If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Navy Yard shooter suffered from mental health issues, heard voices. Gee, where have I heard that before?   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 548
    More: Obvious, mental healths  
•       •       •

3603 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 1:46 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



548 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 10:15:02 AM
This incident is a much more compelling example of how stricter regulations could have reduced the possibility of a mass shooting than was Sandy Hook. Here you have a guy with a pretty clear record of gun incidents coupled with mental health problems who purchased one of the guns that he used in the incident legally. Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.

So now the question is whether you think someone who has a clear record of alleged gun incidents and a history of severe mental health problems should be allowed to own a firearm. If the answer to that question is no, well, then it's fairly straightforward to reverse-engineer a regulatory scheme that might prevent that from happening.

Who needed to know what at the point of sale of that shotgun for folks to hit pause on this for a while? Well, clearly a background check needed to show the mental health problems and the alleged gun incidents. Now those things took place across several states, so this needs to be a Federal solution, not a state solution. And the local jurisdictions need to be compelled to report gun-related incidents or other violent crime to the Federal database. The mental health is a little trickier because there needs to be some sort of flag that triggers reporting--but I'm sure that we can work out the details there without too much trouble.

So the first step looks like a more comprehensive and mandatory system of background checks, which compels participation from local authorities and health care providers (easily coerced through public-safety and Medicare dollars).
 
2013-09-17 10:21:59 AM
If that guy didn't have a gun, he'd have killed those people with something else.

/lawn furniture, maybe
 
2013-09-17 10:29:06 AM
Obviously his legal access to guns isn't the problem. Right?
 
2013-09-17 10:53:56 AM

birdmanesq: This incident is a much more compelling example of how stricter regulations could have reduced the possibility of a mass shooting than was Sandy Hook. Here you have a guy with a pretty clear record of gun incidents coupled with mental health problems who purchased one of the guns that he used in the incident legally. Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.

So now the question is whether you think someone who has a clear record of alleged gun incidents and a history of severe mental health problems should be allowed to own a firearm. If the answer to that question is no, well, then it's fairly straightforward to reverse-engineer a regulatory scheme that might prevent that from happening.

Who needed to know what at the point of sale of that shotgun for folks to hit pause on this for a while? Well, clearly a background check needed to show the mental health problems and the alleged gun incidents. Now those things took place across several states, so this needs to be a Federal solution, not a state solution. And the local jurisdictions need to be compelled to report gun-related incidents or other violent crime to the Federal database. The mental health is a little trickier because there needs to be some sort of flag that triggers reporting--but I'm sure that we can work out the details there without too much trouble.

So the first step looks like a more comprehensive and mandatory system of background checks, which compels participation from local authorities and health care providers (easily coerced through public-safety and Medicare dollars).


I agree. As much as I'm a gun guy, I'd like to see more comprehensive reporting of people with dangerous mental illnesses and a higher bar for mental health in general, with the recurrence of compulsory institutionalization if you're really bad.
 
2013-09-17 10:56:09 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Obviously his legal access to guns isn't the problem. Right?


It's certainly part of the problem.  Better mental health screening and background checks are perfectly sensible, but good luck getting the slightest bit of that passed with the current political climate.

But truth be told, if he was hell bent on it no law would have stopped him.  There are plenty of channels where guns can be illegally acquired, so let's not forget that end of the equation as well.  That too needs to be addressed, even though it wasn't a factor in this particular incident.
 
2013-09-17 10:56:41 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Obviously his legal access to guns isn't the problem. Right?


No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.

I completely agree that we need to find a way to not give certified crazy people access to dangerous objects, with the proviso that there have to be checks and balances, means of contesting findings and diagnosis, and means of restoring rights.

I don't want to see a system become a catchall means of denying rights to people that you don't like without any way to contest or overturn a finding, but at the same time, i don't want to see douchebags like this getting their hands on guns.   After being reported for the discharge in an apartment with a neighbor saying they were terrified of him, he should've been charged with reckless endangerment and had his rights revoked then. Why are we not doing this? Why are there not penalties against such behavior?
 
2013-09-17 11:01:54 AM

Kit Fister: No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.


I think you're right, and that's where this conversation gets stuck. I don't think most pro-regulation folks are looking to ban certain kinds of guns as much as they are looking to restrict access to folks that shouldn't be getting them. And it seems to me like Responsible Gun Ownerstm should be invested in figuring out some reasonable way to restrict access before one of these mass shooting incidents truly shifts the public conversation into considering significant restrictions that significantly inconvenience folks who really shouldn't be inconvenienced.
 
2013-09-17 11:11:27 AM

birdmanesq: Kit Fister: No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.

I think you're right, and that's where this conversation gets stuck. I don't think most pro-regulation folks are looking to ban certain kinds of guns as much as they are looking to restrict access to folks that shouldn't be getting them. And it seems to me like Responsible Gun Ownerstm should be invested in figuring out some reasonable way to restrict access before one of these mass shooting incidents truly shifts the public conversation into considering significant restrictions that significantly inconvenience folks who really shouldn't be inconvenienced.


I've been trying to push such "reasonable methods" and have written my congress critters about it.

The problem is, you are fighting a couple of things:

1. Gun owners who are afraid that anti-gun people will use these methods as a means of indiscriminately getting people declared unfit to own guns just to push a defacto ban.
2. The obvious fear that gun owners who need treatment who know that seeking treatment can lead to loss of rights simply avoiding treatment
3. The problem of HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality that would make a database of patient information next to impossible to implement.


However, there are ways around it, such as having a certified board of people that need to sign off on a patient's unfitness and certify to a judge that the patient is indeed unfit in order to have them adjudicated unfit legally that requires unanimous decision, with the proviso that the patient be regularly rescreened and that the ban only last for a certain period of time (5 years?) before the state has to have his case reviewed otherwise his record is automatically expunged.

Also, by requiring that a patient exhibiting certain disqualifying symptoms be reported to a state health board, for example, who then reviews an dinterviews the patient, comes to a conclusion, and then files with the court to have him declared unfit and undergoing treatment, you get around the HIPAA thing such that you then only have those who are found unfit, or who have a temporary order entered into the system preventing them from owning firearms, etc., without needing to expose all patients.
 
2013-09-17 11:14:39 AM

Kit Fister: No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.

I completely agree that we need to find a way to not give certified crazy people access to dangerous objects, with the proviso that there have to be checks and balances, means of contesting findings and diagnosis, and means of restoring rights.


Maybe, just MAYBE, instead of you going into gun threads and complaining about "gun grabbers", you could put some effort towards helping get reasonable legislation passed. The vocal 10% manages to prevent ANY legislation making it to discussion level.

There are many of us (gun owners) that agree legislation is needed. I've spoken out. I've gone to the Montana legislature. MORE NEED TO DO THE SAME.
 
2013-09-17 11:18:05 AM

Kit Fister: 1. Gun owners who are afraid that anti-gun people will use these methods as a means of indiscriminately getting people declared unfit to own guns just to push a defacto ban.
2. The obvious fear that gun owners who need treatment who know that seeking treatment can lead to loss of rights simply avoiding treatment
3. The problem of HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality that would make a database of patient information next to impossible to implement.


I'd add a 1.5 there: Gun owners who are afraid that any sort of regulatory scheme is designed to simply act as a prelude to gun-confiscation efforts.

And, truthfully, there's not a whole lot that can be done about (1) or (1.5). I'm not sure that the government has earned the trust of folks in this area, and there is a whole lot of political momentum that suggests that the government shouldn't be trusted. I'd like to think that narrow drafting would be able to solve the problem, but no matter what we'll just have Sarah Palin and Mark Levin braying about Death Panels for firearm owners...

I don't see 3 as a problem. There could certainly be an exception to certain kinds of medical privacy carved out to allow these kinds of disclosures. Statutes are written. They can be modified. (Though, that brings you right back to the trust of government.)

Number 2 is the real kicker.
 
2013-09-17 11:24:09 AM

mediablitz: Kit Fister: No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.

I completely agree that we need to find a way to not give certified crazy people access to dangerous objects, with the proviso that there have to be checks and balances, means of contesting findings and diagnosis, and means of restoring rights.

Maybe, just MAYBE, instead of you going into gun threads and complaining about "gun grabbers", you could put some effort towards helping get reasonable legislation passed. The vocal 10% manages to prevent ANY legislation making it to discussion level.

There are many of us (gun owners) that agree legislation is needed. I've spoken out. I've gone to the Montana legislature. MORE NEED TO DO THE SAME.


You mean like my repeated calls and letters to my congress critters, starting petitions, and actively working in my local gun stores as an employee to ensure that I'm at least getting people involved in basic safety courses and the like?
 
2013-09-17 11:31:46 AM

birdmanesq: This incident is a much more compelling example of how stricter regulations could have reduced the possibility of a mass shooting than was Sandy Hook. Here you have a guy with a pretty clear record of gun incidents coupled with mental health problems who purchased one of the guns that he used in the incident legally. Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.

So now the question is whether you think someone who has a clear record of alleged gun incidents and a history of severe mental health problems should be allowed to own a firearm. If the answer to that question is no, well, then it's fairly straightforward to reverse-engineer a regulatory scheme that might prevent that from happening.

Who needed to know what at the point of sale of that shotgun for folks to hit pause on this for a while? Well, clearly a background check needed to show the mental health problems and the alleged gun incidents. Now those things took place across several states, so this needs to be a Federal solution, not a state solution. And the local jurisdictions need to be compelled to report gun-related incidents or other violent crime to the Federal database. The mental health is a little trickier because there needs to be some sort of flag that triggers reporting--but I'm sure that we can work out the details there without too much trouble.

So the first step looks like a more comprehensive and mandatory system of background checks, which compels participation from local authorities and health care providers (easily coerced through public-safety and Medicare dollars).


The bold part bothers me, kind of a lot.  If neither incident was ruled to be criminal, then why should they show up on any background check and what would they say?  "Accused of gun negligence, no charges filed"?
 
2013-09-17 11:32:04 AM
I have an imperfect scheme that might just work: gladiatorial combat.

We just make it so totally insane people can quit normal society, join a gladiatorial school, and fight to the death. It would allow us to maintain the status quo while just acting like a vacuum to suck up all the crazy, violent people in our country and reduce their numbers drastically. It would also pay for itself 1000 times over because bloodsports are always popular. In the end, instead of crazy people everywhere ticking like time bombs, we'd see only a few crazy people who were well supervised and with blood lust sated and tempered with hard sports training.
 
2013-09-17 11:37:26 AM
Kit Fister:

I've been trying to push such "reasonable methods" and have written my congress critters about it.
The problem is, you are fighting a couple of things:
1. Gun owners who are afraid that anti-gun people will use these methods as a means of indiscriminately getting people declared unfit to own guns just to push a defacto ban.
2. The obvious fear that gun owners who need treatment who know that seeking treatment can lead to loss of rights simply avoiding treatment
3. The problem of HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality that would make a database of patient information next to impossible to implement.

However, there are ways around it, such as having a certified board of people that need to sign off on a patient's unfitness and certify to a judge that the patient is indeed unfit in order to have them adjudicated unfit legally that requires unanimous decision, with the proviso that the patient be regularly rescreened and that the ban only last for a certain period of time (5 years?) before the state has to have his case reviewed otherwise his record is automatically expunged.
Also, by requiring that a patient exhibiting certain disqualifying symptoms be reported to a state health board, for example, who then reviews an dinterviews the patient, comes to a conclusion, and then files with the court to have him declared unfit and undergoing treatment, you get around the HIPAA thing such that you then only have those who are found unfit, or who have a temporary order entered into the system preventing them from owning firearms, etc., without needing to expose all patients.


I happen to agree with you 100% that rather than more gun laws we need mental health screening, but
if anyone ever proposes that, the gun nuts will scream that back in SOCIALIST SOVIET ROOSHA, they
used to label political dissidents as 'mentally ill'.

The Alexis case proves the screaming need for a central, federal registry of people who should never be
allowed to own firearms, but there is no way in hell the 'Second Amendment as a check against tyrrany"
LARP brigade and their political lapdogs will ever let that happen because, you know, state's rights.
 
2013-09-17 11:37:41 AM

ahab: birdmanesq:  Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.

The bold part bothers me, kind of a lot.  If neither incident was ruled to be criminal, then why should they show up on any background check and what would they say?  "Accused of gun negligence, no charges filed"?


I don't like the idea of hard and fast lines in these things (which, again, leads to concerns about discretion), but it seems to me that an incident-based reporting system could give folks some sort of idea about behavior patterns that might be a concern (especially where, in this case, they are coupled with mental health issues). As another example, you could imagine somebody with lots of arrests for domestic battery, but no charges or convictions.

It seems to me like those kinds of patterns are sensible to flag for further inquiry.

Is that going to inconvenience some innocent folks? Sure. Is it prone to abuse? Possibly, though I think that any sort of rejection of a background check should come hand in hand with the ability to appeal that rejection to a judge.
 
2013-09-17 11:39:07 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Kit Fister:

I've been trying to push such "reasonable methods" and have written my congress critters about it.
The problem is, you are fighting a couple of things:
1. Gun owners who are afraid that anti-gun people will use these methods as a means of indiscriminately getting people declared unfit to own guns just to push a defacto ban.
2. The obvious fear that gun owners who need treatment who know that seeking treatment can lead to loss of rights simply avoiding treatment
3. The problem of HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality that would make a database of patient information next to impossible to implement.

However, there are ways around it, such as having a certified board of people that need to sign off on a patient's unfitness and certify to a judge that the patient is indeed unfit in order to have them adjudicated unfit legally that requires unanimous decision, with the proviso that the patient be regularly rescreened and that the ban only last for a certain period of time (5 years?) before the state has to have his case reviewed otherwise his record is automatically expunged.
Also, by requiring that a patient exhibiting certain disqualifying symptoms be reported to a state health board, for example, who then reviews an dinterviews the patient, comes to a conclusion, and then files with the court to have him declared unfit and undergoing treatment, you get around the HIPAA thing such that you then only have those who are found unfit, or who have a temporary order entered into the system preventing them from owning firearms, etc., without needing to expose all patients.

I happen to agree with you 100% that rather than more gun laws we need mental health screening, but
if anyone ever proposes that, the gun nuts will scream that back in SOCIALIST SOVIET ROOSHA, they
used to label political dissidents as 'mentally ill'.

The Alexis case proves the screaming need for a central, federal registry of people who should never be
allowed to own firearms, but t ...


You know, looking at the founding fathers and our country, sometimes democracy needs a little socialism.
 
2013-09-17 11:41:02 AM

birdmanesq: ahab: birdmanesq:  Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.

The bold part bothers me, kind of a lot.  If neither incident was ruled to be criminal, then why should they show up on any background check and what would they say?  "Accused of gun negligence, no charges filed"?

I don't like the idea of hard and fast lines in these things (which, again, leads to concerns about discretion), but it seems to me that an incident-based reporting system could give folks some sort of idea about behavior patterns that might be a concern (especially where, in this case, they are coupled with mental health issues). As another example, you could imagine somebody with lots of arrests for domestic battery, but no charges or convictions.

It seems to me like those kinds of patterns are sensible to flag for further inquiry.

Is that going to inconvenience some innocent folks? Sure. Is it prone to abuse? Possibly, though I think that any sort of rejection of a background check should come hand in hand with the ability to appeal that rejection to a judge.


I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."
 
2013-09-17 11:41:08 AM

DjangoStonereaver: The Alexis case proves the screaming need for a central, federal registry of people who should never be allowed to own firearms, but there is no way in hell the 'Second Amendment as a check against tyrrany" LARP brigade and their political lapdogs will ever let that happen because, you know, state's rights.


I think, though that this Navy Yard case provides a pretty convincing argument against parochial control of gun regulation. I mean, there is no way that Virginia would be able to identify a pattern without Texas, Washington, and whatever jurisdictions he was receiving mental health treatment in being required to report incidents to the Federal government.
 
2013-09-17 11:44:37 AM

ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents. Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged! Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."


It's hard to see how that can become systematic. Mostly because most of the hardcore gun nuts and most of the hardcore anti-gun nuts don't have a whole lot to do with each other. I mean, it's not like Michael Bloomberg is going to be calling the cops on Joe Bob in Alabama...

That's a little too paranoid for me to even come up with a coherent response beyond that.
 
2013-09-17 11:47:18 AM

birdmanesq: ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents. Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged! Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."

It's hard to see how that can become systematic. Mostly because most of the hardcore gun nuts and most of the hardcore anti-gun nuts don't have a whole lot to do with each other. I mean, it's not like Michael Bloomberg is going to be calling the cops on Joe Bob in Alabama...

That's a little too paranoid for me to even come up with a coherent response beyond that.


on a whole-sale level? No. On a "i hate that guy, I'm going to fark him over" level? Yes, very easily.  Look at how easy it is to have men accused of domestic violence with literally no proof and having that fark with them.
 
2013-09-17 11:49:01 AM

ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."


That's a valid fear, and a difficult one to get around.  There is a different problem, however, in this case: HOW HE WAS EMPLOYED THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I have background investigations on me and will get booted the moment I fart near a cop.  This guy gets all shooty when he's annoyed and yet is allowed to access most NAVSEA spaces in his job.
 
2013-09-17 11:52:09 AM

doyner: ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."

That's a valid fear, and a difficult one to get around.  There is a different problem, however, in this case: HOW HE WAS EMPLOYED THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I have background investigations on me and will get booted the moment I fart near a cop.  This guy gets all shooty when he's annoyed and yet is allowed to access most NAVSEA spaces in his job.


Well, let's see.  He had no felony convictions.  He had a secret clearance, so a background check was indeed done (although it's not a super rigorous one for Secret).  He had served in the military and had an honorable discharge.  Why should he not have worked there?
 
2013-09-17 11:55:43 AM

ahab: doyner: ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."

That's a valid fear, and a difficult one to get around.  There is a different problem, however, in this case: HOW HE WAS EMPLOYED THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I have background investigations on me and will get booted the moment I fart near a cop.  This guy gets all shooty when he's annoyed and yet is allowed to access most NAVSEA spaces in his job.

Well, let's see.  He had no felony convictions.  He had a secret clearance, so a background check was indeed done (although it's not a super rigorous one for Secret).  He had served in the military and had an honorable discharge.  Why should he not have worked there?


Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health.  If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.
 
2013-09-17 12:01:10 PM

doyner: ahab: doyner: ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."

That's a valid fear, and a difficult one to get around.  There is a different problem, however, in this case: HOW HE WAS EMPLOYED THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I have background investigations on me and will get booted the moment I fart near a cop.  This guy gets all shooty when he's annoyed and yet is allowed to access most NAVSEA spaces in his job.

Well, let's see.  He had no felony convictions.  He had a secret clearance, so a background check was indeed done (although it's not a super rigorous one for Secret).  He had served in the military and had an honorable discharge.  Why should he not have worked there?

Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health.  If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.


Even *I* have a secret clearance.
 
2013-09-17 12:02:10 PM

doyner: Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health. If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.


This.
 
2013-09-17 12:02:47 PM

ahab: Even *I* have a secret clearance.


And that clearly exemplifies the problem. ;)
 
2013-09-17 12:04:17 PM

ahab: Even *I* have a secret clearance.


Sit tight.  There are some men in dark suits on their way to see you.
 
2013-09-17 12:06:07 PM

birdmanesq: DjangoStonereaver: The Alexis case proves the screaming need for a central, federal registry of people who should never be allowed to own firearms, but there is no way in hell the 'Second Amendment as a check against tyrrany" LARP brigade and their political lapdogs will ever let that happen because, you know, state's rights.

I think, though that this Navy Yard case provides a pretty convincing argument against parochial control of gun regulation. I mean, there is no way that Virginia would be able to identify a pattern without Texas, Washington, and whatever jurisdictions he was receiving mental health treatment in being required to report incidents to the Federal government.


I agree with you, but to the defenders of the Holy Constitutiontm, the only amendments that matter are the
2nd and the 10th.
 
2013-09-17 12:09:17 PM

DjangoStonereaver: I agree with you, but to the defenders of the Holy Constitutiontm, the only amendments that matter are the 2nd and the 10th.


Anybody who seriously thinks that the Tenth Amendment is constitutionally relevant hasn't been paying attention to the last 200 years of constitutional history.
 
2013-09-17 12:10:45 PM

birdmanesq: DjangoStonereaver: I agree with you, but to the defenders of the Holy Constitutiontm, the only amendments that matter are the 2nd and the 10th.

Anybody who seriously thinks that the Tenth Amendment is constitutionally relevant hasn't been paying attention to the last 200 years of constitutional history.


Passes 10th Amendment, proceeds to marginalize state governments at every turn. #USAproblems
 
2013-09-17 12:18:50 PM
And loved to play video games, lets not forget that!
 
2013-09-17 12:20:37 PM

Kit Fister: mediablitz: Kit Fister: No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.

I completely agree that we need to find a way to not give certified crazy people access to dangerous objects, with the proviso that there have to be checks and balances, means of contesting findings and diagnosis, and means of restoring rights.

Maybe, just MAYBE, instead of you going into gun threads and complaining about "gun grabbers", you could put some effort towards helping get reasonable legislation passed. The vocal 10% manages to prevent ANY legislation making it to discussion level.

There are many of us (gun owners) that agree legislation is needed. I've spoken out. I've gone to the Montana legislature. MORE NEED TO DO THE SAME.

You mean like my repeated calls and letters to my congress critters, starting petitions, and actively working in my local gun stores as an employee to ensure that I'm at least getting people involved in basic safety courses and the like?


Then why are you constantly on Fark, complaining about "gun grabbers"?

And my apologies if I have you confused with someone else. I don't generally label people. Just seems like you spent a lot of time pooh poohing gun control laws in the last thread I submitted that went green.
 
2013-09-17 12:22:22 PM

Kit Fister: birdmanesq: DjangoStonereaver: I agree with you, but to the defenders of the Holy Constitutiontm, the only amendments that matter are the 2nd and the 10th.

Anybody who seriously thinks that the Tenth Amendment is constitutionally relevant hasn't been paying attention to the last 200 years of constitutional history.

Passes 10th Amendment, proceeds to marginalize state governments at every turn. #USAproblems


There's a key part of the 10th Amendment that "states rights!!!" people seem happy to ignore. The part that says "or to the people".
 
2013-09-17 12:22:48 PM
Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care back

Of course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health care
 
2013-09-17 12:22:51 PM
This thread is dangerously close to being a rational discussion of the issue.  That should last about eight seconds into hitting the Main Page.
 
2013-09-17 12:23:35 PM

mediablitz: Then why are you constantly on Fark, complaining about "gun grabbers"?

And my apologies if I have you confused with someone else. I don't generally label people. Just seems like you spent a lot of time pooh poohing gun control laws in the last thread I submitted that went green.


Because it gets frustrating that we keep having the same goddamn arguments bade by the same goddamn people that boil down to "fark mental health, restrict rights" and it gets really stupid.  Anyone who wants to actually DISCUSS the problem and work together to come up with meaningful solutions like we're doing here get drowned out by people who shall remain nameless who just throw out snark and assholish trolling on the topic that turns the threads into a major clusterfark.
 
2013-09-17 12:25:49 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care back

Of course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health care


And they'd be right.  Not that they sincerely want to do anything about it, but it really is a pretty obvious problem here.  I realize hindsight is 20/20, but this guy was a giant walking red flag.  How do we keep guns out of the hands of such people?  Hell if I know, but it should definitely be a major goal of any gun reform.
 
2013-09-17 12:27:25 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care back

Of course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health care


Well, fark republicans. Also, fark people who took a universal background check bill and arsed it by adding provisions that do nothing but throw up as many roadblocks as they could get in there.

You want universal background checks? Fine. Make NICS available to the public and stiff penalties on failure to run a check and retain paperwork, or make it a requirement (with funding) that local police provide the background check for free.  Don't pass a bill that requires an FFL to do the NICS check without actually requiring FFLs to do the check, or limited the cost that FFLs charge for doing said check.

Local FFLs will do the check -- if you awnt to pay them $150 to do it. Also, some flat out refuse to do it at all because it takes away from their business.

That bill deserved to die.
 
2013-09-17 12:27:39 PM

nekom: Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care back

Of course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health care

And they'd be right.  Not that they sincerely want to do anything about it, but it really is a pretty obvious problem here.  I realize hindsight is 20/20, but this guy was a giant walking red flag.  How do we keep guns out of the hands of such people?  Hell if I know, but it should definitely be a major goal of any gun reform.


Above all, we must lower taxes, obviously.
 
2013-09-17 12:29:54 PM

doyner: Above all, we must lower taxes, obviously.


god knows, those rich people with 2 Trillion combined wealth (or roughly 1/8th the national debt) should continue being coddled and protected from the mean old tax man.
 
2013-09-17 12:30:22 PM

nekom: Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care back

Of course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health care

And they'd be right.  Not that they sincerely want to do anything about it, but it really is a pretty obvious problem here.  I realize hindsight is 20/20, but this guy was a giant walking red flag.  How do we keep guns out of the hands of such people?  Hell if I know, but it should definitely be a major goal of any gun reform.


I think that's a legitimate question, right? In two parts: (1) Do you think that guy should have been able to purchase a gun? (2) If not, how can we back into some sort of regulatory scheme that would have made it harder (or impossible) for him?
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 12:30:24 PM

doyner: nekom: Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care back

Of course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health care

And they'd be right.  Not that they sincerely want to do anything about it, but it really is a pretty obvious problem here.  I realize hindsight is 20/20, but this guy was a giant walking red flag.  How do we keep guns out of the hands of such people?  Hell if I know, but it should definitely be a major goal of any gun reform.

Above all, we must lower taxes, obviously.


Anything that includes any sort of new regulation, no matter the details, will be decried by a significant portion of the federal, state, and local legislators. The only acceptable change is deregulation. Because freedom.
 
2013-09-17 12:31:06 PM

Kit Fister: doyner: Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health. If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.

This.


He was a sub contractor. I doubt a secret clearance was run. I do wonder though.

I do some work for the State, but it is in a Federal building here. I had to complete the full background check, finger printing, surveys sent to friends hoop jumping just to be able to go into the building a couple days a month.

I would *think* the same would be needed for a military installation with civilian employees.

I think I took for granted back in my military days that they had gone back and talked to my classmates/teachers etc. when I got my sonar shack level clear as sonar supervisor. Because it took next to nothing to get on base. An ID and nothing else. No car inspection, no metal detectors etc.

I'm betting rules are being re-written TODAY.
 
2013-09-17 12:32:50 PM

mediablitz: Kit Fister: doyner: Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health. If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.

This.

He was a sub contractor. I doubt a secret clearance was run. I do wonder though.

I do some work for the State, but it is in a Federal building here. I had to complete the full background check, finger printing, surveys sent to friends hoop jumping just to be able to go into the building a couple days a month.

I would *think* the same would be needed for a military installation with civilian employees.

I think I took for granted back in my military days that they had gone back and talked to my classmates/teachers etc. when I got my sonar shack level clear as sonar supervisor. Because it took next to nothing to get on base. An ID and nothing else. No car inspection, no metal detectors etc.

I'm betting rules are being re-written TODAY.


You don't need a secret clearance to get on base at the Navy Yard.  He had one as part of his job, according to his employer.   Link
 
2013-09-17 12:33:04 PM

mediablitz: Kit Fister: doyner: Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health. If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.

This.

He was a sub contractor. I doubt a secret clearance was run. I do wonder though.

I do some work for the State, but it is in a Federal building here. I had to complete the full background check, finger printing, surveys sent to friends hoop jumping just to be able to go into the building a couple days a month.

I would *think* the same would be needed for a military installation with civilian employees.

I think I took for granted back in my military days that they had gone back and talked to my classmates/teachers etc. when I got my sonar shack level clear as sonar supervisor. Because it took next to nothing to get on base. An ID and nothing else. No car inspection, no metal detectors etc.

I'm betting rules are being re-written TODAY.


Fark, to get a temporary clearance to work on a base out in CO, they ran my ass through the FBI. and I was just there to fix a few goddamn computers. How is it possible he WASN'T screened?
 
2013-09-17 12:33:11 PM
birdmanesq:
I think that's a legitimate question, right? In two parts: (1) Do you think that guy should have been able to purchase a gun? (2) If not, how can we back into some sort of regulatory scheme that would have made it harder (or impossible) for him?

Well, again in hindsight it's obvious that he shouldn't have had a gun.  Were the warning signs enough that some new system could have marked him down as "batshiat crazy, no gun for him"?  That's the tough part, because it's insanely complicated and involves a lot of arbitrary lines.  What if you had an episode of depression and checked yourself in to a mental hospital?  What if you went to drug or alcohol rehab?  Saw a therapist?  Made a sad :( on a twitter post?  What exactly constitutes crossing the line?

And a third point, if he had not been able to legally acquire those guns, could he have easily illegally acquired them?  That's also a concern, because if you're hell bent on getting a gun in this country without the government knowing about it, it's not terribly difficult to do so.
 
2013-09-17 12:33:33 PM

Kit Fister: mediablitz: Then why are you constantly on Fark, complaining about "gun grabbers"?

And my apologies if I have you confused with someone else. I don't generally label people. Just seems like you spent a lot of time pooh poohing gun control laws in the last thread I submitted that went green.

Because it gets frustrating that we keep having the same goddamn arguments bade by the same goddamn people that boil down to "fark mental health, restrict rights" and it gets really stupid.  Anyone who wants to actually DISCUSS the problem and work together to come up with meaningful solutions like we're doing here get drowned out by people who shall remain nameless who just throw out snark and assholish trolling on the topic that turns the threads into a major clusterfark.


Fair enough. I catch myself trolling people who are "we don't need guns, period" absolutists, just as I give up and troll "2nd amendment is sacrosanct" absolutists.

I posted the proposals I went to the Montana legislature with. Couldn't even get it discussed. Very frustrating. At some point, middle ground gun owners need to drown out the fringe on both sides.

Yeah, I know. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
 
2013-09-17 12:36:30 PM

ahab: mediablitz: Kit Fister: doyner: Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health. If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.

This.

He was a sub contractor. I doubt a secret clearance was run. I do wonder though.

I do some work for the State, but it is in a Federal building here. I had to complete the full background check, finger printing, surveys sent to friends hoop jumping just to be able to go into the building a couple days a month.

I would *think* the same would be needed for a military installation with civilian employees.

I think I took for granted back in my military days that they had gone back and talked to my classmates/teachers etc. when I got my sonar shack level clear as sonar supervisor. Because it took next to nothing to get on base. An ID and nothing else. No car inspection, no metal detectors etc.

I'm betting rules are being re-written TODAY.

You don't need a secret clearance to get on base at the Navy Yard.  He had one as part of his job, according to his employer.   Link


Jesus. He was in trouble while he was a reservist, had a record, and still got a secret clearance?!?!? I knew you didn't need a secret clearance to get on base, but holy shiat. He DID get one.

Quality work, background checkers...
 
2013-09-17 12:38:29 PM

Kit Fister: I agree. As much as I'm a gun guy, I'd like to see more comprehensive reporting of people with dangerous mental illnesses and a higher bar for mental health in general, with the recurrence of compulsory institutionalization if you're really bad.


I can get behind something like this.  However, seems to me it's a lot easier to ban guns (which takes care of one problem*) as opposed to fixing a broken mental health care system (which would take care of two problems*).

/* nothing is 100%
 
2013-09-17 12:39:26 PM

mediablitz: ahab: mediablitz: Kit Fister: doyner: Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health. If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.

This.

He was a sub contractor. I doubt a secret clearance was run. I do wonder though.

I do some work for the State, but it is in a Federal building here. I had to complete the full background check, finger printing, surveys sent to friends hoop jumping just to be able to go into the building a couple days a month.

I would *think* the same would be needed for a military installation with civilian employees.

I think I took for granted back in my military days that they had gone back and talked to my classmates/teachers etc. when I got my sonar shack level clear as sonar supervisor. Because it took next to nothing to get on base. An ID and nothing else. No car inspection, no metal detectors etc.

I'm betting rules are being re-written TODAY.

You don't need a secret clearance to get on base at the Navy Yard.  He had one as part of his job, according to his employer.   Link

Jesus. He was in trouble while he was a reservist, had a record, and still got a secret clearance?!?!? I knew you didn't need a secret clearance to get on base, but holy shiat. He DID get one.

Quality work, background checkers...


I haven't seen any reports that he had a criminal record.
 
Displayed 50 of 548 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report