On the other hand, far more people are identifying as LGBT than ever before. Knowing such rates would be interesting.
Research funded/performed by activist groups should always be considered cautiously- as this study was. There is a clear conflict of interest. It’s not like they would publish research that did not support their cause. These particular LGBT homeless stats seem very shoddy to me. I don’t doubt there are many LGBT youth who are homeless and it probably is disproportionate to non-LGBT, but the overall context is misleading.
(There is a lot of areas for error in all of these statistics and loose definitions are used and reused elsewhere in another context. For example, if a kid runs away and lives with a friends family who supports them, are they homeless? Lots of issues with estimating such figures).
Last edited:
Indeed.
I must say, I know these school shootings evoke strong emotions. But never have I seen such bad commentary on a school shooting.
The right would have you believe Transgender people pose the greatest violent threat to public safety since Al Qaeda. That transgenderism is a mental illness and mental illness automatically means violence. That that all Christians are in imminent danger. That psychiatric drugs brainwash people into becoming mass shooters (an idea shared by some on the far left). Etc, etc, etc. It goes without saying this is all nonsense.
On the left there seems to be this tacit justification of this crime with a narrative like “the perpetrator was trans, she was discriminated, all Christians hate LGBT people- they got what was coming to them or this should be expected”. Sorry- no. There is no justification for killing people because their opinion offends you. And there is certainly zero justification for killing 3 innocent children.
And saying the Christians should have prayed more- completely disrespectful. Promoting Trans-people need to buy guns seems totally counterproductive. “Trans Day of Vengeance” - Idk if this a troll or one lunatic but WTF.
And Biden’s reaction press conference- no clue what was going on there. As I understand he came out to specifically talk about the shooting, but started off by joking around. I have always been thoroughly impressed with Joe’s ability to express genuine sympathy around losing loved ones, clearly given the tragedies he’s sadly had to endure. Perhaps better than any other public figure I’ve seen. But that press conference… I can only imagine how insulting that must feel for those affected. I don’t think Joe disingenuous in sympathy, but ugh.
Anyways- We have no public evidence of what the precise motive was here. If Christians were targeted for their religion, that could make this a hate crime. Why some people scoff at this I have no idea, targeting a religious group is a hate crime. Why people get so worked up about whether it is or isn’t when the shooter is dead- please tell me. And if it is a hate crime, there is no reason to assume this is a trend and Christians are in grave danger.
Too many people want to make this all about them and their political stance. This isn’t about trans people. It isn’t about Christians. It’s about 1 clearly sick person murdering 3 children and 3 presumably innocent adults. And how to prevent this madness.
Perhaps before jumping to conclusions and making emotional statement, people should take a breath and wait until we better understand what the perpetrators motives were.
The shooter reportedly had planned on attacking a mall and family members. It’s entirely possible the school’s religious affiliation and gender identity has little-nothing to do with her motive. If she was seeking to hurt her family, shooting up a school is perhaps even more harmful to them than killing them. We shall see.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2020
- Posts
- 13,145
- Solutions
- 18
- Main Camera
- Sony
It's not just 1 sick person, so far there have been 74 people murdered in mass shootings this year alone. Forget one's political or religious stance, shootings are the number one cause of death of children in the United States, how that falls completely deaf on those who defend these weapons is simply baffling.
It's NOT too soon, these shootings happen on a regular basis so it will "always" too soon by that logic. I believe mental health is at the root of this, the question is why we're literally making it so easy for them to obtain weapons of war so they can use them against innocent children in classrooms. Of all the issues that face us as a society I'll never understand why these people are letting our children die so needlessly.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Posts
- 5,334
yes since it happens every day pretty much its just another excuse to not talk about it.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Posts
- 4,321
- Main Camera
- iPhone
Sadly, many view slaughtered children as an acceptable consequence of no limitations/regulations gun ownership. In their eyes, it's simply a small societal cost.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2020
- Posts
- 13,145
- Solutions
- 18
- Main Camera
- Sony
I think there needs to be some balance with gun ownership and don't support taking away anyone's right to bear arms. But assault weapons have no place in the hands of civilians and they are the number one weapon of choice for these mass shootings. It would be nice if Republicans were able to separate this out and see it for what it is.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Posts
- 4,321
- Main Camera
- iPhone
Assault weapons, particularly the AR-15 (and its variants) have become a political symbol (Freedom, America, Don't F with me, etc) and thus coveted. They have no legitimate purpose. Banning them will help.
Along with that, real background checks to determine ownership suitability would also help. A lot. "Mental heath" has become the reflexive phrase by the right in discussing solutions, but they're just talking points with no intent or plan to move forward in any meaningful way that would reduce mass shootings.
I would like to see real background investigations similar to what people go through in obtaining a government security clearance. An investigator searches public records for arrests/mental-health-holds/etc, talks to your neighbors, employers, recent teachers, friends you list, and friends of those friends (to reduce attempts to game the outcome).
I agree. These mass-shootings, especially school shootings, is a completely unacceptable situation. The fact that these events are now seemingly routine is utter madness. Forget “too soon”, decisive changes should have been made years ago.
If the stats are to be trusted, the majority of Americans and the majority of gun-owners want reforms. The NRA as far as I understand doesn’t have nearly the influence it once does. So what’s the problem here? And it’s not just Republicans in Congress, when a Democrat in a purple district is up for re-election, they become awfully quiet. Remember in 2016 Bernie Sanders on the debate stage?
I’m not even convinced many of the gun control proponents in Congress have even taken the issue seriously- at least in the past. A tragedy happens, the right wants no changes, the left says they do, so they settle for meaningless laws with little-no impact. The right knows nothing changes, the left can pretend they accomplished something and use said “accomplishment” as marketing for their re-election campaign- and when the next mass murder inevitably occurs they blame the right. As my deceased colleague used to say “if nothing changes, nothing changes”.
Oh, and maybe in our next elections, rather than focusing all attention on Donald Trump’s toxic personality and tax crimes, Joe Biden’s delinquent adult child, Hillary Clinton’s illegal e-mail server, etc maybe, just maybe, some attention could actually be paid to POLICY. And maybe if one candidate decides to make school safety a prominent campaign issue, the other(s) will have to too.
I think there needs to be some real honesty, sobriety in emotion and thought, and willingness to compromise.
1) Outlawing all or nearly all guns is not happening anytime soon. America’s gun culture is too ingrained and it’s a constitutionally protected right. And such rhetoric scares people into thinking people want to take their guns away and thus the “not another inch mentality”. And let’s be honest, there’s no way 400m guns are going to magically disappear.
2) The die hard pro-gun side needs to recognize the amount of mass shootings is not sustainable. We’re creating a generation of emotionally traumatized kids. The more these events occur, the more likely guns WILL eventually be banned entirely in the future. And no amount of guns can protect you from a random person walking up behind you and shooting you in the head. And this problem is only getting worse and worse.
3) There needs to be more formalized reporting- with integrity, honesty, and transparency. Public mass shootings and school shootings are not the same as gang violence. Mass school shootings are not the same as someone shooting another person on the school grounds. Clearer data can be used to help mold policy. How you deal with school shootings is not going to the same as gang violence.
4) New regulations need to be based on data, prove to be effective- not what sounds appealing at face value, and there must be accountability for enforcement. Too many of these laws are frankly useless or are not utilized correctly.
5) If sensible gun reforms work, meaning they shown a meaningful reduction gun violence, there won’t be the strong desire to ban guns entirely or move. That should be a win-win for both sides.
I’ve gone through my ideas specific before here. I think far more creativity could be used in finding compromise.
And every tool in the toolbox should be used at this point- including those outside of legislation. I think the days of “schools should not have to be built like fortresses”. I agree with the sentiment they *should not*… but here we are, again. In light of the circumstances and no meaningful gun reforms, schools by default should be fortified. Sad as it is.
And I agree with this new concept of promoting “gun safety” over “gun control”. It’s small, but framing matters.
But I think we all know nothing is going to change here. If the Nashville story wasn’t dead already, Trump’s indictment killed. The news cycle turns over and poof- gone. Until next month when we see this happen all over again.
And all the talk about it being “too soon”… you know, I get it, politicizing tragedies sucks regardless of who is doing it and emotional decisions are usually very poor. But when has enough time passed? When the news cycle turns over? When the victims are buried? A month? Two? The response should be: “Let’s agree on a time when it is appropriate and schedule it”.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,593
Would you support making them Class 3 weapons just like fully automatics are?
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,136
All I know is, elected officials - especially our friends on the right - need to stop doing all of this nothing and start doing something. Fine, let’s “harden” schools and have cops. Then there will be a shooting on such a place, then we need armed teachers. Then that will lead to disaster, then what? Teach kids to shoot young and arm them all?
Clearly, somewhere between the second amendment and schools with mass murder, there is room to work on something. Maybe let’s all stop pretending we know the answers and have serious committee hearings and partisan-free talks. Hey, I can dream right?
Clearly, somewhere between the second amendment and schools with mass murder, there is room to work on something. Maybe let’s all stop pretending we know the answers and have serious committee hearings and partisan-free talks. Hey, I can dream right?
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Posts
- 4,321
- Main Camera
- iPhone
I don't know. Would need to give that more thought. I assume that means availability would be much more difficult.
Your views?
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,593
Not sure how it would work on availability, but purchasing one would certainly much more difficult. To purchase a Class 3 weapon you have to jump though two big hoops.
First you need to get "permission" from your local head of law enforcement. In my case it is the county Sheriff. When I first tried to purchase an M-16, the Sheriff at the time refused to sign off. Nothing to do with me, it was just his decision to not sign any of them. So I had to wait until he was termed out. By then, the price of an M-16 had gone from $8K to close to $20K. So I ended up with a 9mm Cobray and a Ruger Mini 14.
Second, you need an ATF background check. This is not the show up at a gun store, fill out a form and 10 minutes later you can make your purchase background check. This one requires fingerprints, pictures and takes several weeks.
Once your application is approved you pay your $350 ($150 application and $200 transfer fee) and you can purchase your weapon.
If I want to take it to my friend's farm in KY, I am required to notify the ATF and I can not sell it to anyone other than a FFL Type 01 or 02 license holder or transfer it to someone who has been approved and that transfer must go through an FFL.
So yes, much more involved. You can't buy one on a lazy Saturday.
So how would it work.
I think that the ATF could change the definition of an AR to be an NFA (National Firearms Act of 1934) weapon. The definition of an NFA weapon is
Since the AR can be easily modified/restored to full auto, it should comply. This would certainly do more than banning a gun based on looks and whether or not it can take a grenade launcher.
The biggest issue would be the NFA has no mechanism to register existing weapons. So those who already own them could keep them, but transfers could fall under the NFA. As would new purchases.
While not a complete fix, it is one thing that actually would help. It would take Congress to modify the law to require registration of existing weapons which probably couldn't get passed.
Unless there was something in it for both sides. The NFA has been amended twice, in 1968 to fix a defect and in 1986 to outlaw silencers and prohibit the transfer of full auto guns. But it did allow the possession and transfer of full auto guns owned and in existence prior to the effective date of the Act. That makes the pool of available weapons small.
But in exchange for modifying the NFA to require registration of existing weapons, they could allow more weapons to be included. Right now there is a 37 year gap, so I would propose making it a rolling 20 year gap. I mean in 1986 you could buy a brand new M-16. Now that M-16 would have to be 37 years old. So in 2023, you could buy one manufactured in 2003. Both sides would get something and anyone purchasing an AR-15 would have to go through a real BGC.
Just my thoughts.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Posts
- 4,321
- Main Camera
- iPhone
Sounds like a step in the right direction for new acquisitions.
Regarding the BGC, is there any meat in the investigation part beyond being able to discover arrests and psychiatric holds (presumably done online)? Such as talking to employers/neighbors/friends/etc?
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Posts
- 5,593
I know they do some level of mental health checks as well as restraining order checks. I do not think they talk to employers/neighbors/friends. They might, but when I went through the process no one told me they were contacted.