Florida High School Shooting

[HomerJS]

Beg to differ. Such an exam can easily be done in a primary care office as well as a specialty office. It doesn't take very long at all and most primary care visits depending on your insurance plan can range from 5 to 50 dollars.

In fact you can even do it another way: require the person with the gun or gun license have to get either
a) 3 letters of recommendation citing his mental stability and fitness from at friends and family members (at least one friend and one blood relative), and put legal liability on anyone who signs away these letters or
b) a documented formal in-person police interview to determine fitness to carry a weapon

Then make this requirement have to occur every 3 years or the license is lost and the state comes after you.

Most reasonable people can get 3 letters of rec saying they are mentally fit to carry a weapon or could pass an in-person interview with a police officer as to their fitness.
These loner psycho's who are gunning down people in schools would never be able to do either. They'd be picked up so fast.

sounds reasonable

 

[jackstar7]

15 minutes with a trained professional could differentiate a tendency towards violence vs someone who eats too much pizza. Maybe a psychiatric exam would be in order before issuing a gun license

B-b-b-but the burden!

And what next? Psychiatric exams for voters! I mean where does it stop?!

Oh? It stops with guns? Oh.

 

[brandonbull]

So then you should be for Healthcare for everyone so we can catch these mental illnesses early to stop this type of stuff from happening.

So should you. Why aren't you? I guess grabbing guns and dancing around on TV with arms full of confiscated guns looks cooler than changes to the health and well being of people.

 

[glenn1]

Beg to differ. Such an exam can easily be done in a primary care office as well as a specialty office. It doesn't take very long at all and most primary care visits depending on your insurance plan can range from 5 to 50 dollars.

In fact you can even do it another way: require the person with the gun or gun license have to get either
a) 3 letters of recommendation citing his mental stability and fitness from at friends and family members (at least one friend and one blood relative), and put legal liability on anyone who signs away these letters or
b) a documented formal in-person police interview to determine fitness to carry a weapon

Then make this requirement have to occur every 3 years or the license is lost and the state comes after you.

Most reasonable people can get 3 letters of rec saying they are mentally fit to carry a weapon or could pass an in-person interview with a police officer as to their fitness.
These loner psycho's who are gunning down people in schools would never be able to do either. They'd be picked up so fast.

Sure thing, that sounds like a completely foolproof plan no doubt.

You kinda remind me of the folks who said after 9/11 that we should put anti-aircraft guns atop NYC skyscrapers to prevent the next attack. You both seem to approach problem solving the same way.

 

[brandonbull]

I'd be all for a ban of assault-style rifles with high cap magazines. We could send our thoughts and prayers to those poor souls that lost their guns.

It sounds funnier every time some internet asshole says "thoughts and prayers" when advocating for taking away constitutional rights while stepping on the bloody dead bodies of kids.

 

[Dulanic]

I didn't realize the clerk at the DMV was a licensed psychiatrist performing a full mental health screening. Maybe you should get the government out of that line of business then because they seem to be doing a pretty shitty job.

Point is it's more of a test than for a gun in most states. But nice deflection away from the point. Obviously you aren't going to take a damn test at the DMV for a gun.

 

[brandonbull]

So I have to assume that people desperate to keep their guns are just trying to keep peace and quiet in their homes.

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent...policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf





It makes sense that people who can't earn respect need fear to keep things under control.

I remember seeing a stat from Gary Kleck that home intruders are as likely to be confronted with an armed home owner as they are to be arrested for the home invasion.

 

[glenn1]

Point is it's more of a test than for a gun in most states. But nice deflection away from the point. Obviously you aren't going to take a damn test at the DMV for a gun.

I don't particularly care if it's more of a test if it has no basis in accuracy. The DMV clerk is neither going to or is empowered to deny a license to someone because "they look crazy" which is all the screening they'd be able to do. Again the idea of making potential gun owners get 3 referrals is ineffectual security theater akin to the TSA airport screeners I mentioned earlier. All you'd do is cost the state a lot of money when the person whose firearm is denied correctly sues in court for a 5th and 14th Amendment violation. I'm guessing 99% of the cases would probably would get ruled against the state on motions of summary judgement.

 

[brandonbull]

Why would the FBI investigate this kid? What federal or interstate actions was he taking that would merit their involvement?

As for Trump, the FBI is concerned with investigating federal crimes. As numerous associates of his have pleaded guilty or have been indicted for federal crimes, it sure seems like they would be smart to investigate it. I'm sure you agree.

I have no idea why the FBI would do anything. https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-says-failed-act-receiving-174654960.html

 

[Sunburn74]

Sure thing, that sounds like a completely foolproof plan no doubt.

You kinda remind me of the folks who said after 9/11 that we should put anti-aircraft guns atop NYC skyscrapers to prevent the next attack. You both seem to approach problem solving the same way.

Who said it's fool proof? That's the typical gun nutter response: jump to extremes. We shouldn't have seat belts at all because they're not foolproof and you can still die in a car wreck. You shouldn't exercise because you can still have a heart attack or get diabetes despite being thin and in good shape.

Nothing is fool proof. I'm sure 3 nutbags can get together and write each others letters, or a nutbag can threaten a family member to write a letter, or a nutbag may be able to get through a 20 min interview with a police officer.

The point is not that its perfect but rather that
1) its an impediment that'll make them really think about what they are doing
2) it'll catch some if not most of these guys
3) its a start. Its a change; a step something that you can say "hey we did something and it worked a bit or didn't work but we learned something"

Everyone of these mass shooters: loners, white, weird personalities, no friends, family had serious concerns, high chance of being already known by the police, crazy social media profiles, etc etc The basic point is people who know these individuals are in the best position to keep guns out of their hands, as opposed to systematic screening systems like background checks (which for many of these individuals is negative).

B-b-b-but the burden!

And what next? Psychiatric exams for voters! I mean where does it stop?!

Oh? It stops with guns? Oh.

Try that with voting and 99% of the US will revolt.
Try it with guns and likely only the 3% that own 50% of all the guns will revolt. I could care less what those guys think; they're the ones doing all the shooting.

 

[glenn1]

Who said it's fool proof? That's the typical gun nutter response: jump to extremes. We shouldn't have seat belts at all because they're not foolproof and you can still die in a car wreck. You shouldn't exercise because you can still have a heart attack or get diabetes despite being thin and in good shape.

Nothing is fool proof. I'm sure 3 nutbags can get together and write each others letters, or a nutbag can threaten a family member to write a letter, or a nutbag may be able to get through a 20 min interview with a police officer.

The point is not that its perfect but rather that
1) its an impediment that'll make them really think about what they are doing
2) it'll catch some if not most of these guys
3) its a start. Its a change; a step something that you can say "hey we did something and it worked a bit or didn't work but we learned something"

Everyone of these mass shooters: loners, white, weird personalities, no friends, family had serious concerns, high chance of being already known by the police, crazy social media profiles, etc etc The basic point is people who know these individuals are in the best position to keep guns out of their hands, as opposed to systematic screening systems like background checks (which for many of these individuals is negative).

Already addressed this. For one it seems akin to the "if you see something, say something" program which is a waste of time and secondly it seems highly unlikely to survive court challenge. Plus as I said labeling someone as not mentally competent to own a gun opens them to abridgment of many other of their rights and I don't think you'd like that outcome.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The point is not that its perfect but rather that
1) its an impediment that'll make them really think about what they are doing
2) it'll catch some if not most of these guys
3) its a start. Its a change; a step something that you can say "hey we did something and it worked a bit or didn't work but we learned something"

Exactly. We don't have fix everything in one go. We can make iterative changes until we find the what works while still giving us the most freedom. If we find a change did little or nothing to help the situation, or is too draconian for the change it did accomplish, then we can undo that change and try something else. But sitting on our hands because doing something might not work is definitely going to fail.

 

[mdram]

if you are not competent enough to own a gun, then surely voting is out of the question.

both are in the Constitution, and should have the same requirements

 

[Fanatical Meat]

if you are not competent enough to own a gun, then surely voting is out of the question.

both are in the Constitution, and should have the same requirements

Good lobby your Congress Critter to sponsor a bill. Good luck

 

[SMOGZINN]

Already addressed this. For one it seems akin to the "if you see something, say something" program which is a waste of time and secondly it seems highly unlikely to survive court challenge. Plus as I said labeling someone as not mentally competent to own a gun opens them to abridgment of many other of their rights and I don't think you'd like that outcome.

We abridge peoples rights all the time. You have the right to free speech, but you can't cry fire in a crowded theater. You have the right to the freedom of religious practice, but can't perform human sacrifice (even if the person is willing). You can own guns, but with restrictions.

We already restrict your access to firearms. We are really only arguing about how much.

 

[Sunburn74]

Already addressed this. For one it seems akin to the "if you see something, say something" program which is a waste of time and secondly it seems highly unlikely to survive court challenge. Plus as I said labeling someone as not mentally competent to own a gun opens them to abridgment of many other of their rights and I don't think you'd like that outcome.

No reason it won't survive a court challenge. Congress and other legislative bodies have broad power to regulate gun laws and gun access (as per Scalia). They can ban any weapon they want and restrict access based on public interest. Politically there is little will to do it but if they wanted to make licensure and competency requirements more strict it can be done easily.

Its not at all anything like "see something, say something". Those programs require input and action on the part of the person seeing the oddity and unusual behavior. It's more that the those performing the odd behavior have to establish their competency meaning they have to show evidence of societal consensus that its ok to have a gun. This is no different than a marriage license. To get married you have to show societal consensus that its ok to get married. You go, fill out some paperwork which is reviewed by a justice of the peace or some body acting in his stead and after societal consent is given then you get married. Whilst justices of the peace aren't that stringent (they basically check that you're not brother and sister and in some states they check health stuff and confirm that its not a fake marriage for immigration purposes) nonetheless that is their role; they are the 3 letters of rec or the police interview. They are proof for societal consent. That is the issue at hand. Many of these lone terrorists have no general societal consent to own a gun but are getting them anyway. Every time we ask "how did this guy get a gun?" None of his family, friends, ex workers would say he should be allowed get one yet somehow he did anyway.

Exactly. We don't have fix everything in one go. We can make iterative changes until we find the what works while still giving us the most freedom. If we find a change did little or nothing to help the situation, or is too draconian for the change it did accomplish, then we can undo that change and try something else. But sitting on our hands because doing something might not work is definitely going to fail.

Also like what thing has the US ever done where we nailed it on the first try? Heck even the country's very existence needed a reset (the civil war)
Everything needs adjustment, do overs, retries, fixes, etc
If you're waiting on the perfect fix, we'll be waiting forever. But if you want to start something that can be built on, now is the time

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Nothing will be done, as usual.

 

[momeNt]

We abridge peoples rights all the time. You have the right to free speech, but you can't cry fire in a crowded theater. You have the right to the freedom of religious practice, but can't perform human sacrifice (even if the person is willing). You can own guns, but with restrictions.

We already restrict your access to firearms. We are really only arguing about how much.

Using your analogy, you can own a gun, as long as you don't kill anybody (human sacrifice) or use it to threaten lives (crowded theater). Restrictions on use are already in place. Nobody is getting devoiced because they were a convicted felon, or because they spent time in a mental hospital.

The last part of your sentence is one of those give me half, now give me half again, okay how about half again? Until you are left with nothing!

 

[nOOky]

It sounds funnier every time some internet asshole says "thoughts and prayers" when advocating for taking away constitutional rights while stepping on the bloody dead bodies of kids.

Yes, I do believe those advocating for guns over dead kids are fucking nuts. The blood hasn't even coagulated, and the internet is full of whiners saying "don't take my guns!".

 

[HomerJS]

I didn't realize the clerk at the DMV was a licensed psychiatrist performing a full mental health screening. Maybe you should get the government out of that line of business then because they seem to be doing a pretty shitty job.

You can send them to a trained psychologist, genius. Easy as going to a doctor for a physical.. Make it a requirement for getting a gun license.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Already addressed this. For one it seems akin to the "if you see something, say something" program which is a waste of time and secondly it seems highly unlikely to survive court challenge. Plus as I said labeling someone as not mentally competent to own a gun opens them to abridgment of many other of their rights and I don't think you'd like that outcome.

The new FBI motto is

" If you see something, say something and we'll do nothing."

 

[HomerJS]

It sounds funnier every time some internet asshole says "thoughts and prayers" when advocating for taking away constitutional rights while stepping on the bloody dead bodies of kids.

Oh you poor foll. You still think Constitutional rights are absolute. Really? Think that holds for 1A? Try posting on FB your wish for the murder of Trump. FBI and or SS will pay you a visit and start depriving you of rights.

 

[glenn1]

Oh you poor foll. You still think Constitutional rights are absolute. Really? Think that holds for 1A? Try posting on FB your wish for the murder of Trump. FBI and or SS will pay you a visit and start depriving you of rights.

Yeah, you can’t shoot at the President either so I’m glad we agree on reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions for the 2A just like they exist for the 1A.

 

[HomerJS]

The new FBI motto is

" If you see something, say something and we'll do nothing."

What did you want the FBI to do? He hadn't committed any crimes at that point.

However there was enough info that his name should have made it to a national database preventing him from purchasing any gun.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It's OK. I know you're approaching things reasonably. The problem is, to me, by labeling things a mental illness problem it's really passing the buck to mental health providers. We can be part of things, but the important solutions involving us are at the system level which is under the direction of the government. If it is not under government direction, it will never happen because no one else has incentive to pay for it to happen.

Agreed 100%. When people talk about the roles the federal government should play in protecting the populace, sometimes that can include protecting us from ourselves. Sometimes that may mean limitations of rights, sometimes that may include a new approach to the concept of mental health care of the citizenry. One provided by, or at least funded by, the government as a whole.