Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, mental healths  
•       •       •

3628 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 1:46 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



531 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2013-09-17 12:39:45 PM  
I'll copypasta my response from the red-lit thread:

The lobbyists in this country can't make any money off better gun control and access to better mental health care, so there's no chance in hell we're ever going to see a national conversation about how letting the mentally ill get access to firearms is a bad idea.
 
2013-09-17 12:41:02 PM  

Kit Fister: 3. The problem of HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality that would make a database of patient information next to impossible to implement.


You can flag a person as persona-non-grata for getting a gun without revealing PHI.  The potential buyer could also be a felon.  The seller would never know.  They'd just get a report saying "DON'T SELL THIS GUY A GUN".
 
2013-09-17 12:41:40 PM  

ahab: Quality work, background checkers...

I haven't seen any reports that he had a criminal record.


So what?  Arrest records are fair game for a clearance.
 
2013-09-17 12:43:53 PM  
Holy shiat.

Are we actually having well-reasoned and level-headed debate about gun rights in a FARK thread?

!!!!!

*faints*
 
2013-09-17 12:45:14 PM  

xanadian: 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%


yes, because taking away rights from everyone is better than fixing what's broken and helping people suffering from a major illness at the same time. Likewise, it's better than fixing urban decay and poverty that drives the formation of gangs as a replacement for another type of social structure that would provide meaningful, positive role models without perpetuating the cycle of violence; or the growth of drug use and sales in these same areas that has moved in to provide a source of income to people who have little other means of making money.

Certainly, it's better than addressing a culture that has come to see violence separated from responsibility or consequence, while simultaneously glorifying violent behavior.

And let's not forget that's really a hell of a lot easier than providing help to those who are suffering from mental issues and conditioned behavior that perpetuate bullying, domestic abuse, child abuse, and other behaviors that are driving factors behind suicide and domestic crimes.

So, yes, let's just all be lazy and ignore the behaviors and just ban guns like that will somehow fix all of our problems without just whitewashing it by reducing the number of deaths without stopping the behavior. Likewise, rather than replacing termite-ridden floorboards, let's just put a new coat of varnish and a veneer on it and hope the underlying problems don't cause any more catastrophic issues.
 
2013-09-17 12:45:24 PM  

doyner: ahab: Quality work, background checkers...

I haven't seen any reports that he had a criminal record.

So what?  Arrest records are fair game for a clearance.


If he lied about them, maybe.  Otherwise, not so much.
 
2013-09-17 12:46:39 PM  

xanadian: Kit Fister: 3. The problem of HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality that would make a database of patient information next to impossible to implement.

You can flag a person as persona-non-grata for getting a gun without revealing PHI.  The potential buyer could also be a felon.  The seller would never know.  They'd just get a report saying "DON'T SELL THIS GUY A GUN".


I agree, and if you look at the statements up-thread I made about ways to protect both the rights of individuals AND prevent nutters from getting guns, there are a multitude of ways to move that forward.
 
2013-09-17 12:47:14 PM  

xanadian: Holy shiat.

Are we actually having well-reasoned and level-headed debate about gun rights in a FARK thread?

!!!!!

*faints*


Thread's been greenlit. So much for that.
 
2013-09-17 12:50:57 PM  

birdmanesq: 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.


That may be an argument against "add crazy people to the no-you-can't-have-a-gun-not-yours list."  Criminals will always find a way to get a gun.  Add someone with a documented mental health issue to that list, and now you have "criminals AND crazy people will always find a way to get a gun."  Didn't help much.  Made it harder, but is it enough?

It's probably why I've focused more on the US fixing the mental health care system over pre-screening for gun ownership (as nice as it would be).  *I* feel it would have more impact.

Of course, even MORE impact would be felt over banning guns entirely, but you'll still have crazy people out there that desperately need help who will still find SOME way of inflicting their insanity on individuals.
 
2013-09-17 12:51:16 PM  

ahab: doyner: ahab: Quality work, background checkers...

I haven't seen any reports that he had a criminal record.

So what?  Arrest records are fair game for a clearance.

If he lied about them, maybe.  Otherwise, not so much.


WAT?  They search arrest records...normally.  If he lied and got caught he'd be denied clearance.  If he declared them, he'd likely not get a clearance.  He probably lied and didn't get caught, but searching law enforcement databases (to include ARRESTS) is kind of THE WHOLE FARKING POINT of a background check.
 
2013-09-17 12:51:52 PM  

birdmanesq: 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.


One problem:  He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed).  What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?
 
2013-09-17 12:53:43 PM  

nekom: 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.


First, I think that a point of general consensus here could be that under the current system there was no chance that he could have been detected--our gun laws are simply not set up to allow that to happen. So, in an environment with a different kind of structure, yeah, maybe the dots would have been connected, maybe not. Maybe if he was flagged for increased scrutiny then it still wouldn't've made a lick of difference. But I think that there are fairly noninvasive steps that could be taken to at least give regulators a shot at stopping a guy like this from getting a gun.

Like I said to ahab, I'm not a fan of drawing hard and fast regulations, but, of course, the problem is that it gives discretion to folks who aren't necessarily trusted.

And, illegal guns are a problem. But two things on that (1) there is no indication here that this particular shooter would have substituted instrumentalities; and (2) there are things that we could do to stem the flow of illegal guns (a Federal-level licensing and registration scheme, for example, but god knows how much gun folks hate that idea).
 
2013-09-17 12:53:59 PM  

ahab: I haven't seen any reports that he had a criminal record.


Yeah. He had a noise dispute with his downstairs neighbor in Texas and shot through his floor (her roof) while she was home. They could only charge him with unlawful discharge of a firearm.
 
2013-09-17 12:54:10 PM  

Kit Fister: So, yes, let's just all be lazy and ignore the behaviors and just ban guns like that will somehow fix all of our problems without just whitewashing it by reducing the number of deaths without stopping the behavior. Likewise, rather than replacing termite-ridden floorboards, let's just put a new coat of varnish and a veneer on it and hope the underlying problems don't cause any more catastrophic issues.


I'm ... not sure if you're agreeing with me there or not.  Because, yes, I feel a straight-up ban would be the laziest of all options.  Hence, why I said it would only really impact ONE of two major problems.

Kit Fister: Certainly, it's better than addressing a culture that has come to see violence separated from responsibility or consequence, while simultaneously glorifying violent behavior.


Oh yeah, there's another one of those things about American society that Really Grinds My Gears.  You can have plenty of shootings and tales of violence on the telly, but YOU SHOW JUST ONE NIPPLE and everybody freaks the fark out.

:/
 
2013-09-17 12:54:13 PM  
This is gonna be a thread for the ages!

/agrees with BME
 
2013-09-17 12:54:17 PM  

doyner: ahab: doyner: ahab: Quality work, background checkers...

I haven't seen any reports that he had a criminal record.

So what?  Arrest records are fair game for a clearance.

If he lied about them, maybe.  Otherwise, not so much.

WAT?  They search arrest records...normally.  If he lied and got caught he'd be denied clearance.  If he declared them, he'd likely not get a clearance.  He probably lied and didn't get caught, but searching law enforcement databases (to include ARRESTS) is kind of THE WHOLE FARKING POINT of a background check.


If he shot through a ceiling, police came and investigated, but he wasn't arrested or charged with anything, that wouldn't really be a red flag unless he was applying to be a weapons safety expert.
 
2013-09-17 12:56:34 PM  

dittybopper: One problem: He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed). What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?


Ah, yes, the whole: "If he wanted to kill someone, he coulda used a knife" theory. Well, a knife is a up close and personal weapon that needs much more effort and skill to use properly than a gun with it's point and kill method of use. Proximity being a big part of the ease of gathering new weapons. If the guards have guns and he has a knife, well, what's that old saying about how he's coming to the fight?

But, yes, perfectly logical argument that's not obfuscating or propping up straw men to make a point.

/keep on farking that chicken!
 
2013-09-17 12:56:42 PM  

xanadian: That may be an argument against "add crazy people to the no-you-can't-have-a-gun-not-yours list." Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. Add someone with a documented mental health issue to that list, and now you have "criminals AND crazy people will always find a way to get a gun." Didn't help much. Made it harder, but is it enough?

It's probably why I've focused more on the US fixing the mental health care system over pre-screening for gun ownership (as nice as it would be). *I* feel it would have more impact.


There's really no reason--other than political will--that we can't do both.

And, again, I think that "criminals will always find a way to get a gun" is a real stretch... I mean, it's simply not true. There are all sorts of criminals that wouldn't commit gun crimes if they didn't have easy access to a firearm.

dittybopper: One problem: He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed). What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?


Isn't there some useful old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight that might be applicable here?
 
2013-09-17 12:57:15 PM  

xanadian: birdmanesq: 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.

That may be an argument against "add crazy people to the no-you-can't-have-a-gun-not-yours list."  Criminals will always find a way to get a gun.  Add someone with a documented mental health issue to that list, and now you have "criminals AND crazy people will always find a way to get a gun."  Didn't help much.  Made it harder, but is it enough?

It's probably why I've focused more on the US fixing the mental health care system over pre-screening for gun ownership (as nice as it would be).  *I* feel it would have more impact.

Of course, even MORE impact would be felt over banning guns entirely, but you'll still have cra ...


Well, see, if we disconnected the two, making it such that a system whereby a person was adjudicated mentally unhealthy and submitted for treatment would just offer a blanket statement on their background check that says "person undergoing treatment", which denies them certain rights, and grants them access to certain privileges, then it would be less of a punitive action than it would be a health action disconnected from the gun rights issue.

If I was offered certain processes that gave me benefits, but also meant that while I was under care I would be subject to certain restrictions, but primarily was given care for my issues without feeling like it was a stigma or the fear of cost, then it would be worth the tradeoff.

The key here is that the order would be temporary, or would have to be renewed, or that certain conditions would have to be met to make the order permanent, along with the ability to appeal and have the order rescinded such that a person wrongfully accused had a means of clearing his name.  I think that this process should exist anyway, up to and including bullshiat cases of domestic abuse, drug use, and sexual offenses where a person is convicted for political reasons but without evidence or real reason to submit the person to lifelong stigma.

I know, I know, what I'm smoking, you want some.
 
2013-09-17 12:57:43 PM  

ahab: If he shot through a ceiling, police came and investigated, but he wasn't arrested or charged with anything, that wouldn't really be a red flag unless he was applying to be a weapons safety expert.


Ok.  That's ONE of his past events.  Now explain away all the rest.
 
2013-09-17 12:58:22 PM  

birdmanesq: dittybopper: One problem: He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed). What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?

Isn't there some useful old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight that might be applicable here?


But he played a lot of violent video games, so he was probably really good at sneaking up on people with a knife and stabbing them in order to steal their guns.
 
2013-09-17 12:59:42 PM  

doyner: ahab: If he shot through a ceiling, police came and investigated, but he wasn't arrested or charged with anything, that wouldn't really be a red flag unless he was applying to be a weapons safety expert.

Ok.  That's ONE of his past events.  Now explain away all the rest.


I honestly haven't read much about him yet.  Tell me which other events are bothering you in terms of him having his secret clearance (reportedly since 2007, and re-screened this year).
 
2013-09-17 12:59:49 PM  

ahab: birdmanesq: dittybopper: One problem: He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed). What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?

Isn't there some useful old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight that might be applicable here?

But he played a lot of violent video games, so he was probably really good at sneaking up on people with a knife and stabbing them in order to steal their guns.


I was starting to think you were just being obtuse.  Thanks for confirming it.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 12:59:54 PM  

ahab: birdmanesq: dittybopper: One problem: He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed). What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?

Isn't there some useful old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight that might be applicable here?

But he played a lot of violent video games, so he was probably really good at sneaking up on people with a knife and stabbing them in order to steal their guns.


I know that's how I learned.

/HI NSA GUY
 
2013-09-17 01:00:08 PM  
birdmanesq:
First, I think that a point of general consensus here could be that under the current system there was no chance that he could have been detected--our gun laws are simply not set up to allow that to happen. So, in an environment with a different kind of structure, yeah, maybe the dots would have been connected, maybe not. Maybe if he was flagged for increased scrutiny then it still wouldn't've made a lick of difference. But I think that there are fairly noninvasive steps that could be taken to at least give regulators a shot at stopping a guy like this from getting a gun.

Like I said to ahab, I'm not a fan of drawing hard and fast regulations, but, of course, the problem is that it gives discretion to folks who aren't necessarily trusted.

And, illegal guns are a problem. But two things on that (1) there is no indication here that this particular shooter would have substituted instrumentalities; and (2) there are things that we could do to stem the flow of illegal guns (a Federal-level licensing and registration scheme, for example, but god knows how much gun folks hate that idea).


No question the current system has failed time and time again.  And nobody here is naive enough to think that any system could stop every massacre (the jackass in CT used his mother's legal guns after all, what could have stopped that?) but I definitely agree that there are plenty of non-invasive, non-gun grabbing ways that we could at least attempt to keep more guns away from crazies than we currently are.

As for stolen or illegally sold guns, there is plenty that can be done to curb that, sure.  Responsible gun owners should be required (if they aren't already in all jurisdictions) to report any theft or sales to other parties.  That's not going to stop the skeevy guy selling guns out of his trunk, but it would stop most people who would rather not run afoul of the law.

I think there are a LOT of things like that that most of us can agree on, yet we all know nothing is going to change.  If 20 murdered school children didn't change things, this certainly won't either.
 
2013-09-17 01:00:54 PM  

Kit Fister: If I was offered certain processes that gave me benefits, but also meant that while I was under care I would be subject to certain restrictions, but primarily was given care for my issues without feeling like it was a stigma or the fear of cost, then it would be worth the tradeoff.


This is the key part of that...  But, again, it comes down to how much that discourages folks from seeking out help.
 
2013-09-17 01:02:00 PM  

doyner: ahab: birdmanesq: dittybopper: One problem: He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed). What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?

Isn't there some useful old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight that might be applicable here?

But he played a lot of violent video games, so he was probably really good at sneaking up on people with a knife and stabbing them in order to steal their guns.

I was starting to think you were just being obtuse.  Thanks for confirming it.


I was making a joke, since there are already NAVY YARD SHOOTER PLAYED VIOLENT VIDEO GAME headlines out there. See here, for example.
 
2013-09-17 01:02:28 PM  

ahab: I honestly haven't read much about him yet.  Tell me which other events are bothering you in terms of him having his secret clearance (reportedly since 2007, and re-screened this year).


http://abcnews.go.com/US/washington-dc-navy-yard-shooter-aaron-alexis - navy/story?id=20273287">http://abcnews.go.com/US/washington-dc-navy-y ard-shooter-aaron-alexis- navy/story?id=20273287

This said he was arrested both times...
 
2013-09-17 01:03:27 PM  
I heard that not only did he play a lot of "violent" video games, but he was also known to have listened to heavy metal music.
 
2013-09-17 01:04:47 PM  

xanadian: I'm ... not sure if you're agreeing with me there or not. Because, yes, I feel a straight-up ban would be the laziest of all options. Hence, why I said it would only really impact ONE of two major problems.


I'm not agreeing with you, because I think a total ban is pretty dumb.
 
2013-09-17 01:06:22 PM  

xanadian: That may be an argument against "add crazy people to the no-you-can't-have-a-gun-not-yours list." Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. Add someone with a documented mental health issue to that list, and now you have "criminals AND crazy people will always find a way to get a gun." Didn't help much. Made it harder, but is it enough?

It's probably why I've focused more on the US fixing the mental health care system over pre-screening for gun ownership (as nice as it would be). *I* feel it would have more impact.

Of course, even MORE impact would be felt over banning guns entirely, but you'll still have crazy people out there that desperately need help who will still find SOME way of inflicting their insanity on individuals.


What about those that will not seek help simple because they want to keep their guns? And who will be the ones that will say when or if someone can get their rights restored once they get diagnosed?

Tin Foil Hat time: wouldn't be simple to use that as a gun grab? 1 in 10 people are are on antidepressants right now and climbing. That's one tenth of the population that would have to turn over their guns right now. And that's just for antidepressants. Fun times will happen when we add paranoia to the list of reasons to remove the guns! All those preppers would really go off.
 
2013-09-17 01:06:30 PM  
I say everybody should be required to carry a gun on them at all times.
 
2013-09-17 01:06:41 PM  

mediablitz: ahab: I haven't seen any reports that he had a criminal record.

Yeah. He had a noise dispute with his downstairs neighbor in Texas and shot through his floor (her roof) while she was home. They could only charge him with unlawful discharge of a firearm.


Someone else told me he was also involved in some sort of "blackout" shooting of his neighbors tires in 2004? I just did a quick search and didn't find anything.
 
2013-09-17 01:07:05 PM  

KingKauff: I heard that not only did he play a lot of "violent" video games, but he was also known to have listened to heavy metal music.


My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw him playing Dungeons and Dragons as a teenager.

/the warning signs are all there!
//study it out!
 
2013-09-17 01:07:50 PM  

nekom: I think there are a LOT of things like that that most of us can agree on, yet we all know nothing is going to change. If 20 murdered school children didn't change things, this certainly won't either.


I mean, I grew up in rural Illinois. I started shooting before I started school. I look around at the folks I knew growing up--many of whom are incredibly responsible gun owners--and certainly wouldn't want to create some system of regulations and background checks that would prevent them from enjoying their pasttime relatively hassle free.

But, I also believe in incremental harm reduction. Yeah, there might not be a silver bullet regulation or set of regulations that prevents gun crime (that is almost an absurd concept). But there are all sorts of little ways that we can work to reduce the overall impact of gun violence. Hopefully without inconveniencing Responsible Gun Ownerstm.

But the one thing that I would say about this Navy Yard thing in contrast to Sandy Hook is that for the most part you can strip some of the emotional response out of it because there aren't 20 dead kids. So you don't have to wade through all of that nonsense. And you don't have a situation where the shooter likely could not have been prevented from obtaining the weapons that he did.

The is a situation that is conducive to a more intellectual response. There were clear red flags and, perhaps, some policy entrepreneurs can figure out a way to address them.
 
2013-09-17 01:08:05 PM  

Kit Fister: xanadian: I'm ... not sure if you're agreeing with me there or not. Because, yes, I feel a straight-up ban would be the laziest of all options. Hence, why I said it would only really impact ONE of two major problems.

I'm not agreeing with you, because I think a total ban is pretty dumb.


Uh. So do I. I guess I didn't express that thought very well.  I'm just saying that it would have a certain level of effectiveness.  Can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun.  I'm more of the mind that the mental health care issue in this country needs to be addressed.  It would be more effective.  Can't have a dead person if you don't have a bunch of crazies with access to ...guns, knives, bad mushrooms, whatever.
 
2013-09-17 01:08:37 PM  

doyner: ahab: I honestly haven't read much about him yet.  Tell me which other events are bothering you in terms of him having his secret clearance (reportedly since 2007, and re-screened this year).

http://abcnews.go.com/US/washington-dc-navy-yard-shooter-aaron-alexis - navy/story?id=20273287">http://abcnews.go.com/US/washington-dc-navy-y ard-shooter-aaron-alexis- navy/story?id=20273287

This said he was arrested both times...


Let's not nitpick and say he was arrested twice.  If no charges were filed and/or he wasn't convicted, I still fail to see how that matters.
 
2013-09-17 01:08:46 PM  

birdmanesq: This is the key part of that... But, again, it comes down to how much that discourages folks from seeking out help.


there's not much that we can do to really circumvent that, though. In some cases, we may just have to make treatment for certain conditions mandatory/involuntary, and in the case of certain behavior, a report to police of such behavior requires a mandatory 48 hour evaluation by a trained and board-certified psychologist (or psychiatrist, whichever one also has an MD) with the possibility of inpatient treatment as needed.
 
2013-09-17 01:09:25 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: What about those that will not seek help simple because they want to keep their guns? And who will be the ones that will say when or if someone can get their rights restored once they get diagnosed?

Tin Foil Hat time: wouldn't be simple to use that as a gun grab? 1 in 10 people are are on antidepressants right now and climbing. That's one tenth of the population that would have to turn over their guns right now. And that's just for antidepressants. Fun times will happen when we add paranoia to the list of reasons to remove the guns! All those preppers would really go off.


I have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.
 
2013-09-17 01:09:38 PM  

xanadian: Kit Fister: xanadian: I'm ... not sure if you're agreeing with me there or not. Because, yes, I feel a straight-up ban would be the laziest of all options. Hence, why I said it would only really impact ONE of two major problems.

I'm not agreeing with you, because I think a total ban is pretty dumb.

Uh. So do I. I guess I didn't express that thought very well.  I'm just saying that it would have a certain level of effectiveness.  Can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun.  I'm more of the mind that the mental health care issue in this country needs to be addressed.  It would be more effective.  Can't have a dead person if you don't have a bunch of crazies with access to ...guns, knives, bad mushrooms, whatever.


then I agree with you. STUDY IT OUT.
 
2013-09-17 01:09:48 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: KingKauff: I heard that not only did he play a lot of "violent" video games, but he was also known to have listened to heavy metal music.

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw him playing Dungeons and Dragons as a teenager.

/the warning signs are all there!
//study it out!


I also heard that he was known to watch the Smurfs
 
2013-09-17 01:10:31 PM  

birdmanesq: But the one thing that I would say about this Navy Yard thing in contrast to Sandy Hook is that for the most part you can strip some of the emotional response out of it because there aren't 20 dead kids.


Yeah, but in my case I have no kids of my own and I was at work at NAVSEA yesterday. And I knew one of the victims...so I'm a bit more emotionally invested this go-around.
 
2013-09-17 01:11:08 PM  

KingKauff: HST's Dead Carcass: KingKauff: I heard that not only did he play a lot of "violent" video games, but he was also known to have listened to heavy metal music.

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw him playing Dungeons and Dragons as a teenager.

/the warning signs are all there!
//study it out!

I also heard that he was known to watch the Smurfs


I heard he actually brought a date to the movie The Smurfs ala Travis Bickle.

/who hasn't whacked it to Smurfette cast the first stone...
 
2013-09-17 01:11:33 PM  

doyner: birdmanesq: But the one thing that I would say about this Navy Yard thing in contrast to Sandy Hook is that for the most part you can strip some of the emotional response out of it because there aren't 20 dead kids.

Yeah, but in my case I have no kids of my own and I was at work at NAVSEA yesterday. And I knew one of the victims...so I'm a bit more emotionally invested this go-around.


oh

sorry, man.  :(
 
2013-09-17 01:11:44 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.


An enumerated right should not have a fee associated with it.  MI has a mandatory registration on all handguns. It has not yet once been used to grab guns. I'm OK with a registration because, well, frankly, if the government wants to know what guns I have, they can find out in other ways anyway, and having a registration improves my chances that I'll get my shiat back if they ever get stolen.
 
2013-09-17 01:11:59 PM  

ahab: Let's not nitpick and say he was arrested twice.  If no charges were filed and/or he wasn't convicted, I still fail to see how that matters.


Because you don't have to be convicted to be denied clearance for it.

Seriously, dude, WTF?
 
2013-09-17 01:12:14 PM  

Ennuipoet: This thread is dangerously close to being a rational discussion of the issue.  That should last about eight seconds into hitting the Main Page.


Gun threads for me always show up blood red. Not a single post in this thread is Farkied red, so I think the usual suspects are steering clear of this one.
 
2013-09-17 01:12:25 PM  

doyner: birdmanesq: But the one thing that I would say about this Navy Yard thing in contrast to Sandy Hook is that for the most part you can strip some of the emotional response out of it because there aren't 20 dead kids.

Yeah, but in my case I have no kids of my own and I was at work at NAVSEA yesterday. And I knew one of the victims...so I'm a bit more emotionally invested this go-around.


How has this changed your opinion?

I am not trolling, I am truly honestly wondering if your opinion of Guns has changed at all regarding this since it was more personal to you than the rest of us.
 
2013-09-17 01:12:49 PM  
see, we were having a perfectly polite, serious conversation and then HST's dead carcass showed up and shat all over it.
 
2013-09-17 01:12:59 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: The Stealth Hippopotamus: What about those that will not seek help simple because they want to keep their guns? And who will be the ones that will say when or if someone can get their rights restored once they get diagnosed?

Tin Foil Hat time: wouldn't be simple to use that as a gun grab? 1 in 10 people are are on antidepressants right now and climbing. That's one tenth of the population that would have to turn over their guns right now. And that's just for antidepressants. Fun times will happen when we add paranoia to the list of reasons to remove the guns! All those preppers would really go off.

I have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.


I'm sorry, but why is it unreasonable to not want to pay a fee to the government for permission to exercise your constitutional rights?  What happens when when they establish a registry, and then decide on a blanket ban of all semi-automatic weapons?
 
2013-09-17 01:14:04 PM  

gilgigamesh: Ennuipoet: This thread is dangerously close to being a rational discussion of the issue.  That should last about eight seconds into hitting the Main Page.

Gun threads for me always show up blood red. Not a single post in this thread is Farkied red, so I think the usual suspects are steering clear of this one.


we haven't hit the main page yet. it's scheduled to go live at 1:48.  All the usual suspects are not TFers that I've seen.
 
2013-09-17 01:14:47 PM  

Fark It: HST's Dead Carcass: The Stealth Hippopotamus: What about those that will not seek help simple because they want to keep their guns? And who will be the ones that will say when or if someone can get their rights restored once they get diagnosed?

Tin Foil Hat time: wouldn't be simple to use that as a gun grab? 1 in 10 people are are on antidepressants right now and climbing. That's one tenth of the population that would have to turn over their guns right now. And that's just for antidepressants. Fun times will happen when we add paranoia to the list of reasons to remove the guns! All those preppers would really go off.

I have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.

I'm sorry, but why is it unreasonable to not want to pay a fee to the government for permission to exercise your constitutional rights?  What happens when when they establish a registry, and then decide on a blanket ban of all semi-automatic weapons?


Damn straight! Why do I have to register my car every year? And my boat? And my Hog? And my camper? F those Government assholes prying into my personal life! They're probably taxing me on all those things, too! They have no right to impede my success and collection of personal luxuries!!
 
2013-09-17 01:15:03 PM  

DGS: ahab: birdmanesq: dittybopper: One problem: He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed). What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?

Isn't there some useful old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight that might be applicable here?

But he played a lot of violent video games, so he was probably really good at sneaking up on people with a knife and stabbing them in order to steal their guns.

I know that's how I learned.

/HI NSA GUY


Dude, I'm the bestest player in battlefield 3, clearly I can fly an attack helicopter and kill dem doods

/HI ATF GUY
 
2013-09-17 01:15:10 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: dittybopper: One problem: He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed). What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?

Ah, yes, the whole: "If he wanted to kill someone, he coulda used a knife" theory. Well, a knife is a up close and personal weapon that needs much more effort and skill to use properly than a gun with it's point and kill method of use. Proximity being a big part of the ease of gathering new weapons. If the guards have guns and he has a knife, well, what's that old saying about how he's coming to the fight?

But, yes, perfectly logical argument that's not obfuscating or propping up straw men to make a point.

/keep on farking that chicken!


OK, so why not a crossbow?  Or perhaps a compound bow?  Or perhaps a 3D printed handgun?  Or perhaps a zip gun made from parts he bought at Lowes or Home Depot.  Heck, if you want to make an improvised 12 gauge shotgun, the information is out there, and if your goal is to kill a guard and get his gun, it will work just dandy for that.

All of those things can be acquired even if you are felon, and all are lethal.  And he had the element of surprise.

Now, try to tell me where I am wrong.
 
2013-09-17 01:15:50 PM  

Kit Fister: An enumerated right should not have a fee associated with it. MI has a mandatory registration on all handguns. It has not yet once been used to grab guns. I'm OK with a registration because, well, frankly, if the government wants to know what guns I have, they can find out in other ways anyway, and having a registration improves my chances that I'll get my shiat back if they ever get stolen.


This is important. Registration is fine (like voting), but shouldn't cost money.
 
2013-09-17 01:16:19 PM  

Kit Fister: see, we were having a perfectly polite, serious conversation and then HST's dead carcass showed up and shat all over it.


I walk in the realm of hyperbole and circumstance. I try to post on both sides of the issues, commenting on pros and cons. Plus, I'm just getting y'all ready for the herp and derp of Liters.
 
2013-09-17 01:16:59 PM  

Kit Fister: HST's Dead Carcass: have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.

An enumerated right should not have a fee associated with it.  MI has a mandatory registration on all handguns. It has not yet once been used to grab guns. I'm OK with a registration because, well, frankly, if the government wants to know what guns I have, they can find out in other ways anyway, and having a registration improves my chances that I'll get my shiat back if they ever get stolen.


I don't know that licensing and registration needs to be associated with a fee. Though, certainly, it makes it more financially self-sustaining if it was.

But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.
 
2013-09-17 01:17:08 PM  

xanadian: doyner: birdmanesq: But the one thing that I would say about this Navy Yard thing in contrast to Sandy Hook is that for the most part you can strip some of the emotional response out of it because there aren't 20 dead kids.

Yeah, but in my case I have no kids of my own and I was at work at NAVSEA yesterday. And I knew one of the victims...so I'm a bit more emotionally invested this go-around.

oh

sorry, man.  :(


It is what it is.  It probably won't really sink in until the funeral or I go back into 197.  I'm nowhere close to being as damaged as most folks there.

But for this discussion that's really irrelevant.  Fortunately the folks who will craft and implement policy are pretty level-headed.  Some things will get better, coming to work will be more inconvenient, people will complain, and life will go on.  Our system is oddly secure and stable.
 
2013-09-17 01:17:42 PM  

doyner: ahab: Let's not nitpick and say he was arrested twice.  If no charges were filed and/or he wasn't convicted, I still fail to see how that matters.

Because you don't have to be convicted to be denied clearance for it.

Seriously, dude, WTF?


I'm just saying...I know plenty of people with secret clearances.  My entire unit had to get them before we deployed.  An arrest record doesn't disqualify you from getting a secret clearance.  It probably adds a little time onto the adjudication process, but it's not an automatic disqualification.  And when that arrest doesn't lead to a conviction, it's probably a wash at adjudication.
 
2013-09-17 01:17:42 PM  

Fark It: I'm sorry, but why is it unreasonable to not want to pay a fee to the government for permission to exercise your constitutional rights? What happens when when they establish a registry, and then decide on a blanket ban of all semi-automatic weapons?


Your first question has nothing to do with your second question.

1. There should be no fee
2. Who is "they"?
 
2013-09-17 01:17:48 PM  
birdmanesq:
I mean, I grew up in rural Illinois. I started shooting before I started school. I look around at the folks I knew growing up--many of whom are incredibly responsible gun owners--and certainly wouldn't want to create some system of regulations and background checks that would prevent them from enjoying their pasttime relatively hassle free.

I grew up in western Pennsylvania where it was much the same.  My uncle took me out shooting when I was 8, prior to that I had a bb gun.  I'm surrounded by a lot of people who love to hunt deer, and while that's not my cup of tea, I wouldn't want to take away their pastime.  I'm also a responsible gun owner myself, though I only have one 12 gauge and it rarely sees any use.  The balance between allowing responsible gun owners to pursue their hobbies and keeping guns out of the hands of nutters isn't all that difficult, really.

How's this for an idea:  Let's assume when he shot through his neighbor's roof he was telling the truth.  Cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off.  Ok, no charges but guess what, no guns for you.  Clearly if you are so stupid that you clean a gun and it goes off, you have no business anywhere near one.  That could have potentially stopped this from happening, maybe.
 
2013-09-17 01:18:27 PM  
there be some good trolling here, yo
 
2013-09-17 01:18:35 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: How has this changed your opinion?

I am not trolling, I am truly honestly wondering if your opinion of Guns has changed at all regarding this since it was more personal to you than the rest of us.


It hasn't changed my opinion on guns or mental health.  It did, however, reinforce my views on the DoD contractor culture.
 
2013-09-17 01:19:44 PM  
Dammit, HST and Dittybopper. why do you have to come in and shiat all over a reasonable thread?
 
2013-09-17 01:19:50 PM  

dittybopper: OK, so why not a crossbow? Or perhaps a compound bow? Or perhaps a 3D printed handgun? Or perhaps a zip gun made from parts he bought at Lowes or Home Depot. Heck, if you want to make an improvised 12 gauge shotgun, the information is out there, and if your goal is to kill a guard and get his gun, it will work just dandy for that.


True story:

In high school some kid thought I'd be an easy target to pick on. I knocked him out with one punch in front of everyone. I'll admit it was a lucky shot and a few weeks later tried to come at me again and I whooped him fiercely that time (couldn't get the knock out punch again, soM I kept beating him). He swore he would get me back, but never did.

I found out after high school he shot his dad in the chest TWICE with a crossbow. His dad had been molesting him his whole life and he was acting out at school and all sorts of other issues (including his fights with me). He went to prison for life.

When I watched Billy Madison, I was probably the ONLY person in the theater that didn't laugh when Adam Sandler called Steve Buschemi. That hit a little close to home for me.
 
2013-09-17 01:19:53 PM  

ahab: doyner: ahab: Let's not nitpick and say he was arrested twice.  If no charges were filed and/or he wasn't convicted, I still fail to see how that matters.

Because you don't have to be convicted to be denied clearance for it.

Seriously, dude, WTF?

I'm just saying...I know plenty of people with secret clearances.  My entire unit had to get them before we deployed.  An arrest record doesn't disqualify you from getting a secret clearance.  It probably adds a little time onto the adjudication process, but it's not an automatic disqualification.  And when that arrest doesn't lead to a conviction, it's probably a wash at adjudication.


An arrest for a bar fight is one thing.  Multiple arrests for gun-related anger issues is something else entirely.
 
2013-09-17 01:20:18 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Damn straight! Why do I have to register my car every year? And my boat? And my Hog? And my camper? F those Government assholes prying into my personal life! They're probably taxing me on all those things, too! They have no right to impede my success and collection of personal luxuries!!


You didn't answer my question, and owning a gun is an enumerated right.  Driving your car on public roads isn't.

mediablitz: 2. Who is "they"?


Gun control advocates, via the legislature.
 
2013-09-17 01:21:20 PM  

birdmanesq: But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.


1. A gatling gun does not count as fully automatic.
2. Fully automatics already cost money to register, not to mention the exhorbitant cost to own. $250 per gun, plus the cost of the weapon, including federal registration.
 
2013-09-17 01:21:26 PM  

birdmanesq: Kit Fister: HST's Dead Carcass: have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.

An enumerated right should not have a fee associated with it.  MI has a mandatory registration on all handguns. It has not yet once been used to grab guns. I'm OK with a registration because, well, frankly, if the government wants to know what guns I have, they can find out in other ways anyway, and having a registration improves my chances that I'll get my shiat back if they ever get stolen.

I don't know that licensing and registration needs to be associated with a fee. Though, certainly, it makes it more financially self-sustaining if it was.

But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.


Don't recall which comedian had the bit, but he said (paraphrasing) "tax bullets. That'll make a mother farker think twice. Make that bullet 100 bucks".

You can own a fully auto gatling, but bullets are $500 a pop...
 
2013-09-17 01:21:30 PM  

doyner: ahab: doyner: ahab: Let's not nitpick and say he was arrested twice.  If no charges were filed and/or he wasn't convicted, I still fail to see how that matters.

Because you don't have to be convicted to be denied clearance for it.

Seriously, dude, WTF?

I'm just saying...I know plenty of people with secret clearances.  My entire unit had to get them before we deployed.  An arrest record doesn't disqualify you from getting a secret clearance.  It probably adds a little time onto the adjudication process, but it's not an automatic disqualification.  And when that arrest doesn't lead to a conviction, it's probably a wash at adjudication.

An arrest for a bar fight is one thing.  Multiple arrests for gun-related anger issues is something else entirely.


But, but, but, it's his constitutional right to be angry with firearms! 1st and 2nd! Recognize!!
 
2013-09-17 01:22:14 PM  

Fark It: I'm sorry, but why is it unreasonable to not want to pay a fee to the government for permission to exercise your constitutional rights? What happens when when they establish a registry, and then decide on a blanket ban of all semi-automatic weapons?


Two things: (1) It's pretty established at this point that the government is allowed to place taxes and fees on firearms and firearm licensing. It's constitutional to do that. So my guess is that you'll get some sort of "undue burden" formulation on whether the fee scheme is unconstitutional or not. (2) What happens if they decide on a blanket ban of all semi-automatic weapons anyway? I mean, the reality is that the gun-grabbing registry paranoia doesn't make a whole lot of sense--blanket gun bans face serious political and legal challenges that are not going to be overcome on a whim.
 
2013-09-17 01:22:17 PM  

doyner: xanadian: doyner: birdmanesq: But the one thing that I would say about this Navy Yard thing in contrast to Sandy Hook is that for the most part you can strip some of the emotional response out of it because there aren't 20 dead kids.

Yeah, but in my case I have no kids of my own and I was at work at NAVSEA yesterday. And I knew one of the victims...so I'm a bit more emotionally invested this go-around.

oh

sorry, man.  :(

It is what it is.  It probably won't really sink in until the funeral or I go back into 197.  I'm nowhere close to being as damaged as most folks there.

But for this discussion that's really irrelevant.  Fortunately the folks who will craft and implement policy are pretty level-headed.  Some things will get better, coming to work will be more inconvenient, people will complain, and life will go on.  Our system is oddly secure and stable.


Can I sponsor your TF?
 
2013-09-17 01:22:56 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: But, but, but, it's his constitutional right to be angry with firearms! 1st and 2nd! Recognize!!


Go home, you're drunk.
 
2013-09-17 01:23:05 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: I have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.


I've put this forward before:

But I like a drivers license system. Just like Commercial/auto/motorcycle weapon owners would have to test every couple of years pay a small fee to have enforcements on their Weapons License.

Something like hand gun/rifle/shotgun/full auto.

Example: Me. I have a few hand guns and a couple rifles in the house. My wife has no interest in the rifles but has a hand gun of her very own. So in order to be legal I would have to take, pass and pay for both Hand Gun and Rifle enforcements while the wife has to get only Hand Gun. Tickets and Jail time for those operating weapons they are not licensed to use without having a training instructor present.

Use the money raised to support the mental healthcare in this country. Maybe a few trained mental healthcare professionals to visit schools? That would be nice wouldn't it?


Main problem: The left hates the idea of picture ids and fees. For some reason they think this is suppression and unfair to minorities. Right just hates anything that keeps guns behind the glass case.
 
2013-09-17 01:23:12 PM  

doyner: ahab: doyner: ahab: Let's not nitpick and say he was arrested twice.  If no charges were filed and/or he wasn't convicted, I still fail to see how that matters.

Because you don't have to be convicted to be denied clearance for it.

Seriously, dude, WTF?

I'm just saying...I know plenty of people with secret clearances.  My entire unit had to get them before we deployed.  An arrest record doesn't disqualify you from getting a secret clearance.  It probably adds a little time onto the adjudication process, but it's not an automatic disqualification.  And when that arrest doesn't lead to a conviction, it's probably a wash at adjudication.

An arrest for a bar fight is one thing.  Multiple arrests for gun-related anger issues is something else entirely.


Two arrests, one of which was for a negligent discharge and neither of which led to charges being filed, let alone a conviction.
 
2013-09-17 01:24:15 PM  

dittybopper: OK, so why not a crossbow? Or perhaps a compound bow? Or perhaps a 3D printed handgun? Or perhaps a zip gun made from parts he bought at Lowes or Home Depot. Heck, if you want to make an improvised 12 gauge shotgun, the information is out there, and if your goal is to kill a guard and get his gun, it will work just dandy for that.


Can you show us ONE CASE of someone building their own shotgun/3d gun to go on a mass killing spree?

No? THAT'S your argument. You are ridiculous for the sake of being ridiculous, rather than conversin like an adult.
 
2013-09-17 01:24:19 PM  

nekom: How's this for an idea: Let's assume when he shot through his neighbor's roof he was telling the truth. Cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off. Ok, no charges but guess what, no guns for you. Clearly if you are so stupid that you clean a gun and it goes off, you have no business anywhere near one. That could have potentially stopped this from happening, maybe.


Sure, but that's a case where one problem (being an idiot) would've prevented the shooting due to a second problem (being a nutbar).  It would've been a happy coincidence.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, mind you.  I think if you want a gun, you should know how to properly USE the gun before you hurt yourself or someone else.

/this is coming from a guy who took a hunter's safety course when he was 11.
 
2013-09-17 01:24:19 PM  
Kit Fister:

Can I sponsor your TF?

Appreciated, but unnecessary.  Give it to the first liter that you deem worthy.
 
2013-09-17 01:25:05 PM  

Kit Fister: birdmanesq: But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.

1. A gatling gun does not count as fully automatic.
2. Fully automatics already cost money to register, not to mention the exhorbitant cost to own. $250 per gun, plus the cost of the weapon, including federal registration.


I'm going to regret posting that, right? This is what is going to lead to my downfall as soon as this hits the mainpage...
 
2013-09-17 01:25:37 PM  

xanadian: nekom: How's this for an idea: Let's assume when he shot through his neighbor's roof he was telling the truth. Cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off. Ok, no charges but guess what, no guns for you. Clearly if you are so stupid that you clean a gun and it goes off, you have no business anywhere near one. That could have potentially stopped this from happening, maybe.

Sure, but that's a case where one problem (being an idiot) would've prevented the shooting due to a second problem (being a nutbar).  It would've been a happy coincidence.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, mind you.  I think if you want a gun, you should know how to properly USE the gun before you hurt yourself or someone else.

/this is coming from a guy who took a hunter's safety course when he was 11.


This. I grew up with guns. I knew by about 5 that you didn't fark around with guns.
 
2013-09-17 01:26:13 PM  

ahab: doyner: ahab: doyner: ahab: Let's not nitpick and say he was arrested twice.  If no charges were filed and/or he wasn't convicted, I still fail to see how that matters.

Because you don't have to be convicted to be denied clearance for it.

Seriously, dude, WTF?

I'm just saying...I know plenty of people with secret clearances.  My entire unit had to get them before we deployed.  An arrest record doesn't disqualify you from getting a secret clearance.  It probably adds a little time onto the adjudication process, but it's not an automatic disqualification.  And when that arrest doesn't lead to a conviction, it's probably a wash at adjudication.

An arrest for a bar fight is one thing.  Multiple arrests for gun-related anger issues is something else entirely.

Two arrests, one of which was for a negligent discharge and neither of which led to charges being filed, let alone a conviction.

 
2013-09-17 01:26:41 PM  

birdmanesq: I mean, the reality is that the gun-grabbing registry paranoia doesn't make a whole lot of sense--blanket gun bans face serious political and legal challenges that are not going to be overcome on a whim.


Like warrantless wiretapping, data-mining, the NSA's domestic surveillance program and their interpretation of the Patriot Act, etc.  All you have to do is find a pile of corpses to climb on, then loudly claim to be acting for the children/brave heroes/America, and you're golden.  Hell, confiscation was "on the table" in New York when they deliberated on and drafted the SAFE Act in secret, behind closed doors.

/it's not paranoia if they really can't be trusted
 
2013-09-17 01:26:44 PM  

birdmanesq: Kit Fister: birdmanesq: But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.

1. A gatling gun does not count as fully automatic.
2. Fully automatics already cost money to register, not to mention the exhorbitant cost to own. $250 per gun, plus the cost of the weapon, including federal registration.

I'm going to regret posting that, right? This is what is going to lead to my downfall as soon as this hits the mainpage...


That and your callous disregard of the 10th Amendment.
 
2013-09-17 01:27:33 PM  

doyner: ahab: doyner: ahab: doyner: ahab: Let's not nitpick and say he was arrested twice.  If no charges were filed and/or he wasn't convicted, I still fail to see how that matters.

Because you don't have to be convicted to be denied clearance for it.

Seriously, dude, WTF?

I'm just saying...I know plenty of people with secret clearances.  My entire unit had to get them before we deployed.   An arrest record doesn't disqualify you from getting a secret clearance.  It probably adds a little time onto the adjudication process, but it's not an automatic disqualification.  And when that arrest doesn't lead to a conviction, it's probably a wash at adjudication.

An arrest for a bar fight is one thing.  Multiple arrests for gun-related anger issues is something else entirely.

Two arrests, one of which was for a negligent discharge and neither of which led to charges being filed, let alone a conviction.


Oooh, I can use bold text too!
 
2013-09-17 01:27:53 PM  

nekom: How's this for an idea:  Let's assume when he shot through his neighbor's roof he was telling the truth.  Cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off.  Ok, no charges but guess what, no guns for you.  Clearly if you are so stupid that you clean a gun and it goes off, you have no business anywhere near one.  That could have potentially stopped this from happening, maybe.


You'd have to disarm half the police.

Plus, he could have just made one or more improvised guns, if he was prevented from buying one, and used that to take a real gun from the guards.
 
2013-09-17 01:28:40 PM  
xanadian:
Sure, but that's a case where one problem (being an idiot) would've prevented the shooting due to a second problem (being a nutbar).  It would've been a happy coincidence.

True, but it would act as a bit of a catch-all for people who they can't prove intended to shoot.  Fine, accidental discharge?  Fair enough, but you can't ever have a gun again seeing as how you fail at guns so badly.  Not that I think his story is true, especially in light of what he did yesterday, but they probably didn't have enough evidence to prove he intended to fire the shot.  This would have given them a way to keep guns away from him without needing the burden of proof required for a criminal charge.  There are probably a lot of little thing like that that could help weed out potential crazies.
 
2013-09-17 01:28:49 PM  

birdmanesq: Kit Fister: birdmanesq: But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.

1. A gatling gun does not count as fully automatic.
2. Fully automatics already cost money to register, not to mention the exhorbitant cost to own. $250 per gun, plus the cost of the weapon, including federal registration.

I'm going to regret posting that, right? This is what is going to lead to my downfall as soon as this hits the mainpage...


You are. In a big way, heh. We already have the NFA for full-autos, short-barreled shotguns, and destructive devices. Full fingerprinting, background checks, and registration for anything qualifying.

I'm okay with a registration, but for arms that are not NFA and are considered standard small arms for ownership, there should be no fee. However, a back-end tax on firearms to pay for the registration system wouldn't be a problem, plus to help fund healthcare costs...
 
2013-09-17 01:29:58 PM  

nekom: xanadian:
Sure, but that's a case where one problem (being an idiot) would've prevented the shooting due to a second problem (being a nutbar).  It would've been a happy coincidence.

True, but it would act as a bit of a catch-all for people who they can't prove intended to shoot.  Fine, accidental discharge?  Fair enough, but you can't ever have a gun again seeing as how you fail at guns so badly.  Not that I think his story is true, especially in light of what he did yesterday, but they probably didn't have enough evidence to prove he intended to fire the shot.  This would have given them a way to keep guns away from him without needing the burden of proof required for a criminal charge.  There are probably a lot of little thing like that that could help weed out potential crazies.


I know infantry Marines who had negligent discharges in Afghanistan.  They got in all sorts of trouble, but they didn't have their weapons taken away from them.  That's a ridiculous overreaction.
 
2013-09-17 01:31:17 PM  

ahab: Two arrests, one of which was for a negligent discharge and neither of which led to charges being filed, let alone a conviction.


I thought I read he WAS convicted of negligent discharge. Looked again, and you are correct. Charged, never convicted.

Also:

"There were mental issues that he sought help for from the VA a number of times. He was ... acting normally during work and then having these episodes for which he was trying to get treatment."


"He said he was hearing voices, he was detached from reality at certain points. He had sought treatment a number of times at a number of places and he was also frustrated there. He claimed he wasn't getting his full VA benefits," Miller said.

Sources say he carried out the attack with three weapons -- an assault rifle, pistol, and shotgun, which was recently purchased at a gun store in Lorton, Virginia, CBS News' Bob Orr reports.

The timing of the firearms purchase is "key" according Miller because "it shows when he went through the 'I'm angry' stage to the 'I'm planning' stage" in the days before the attack.


We have no laws that would prevent him from purchasing weapons. Even if he HAD been convicted, he wouldn't have been prevented. No laws.

But it seems there should be something in place for a person seeking treatment for anger issues and detatchment from reality.
 
2013-09-17 01:32:20 PM  
ahab:
I know infantry Marines who had negligent discharges in Afghanistan.  They got in all sorts of trouble, but they didn't have their weapons taken away from them.  That's a ridiculous overreaction.

Well it's a completely different situation in a warzone.  Seriously, if somebody is so irresponsible that they accidentally discharge a firearm in their own home, do you really want them anywhere near a gun?  We could even allow gun ownership rights to be given back on completion of a gun safety course or some such.

Just a thought.
 
2013-09-17 01:32:30 PM  

ahab: Oooh, I can use bold text too!


Yes, it appears we have both mastered that functionality.  But clearly you're better than me at arguing in circles.

I'll boil it down to this:  I assert that the clearance process should have caught him beforehand, and it's obviously much easier to get a clearance in your neck of the woods than anywhere I've ever been.
 
2013-09-17 01:32:59 PM  

mediablitz: ahab: Two arrests, one of which was for a negligent discharge and neither of which led to charges being filed, let alone a conviction.

I thought I read he WAS convicted of negligent discharge. Looked again, and you are correct. Charged, never convicted.

Also:

"There were mental issues that he sought help for from the VA a number of times. He was ... acting normally during work and then having these episodes for which he was trying to get treatment."


"He said he was hearing voices, he was detached from reality at certain points. He had sought treatment a number of times at a number of places and he was also frustrated there. He claimed he wasn't getting his full VA benefits," Miller said.

Sources say he carried out the attack with three weapons -- an assault rifle, pistol, and shotgun, which was recently purchased at a gun store in Lorton, Virginia, CBS News' Bob Orr reports.

The timing of the firearms purchase is "key" according Miller because "it shows when he went through the 'I'm angry' stage to the 'I'm planning' stage" in the days before the attack.

We have no laws that would prevent him from purchasing weapons. Even if he HAD been convicted, he wouldn't have been prevented. No laws.

But it seems there should be something in place for a person seeking treatment for anger issues and detatchment from reality.


I agree with the last part of that completely.  But the first part shows how ridiculous reporting in the first 24 hours is.  There was no "assault rifle" used at all according to the latest reports.  Shotgun and two handguns.
 
2013-09-17 01:34:13 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I've put this forward before:

But I like a drivers license system. Just like Commercial/auto/motorcycle weapon owners would have to test every couple of years pay a small fee to have enforcements on their Weapons License.

Something like hand gun/rifle/shotgun/full auto.

Example: Me. I have a few hand guns and a couple rifles in the house. My wife has no interest in the rifles but has a hand gun of her very own. So in order to be legal I would have to take, pass and pay for both Hand Gun and Rifle enforcements while the wife has to get only Hand Gun. Tickets and Jail time for those operating weapons they are not licensed to use without having a training instructor present.

Use the money raised to support the mental healthcare in this country. Maybe a few trained mental healthcare professionals to visit schools? That would be nice wouldn't it?


I agree with everything you've put forth. Now, convince the rabid 2nd Amendmenters that this is a good idea.

Hunter Safety Courses are required for hunting licenses, why can't we make some kind of safety course mandatory for owning any kind of firearm?
 
2013-09-17 01:34:54 PM  

dittybopper: nekom: How's this for an idea:  Let's assume when he shot through his neighbor's roof he was telling the truth.  Cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off.  Ok, no charges but guess what, no guns for you.  Clearly if you are so stupid that you clean a gun and it goes off, you have no business anywhere near one.  That could have potentially stopped this from happening, maybe.

You'd have to disarm half the police.

Plus, he could have just made one or more improvised guns, if he was prevented from buying one, and used that to take a real gun from the guards.


Despite this never happening, you use it as a faux "argument" to prevent having to face the REAL issue. Why not be an adult?
 
2013-09-17 01:35:43 PM  

mediablitz: dittybopper: nekom: How's this for an idea:  Let's assume when he shot through his neighbor's roof he was telling the truth.  Cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off.  Ok, no charges but guess what, no guns for you.  Clearly if you are so stupid that you clean a gun and it goes off, you have no business anywhere near one.  That could have potentially stopped this from happening, maybe.

You'd have to disarm half the police.

Plus, he could have just made one or more improvised guns, if he was prevented from buying one, and used that to take a real gun from the guards.

Despite this never happening, you use it as a faux "argument" to prevent having to face the REAL issue. Why not be an adult?


These straw men don't build themselves, ya know!
 
2013-09-17 01:36:39 PM  

nekom: ahab:
I know infantry Marines who had negligent discharges in Afghanistan.  They got in all sorts of trouble, but they didn't have their weapons taken away from them.  That's a ridiculous overreaction.

Well it's a completely different situation in a warzone.  Seriously, if somebody is so irresponsible that they accidentally discharge a firearm in their own home, do you really want them anywhere near a gun?  We could even allow gun ownership rights to be given back on completion of a gun safety course or some such.

Just a thought.


It'd be pretty easy to argue that if you're as trained in firearm usage as an infantry Marine is, and you still obviously neglect at least two of the 4 fundamental safety rules (weapon not on safe, finger on the trigger) to have a negligent discharge on a routine patrol, that you're much more irresponsible than someone accidentally discharging a firearm in their own home.

doyner: ahab: Oooh, I can use bold text too!

Yes, it appears we have both mastered that functionality.  But clearly you're better than me at arguing in circles.

I'll boil it down to this:  I assert that the clearance process should have caught him beforehand, and it's obviously much easier to get a clearance in your neck of the woods than anywhere I've ever been.


And I assert that the adjudicator probably looked at the arrest record, saw there were no charges filed and no convictions, decided that two incidents 6 years apart didn't make a pattern, and approved the clearance.  And the unit I was in is based in DC, so my neck of the woods was exactly where you are.
 
2013-09-17 01:37:49 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Hunter Safety Courses are required for hunting licenses, why can't we make some kind of safety course mandatory for owning any kind of firearm?


How about state's requiring militia membership as a co-requisite for gun ownership? Fine, you can own whatever guns you want (provided that they are registered--we need to know what's available when we're mustering the militia) provided you participate in once-annual militia drilling. Which, you know, can focus on gun safety and all that jazz.
 
2013-09-17 01:38:28 PM  

Kit Fister: HST's Dead Carcass: But, but, but, it's his constitutional right to be angry with firearms! 1st and 2nd! Recognize!!

Go home, you're drunk.


It's a valid argument. Being angry at things is a protected right under the 1st amendment. Owning a firearm is protected under the 2nd amendment. Just because those two flavors put together make the worst Reese's candy ever makes no difference, they are both protected and he had every right to both.
 
2013-09-17 01:40:15 PM  

ahab: And I assert that the adjudicator probably looked at the arrest record, saw there were no charges filed and no convictions, decided that two incidents 6 years apart didn't make a pattern, and approved the clearance.


So I guess the third incident yesterday finally makes a pattern, huh?

 And the unit I was in is based in DC, so my neck of the woods was exactly where you are.

Well I guess you just proved my point then.
 
2013-09-17 01:41:50 PM  

birdmanesq: HST's Dead Carcass: Hunter Safety Courses are required for hunting licenses, why can't we make some kind of safety course mandatory for owning any kind of firearm?

How about state's requiring militia membership as a co-requisite for gun ownership? Fine, you can own whatever guns you want (provided that they are registered--we need to know what's available when we're mustering the militia) provided you participate in once-annual militia drilling. Which, you know, can focus on gun safety and all that jazz.


Like, the original intent of the 2nd amendment? The original intent also provided rifles to able bodied men between 18 and 42.

I only fear it would empower the people in the militias into believing they are some kind of police force or facsimile thereof.
 
2013-09-17 01:43:55 PM  

doyner: ahab: And I assert that the adjudicator probably looked at the arrest record, saw there were no charges filed and no convictions, decided that two incidents 6 years apart didn't make a pattern, and approved the clearance.

So I guess the third incident yesterday finally makes a pattern, huh?

 And the unit I was in is based in DC, so my neck of the woods was exactly where you are.

Well I guess you just proved my point then.


Well, I think we can both agree that he probably won't be granted a clearance in the future.
 
2013-09-17 01:45:29 PM  

ahab: doyner: ahab: And I assert that the adjudicator probably looked at the arrest record, saw there were no charges filed and no convictions, decided that two incidents 6 years apart didn't make a pattern, and approved the clearance.

So I guess the third incident yesterday finally makes a pattern, huh?

 And the unit I was in is based in DC, so my neck of the woods was exactly where you are.

Well I guess you just proved my point then.

Well, I think we can both agree that he probably won't be granted a clearance in the future.


Ug. I laughed.
 
2013-09-17 01:47:34 PM  
As usual, the only two choices being offered are to restrict guns or to lock away anyone deemed to be unstable. Both are slippery slopes to loss of liberty and they wouldn't have prevented this case anyway, let alone prevent the general phenomenon.

How about we try to figure what's made our society so farking crazy that people want to do this sort of thing, and fix it?

//pointless, but I had to say it
 
2013-09-17 01:48:27 PM  
Legal gun owner.
 
2013-09-17 01:49:28 PM  
This is why we need Obama Care! That should fix it.
 
2013-09-17 01:49:42 PM  

birdmanesq: ahab: doyner: ahab: And I assert that the adjudicator probably looked at the arrest record, saw there were no charges filed and no convictions, decided that two incidents 6 years apart didn't make a pattern, and approved the clearance.

So I guess the third incident yesterday finally makes a pattern, huh?

 And the unit I was in is based in DC, so my neck of the woods was exactly where you are.

Well I guess you just proved my point then.

Well, I think we can both agree that he probably won't be granted a clearance in the future.

Ug. I laughed.


Sometimes, that's all you can do.  Hindsight is 20/20, but two arrests w/o convictions 6 years apart doesn't jump out as OMG THIS GUY HAS SERIOUS ANGER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.
 
2013-09-17 01:50:01 PM  
I'm behind on this - is there still a second or third shooter at large?
 
2013-09-17 01:50:04 PM  

MrBallou: As usual, the only two choices being offered are to restrict guns or to lock away anyone deemed to be unstable. Both are slippery slopes to loss of liberty and they wouldn't have prevented this case anyway, let alone prevent the general phenomenon.

How about we try to figure what's made our society so farking crazy that people want to do this sort of thing, and fix it?

//pointless, but I had to say it


What if it's guns?

But I digress. It could be all the violence on TV and the lack of Boobies on TV.

I'm gonna go with lack of boobies. Puritanical censorship of the airwaves must stop!
 
2013-09-17 01:50:59 PM  
I think the problem is that this guy used the Biden Self-Defense Plan, and used a shotgun.  I wish Joe were more careful with his gun safety tips.  He's going to get more people killed.
 
2013-09-17 01:51:53 PM  
So, he was being treated for a "host of mental issues", yet retained his security clearance...and then killed a bunch of innocent people.

I TOLD you guys there were worse people in the security industry than Bradley Manning.

Scary thing is, statistically, there are worse people than this guy with top secret clearance.

Time to burn the system down and start over.
 
2013-09-17 01:52:47 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Legal gun owner.


fuuka.warosu.orgView Full Size
 
2013-09-17 01:53:22 PM  

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).


This makes sense and I agree.  If this were in place, would he have achieved the same ends with something else, like a pressure cooker bomb, for example?  Maybe, maybe not.
 
2013-09-17 01:53:32 PM  
See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.
 
2013-09-17 01:53:45 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: MrBallou: As usual, the only two choices being offered are to restrict guns or to lock away anyone deemed to be unstable. Both are slippery slopes to loss of liberty and they wouldn't have prevented this case anyway, let alone prevent the general phenomenon.

How about we try to figure what's made our society so farking crazy that people want to do this sort of thing, and fix it?

//pointless, but I had to say it

What if it's guns?

But I digress. It could be all the violence on TV and the lack of Boobies on TV.

I'm gonna go with lack of boobies. Puritanical censorship of the airwaves must stop!


Nah. Anybody with internet access is supplementing their boobie dosage way above minimal levels. It's got to be something else. I suspect it's when they stopped showing cartoon shorts at the beginning of movies.
 
2013-09-17 01:54:11 PM  
Wait, so now that we know the shooter's totes cray-cray we decide to throw politics out the window and have a semi-rational discussion on mental health issues and guns?

What happened Fark?
 
2013-09-17 01:54:49 PM  

PunGent: So, he was being treated for a "host of mental issues", yet retained his security clearance...and then killed a bunch of innocent people.

I TOLD you guys there were worse people in the security industry than Bradley Manning.

Scary thing is, statistically, there are worse people than this guy with top secret clearance.

Time to burn the system down and start over.


They got a building down New York City, it's called Whitehall Street,
Where you walk in, you get injected, inspected, detected, infected,
Neglected and selected. I went down to get my physical examination one
Day, and I walked in, I sat down, got good and drunk the night before, so
I looked and felt my best when I went in that morning. `Cause I wanted to
Look like the all-American kid from New York City, man I wanted, I wanted
To feel like the all-, I wanted to be the all American kid from New York,
And I walked in, sat down, I was hung down, brung down, hung up, and all
Kinds o' mean nasty ugly things. And I waked in and sat down and they gave
Me a piece of paper, said, "Kid, see the phsychiatrist, room 604."

And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
Wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
Guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
He started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
Yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
Sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."
 
2013-09-17 01:55:39 PM  

Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.


Dude, I value your opinion in these matters. Without your level headed approach, it's gonna be a madhouse around these parts.

/but I do understand why you want to jettison into the ricepaddies.
 
2013-09-17 01:55:43 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Wait, so now that we know the shooter's totes cray-cray we decide to throw politics out the window and have a semi-rational discussion on mental health issues and guns?

What happened Fark?


Adults are talking, that's what.
 
2013-09-17 01:56:13 PM  
Obligatory:

thumbnails.hulu.comView Full Size


Minister: He was a loner, and a quiet young man. He attended church, and Sunday School. I remember he was always very polite.

Ted Koppel: Do you believe he killed Buckwheat?

Minister: Oh, yes. Definitely. That's all he talked about.

Ted Koppel: John David Stutts graduated from Unionville High School.
Ted Koppel: His classmates called him "the loner."
Ted Koppel: Stutts was a member of the Key Club...
Ted Koppel: The Audio-Visual Squad...
Ted Koppel: And president of the Future Assassins of America.

Ted Koppel: It's no wonder that his classmates chose him, "Most Likely to Kill Buckwheat."

Gas Station Attendant: [in New England accent] Sure, I remember Stutts. He was a loner, but a real hard worker. I mean, he pumped the gas, he checked the oil, he washed the windows. Nice kid.

Ted Koppel: Do you believe he killed Buckwheat?

Man: Oh, yes, definitely. That's all he talked about. I remember one day I says, uh, "Stutts, why are you working so hard?" He says, "'Cause I'm saving up to buy a gun, so I can kill Buckwheat." [shrugs]
 
2013-09-17 01:56:27 PM  
Was he or was he not on Paxil? That drug causes people to go all shooty and killy on people.
 
2013-09-17 01:56:43 PM  
I_C_Weener has got everything that you want.
 
2013-09-17 01:57:16 PM  

birdmanesq: I_C_Weener has got everything that you want.


(excepting weener)
 
2013-09-17 01:57:35 PM  

Ennuipoet: This thread is dangerously close to being a rational discussion of the issue.  That should last about eight seconds into hitting the Main Page.


You're a goddamned clairvoyant.
 
2013-09-17 01:57:57 PM  

mediablitz: birdmanesq: Kit Fister: HST's Dead Carcass: have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.

An enumerated right should not have a fee associated with it.  MI has a mandatory registration on all handguns. It has not yet once been used to grab guns. I'm OK with a registration because, well, frankly, if the government wants to know what guns I have, they can find out in other ways anyway, and having a registration improves my chances that I'll get my shiat back if they ever get stolen.

I don't know that licensing and registration needs to be associated with a fee. Though, certainly, it makes it more financially self-sustaining if it was.

But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.

Don't recall which comedian had the bit, but he said (paraphrasing) "tax bullets. That'll make a mother farker think twice. Make that bullet 100 bucks".

You can own a fully auto gatling, but bullets are $500 a pop...


I believe that was Chris Rock.
 
2013-09-17 01:58:09 PM  

birdmanesq: HST's Dead Carcass: Hunter Safety Courses are required for hunting licenses, why can't we make some kind of safety course mandatory for owning any kind of firearm?

How about state's requiring militia membership as a co-requisite for gun ownership? Fine, you can own whatever guns you want (provided that they are registered--we need to know what's available when we're mustering the militia) provided you participate in once-annual militia drilling. Which, you know, can focus on gun safety and all that jazz.


Do you think Iowa will let blind people in their militia? Since they feel it is okay for them to buy and carry a weapon
 
2013-09-17 01:58:20 PM  

Kit Fister: HotWingConspiracy: Legal gun owner.

[fuuka.warosu.org image 259x194]


Facts are important.
 
2013-09-17 01:58:41 PM  

icebergcomics: Was he or was he not on Paxil? That drug causes people to go all shooty and killy on people.


It would be interesting to see if there were some pharmacological correlations between the various mass shooters. After all, if you're already psychotic, if there's a reason the meds make you have a bad reaction...
 
2013-09-17 01:58:46 PM  

birdmanesq: I_C_Weener has got everything that you want.


down at ____________
 
2013-09-17 01:59:42 PM  

doglover: 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.


Well, except for the part where people who do mass shootings generally don't follow society's norms...so some percentage wouldn't join the gladiator school, they'd STILL go shoot up the local kindergarten.
 
2013-09-17 01:59:49 PM  

Kit Fister: icebergcomics: Was he or was he not on Paxil? That drug causes people to go all shooty and killy on people.

It would be interesting to see if there were some pharmacological correlations between the various mass shooters. After all, if you're already psychotic, if there's a reason the meds make you have a bad reaction...


If he's psychic we'll never catch them.  They'll always be a step ahead of us.
 
2013-09-17 02:00:01 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.

Dude, I value your opinion in these matters. Without your level headed approach, it's gonna be a madhouse around these parts.

/but I do understand why you want to jettison into the ricepaddies.


The best thing about these posts is that some TFers think that their bullshiat forum talk means something.
 
2013-09-17 02:00:21 PM  

MrBallou: As usual, the only two choices being offered are to restrict guns or to lock away anyone deemed to be unstable


You are the only one seeing that as the "only two choices". Others are having an actual discussion about what could be done. Open your mind just a crack. Just the tiniest bit, and try to see that there are other options, and they are being discussed.

Go ahead. It won't hurt at all.
 
2013-09-17 02:00:45 PM  

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).


There are people that would avoid getting any mental help due to the fact they would lose the ability to own a gun.
 
2013-09-17 02:00:56 PM  

lewismarktwo: HST's Dead Carcass: Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.

Dude, I value your opinion in these matters. Without your level headed approach, it's gonna be a madhouse around these parts.

/but I do understand why you want to jettison into the ricepaddies.

The best thing about these posts is that some TFers think that their bullshiat forum talk means something.


They paid for it, so it's valuable.
 
2013-09-17 02:02:12 PM  
Guns don't kill people. Bullets do
 
2013-09-17 02:03:22 PM  

dittybopper: Plus, he could have just made one or more improvised guns, if he was prevented from buying one, and used that to take a real gun from the guards.


See, now something like this I have a problem with. Not that it's impossible to do, but that it does require some ability to engineer something like that and have it work on the first go. These guys that go on these mass killings are not the brightest bulbs in the bunch when it comes to coming up with plans to cause mass amounts of damage/casualties and yet we treat them like they're farking Bond villains.

so while agree that he could very well have improvised a gun to kill a guard and then steal his gun, I don't think he is capable of the foresight and planning needed to execute such a plan, let alone the engineering ability to actually build such things and have them work the first time.

Just because something works in movies or video games and watching/playing them makes you go "oh yeah, I totally see how they could do such a thing. That's so easy!" doesn't mean you'll actually know how to do it or think to do it when in a situation.
 
2013-09-17 02:03:23 PM  

lewismarktwo: HST's Dead Carcass: Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.

Dude, I value your opinion in these matters. Without your level headed approach, it's gonna be a madhouse around these parts.

/but I do understand why you want to jettison into the ricepaddies.

The best thing about these posts is that some TFers think that their bullshiat forum talk means something.



Don't forget to try out Totalfark Discussion.  Stay away from the Spam though.  I think its spoiled.
 
2013-09-17 02:03:55 PM  
It's funny that there are farmers advocating access to health records. I bet they are the same types that complain about the NSA.

As soon as it becomes legal to fish around in medical records people will just stop seeking medical help.
 
2013-09-17 02:04:13 PM  
Shh.  I think Drew is telling us to drink
 
2013-09-17 02:04:37 PM  
Obvious solution: take guns away from sane people.  Duh.
 
2013-09-17 02:04:43 PM  
Kit Fister:
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.

This entire thread is why you are favorited.....though you are really being wayyyyy to reasonable for a Fark Gun and Mental Illness Thread :-)
--And thanks for the TF Sponsor; I was really missing TF. I appreciate it a lot!--
 
2013-09-17 02:04:54 PM  

doglover: 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.


You've got your bread in my circuses!

Seriously, though, some of the old ways are the best ways. Particularly going forward.

1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-09-17 02:05:01 PM  

MrBallou: As usual, the only two choices being offered are to restrict guns or to lock away anyone deemed to be unstable. Both are slippery slopes to loss of liberty and they wouldn't have prevented this case anyway, let alone prevent the general phenomenon.

How about we try to figure what's made our society so farking crazy that people want to do this sort of thing, and fix it?

//pointless, but I had to say it


Nope, not pointless. Keep sayin it.
 
2013-09-17 02:06:05 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: It's already virtually illegal to own or sell a firearm in DC.  Think of that - the place where the 2nd Amendment is actually enshrined.  And he went in with a shotgun, not an 'assault weapon'.  Nonetheless, Obama is pushing ahead with new "executive actions" today and the usual liberal loudmouths are back on the bandwagon with the bullhorns.

Why is it that when someone does a mass shooting like this, liberals demand that those who didn't do it be disarmed?


Someone shot up a place in a gun free zone using a shotgun, and two handguns he picked up from his victims.  Time to ban the AR-15.
 
2013-09-17 02:06:08 PM  

cwolf20: Shh.  I think Drew is telling us to drink


You must've graduated from the No Sh*t Sherlock Institution
 
2013-09-17 02:06:18 PM  
Thank you, Americans with Disabilities Act!
insidesocal.comView Full Size
 
2013-09-17 02:07:34 PM  
Just astonishing.   I know someone who has a permanent job with the Census Bureau.  Her job involves really super high security stuff like asking people about how many bathrooms they have, and what time they go to work in the morning.  She put me down as a reference when she applied for the job.  I was called and interviewed by the Census Bureau, and they sent me a detailed questionnaire to fill out asking about her qualifications.   No weapons of any kind are involved with this type of work.....well, I think she has a pair of sharp scissors in her bag.

Here we have a dude who believes dogs are talking to him, and he's allowed to buy an automatic rifle, AND get secret clearance  with access to military bases.

/Putin laughs at Murica
//Even harder
 
2013-09-17 02:07:50 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks...


Surely universal background checks (which aren't as thorough as the background check he passed for his security clearance) would have averted this tragedy.
 
2013-09-17 02:07:51 PM  

birdmanesq: it's fairly straightforward to reverse-engineer a regulatory scheme that might prevent that from happening



The fact that you believe this is the reason why we can't have nice things.

News flash -- people adapt.

Also, to the Fark Socialists who stamp their feet in impotent rage about how the Gun Rights crowd is so unreasonable for refusing to budge on anything, consider the nature of the Left's absolutism when it comes to issues like abortion and/or voter ID laws.
 
2013-09-17 02:07:53 PM  
Maybe we should have more "Crazy Free Zones".
 
2013-09-17 02:08:21 PM  

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

His

legal access was a problem. Let's see if any of the proposed changes would have had any affect on his access instead of everyone else's. Looking at past examples, I'm going to go ahead and not hold my breath.
 
2013-09-17 02:08:33 PM  
I wrote some code a while back for the state. It involved the unemployment department and county jails. If you are arrested, the county jail database notifies unemployment overnight (there is an "availability" issue that arises if you are collecting unemployment and become incarcerated). Account is flagged, person collecting unemployment can't file for benefits until the issue is investigated.

If we as a country agreed to beef up background checks, someone arrested for a violent crime (domestic violence, for example) could have a simiar issue created that prevented that person from temporarily purchasing a weapon (not perfect, I realize, but just throwing out a simple scenario) until investigated. This slows down the "I'm angry, now I'm going to go buy a gun and plan my revenge" killer.

There are many simple measaures we could take as a country to lessen violent crime. None of them have to involve taking everyones guns permanently.
 
2013-09-17 02:08:39 PM  
Most people hear voices. It's those that hear imaginary voices that you have to worry about.
 
2013-09-17 02:08:46 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: Think of that - the place where the 2nd Amendment is actually enshrined.


But really, the Second Amendment doesn't need a place. It's enshrined in all of our hearts.
 
2013-09-17 02:09:01 PM  
If these kinds of people didn't have guns, they would just get into their cars and run into a farmers market, or worse than that, a playground at an elementary school.
 
2013-09-17 02:09:28 PM  

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.


But of course we have no need to worry that people with your sense of tact and elucidation would, in fact, try a backdoor gun ban due to your bigotry.
 
2013-09-17 02:09:31 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 remember after Sandy Hook I was biatching about the need for mental health care reform, getting rid of the negative stigma associated with getting mental help, and based on this, depending on what the doctor determines at the time coontil cleared otherwise) that should flag on your background as not able to purchase a gun.
 
2013-09-17 02:09:35 PM  

I_C_Weener: Maybe we should have more "Crazy Free Zones".



I don't think you understand Fark's business model.
 
2013-09-17 02:10:31 PM  

Fissile: and he's allowed to buy an automatic rifle, AND get secret clearance with access to military bases.


He wasn't allowed to do either of those things.

But it's your story, I'll let you tell it.
 
2013-09-17 02:10:38 PM  

KingKauff: I say everybody should be required to carry a gun on them shoved up their ass at all times.

 
2013-09-17 02:11:07 PM  

Kit Fister: dangerous mental illnesses


Of course, defining this ^ term is a tricky one. In a previous career I was a psychiatric social worker. I worked in a county hospital's psych ER, and later for a city clinic where I was the guy who went out with the cops when they had someone who was "just not right." I made the recommendation for involuntary civil commitment (72-hour hold), but the criteria was pretty straightforward. Now, at what point does treatment for "major depression, not otherwise specified" get you on the list? If you've just talked about your emotional distress with a counselor? If you've taken anti-depressants but never expressed any suicidal or homicidal ideation? Any ospitalization? What if you heard voices (major depression with psychotic features), but were otherwise able to take care of your home, family, work, and the medication made the voices and depression go away?

Sure, full-blown mania with psychiatrist's diagnosis and prescription medications to manage it. I say no guns for you. Schizophrenia, no gun for you.

And then there's the whole medical privacy thing.
 
2013-09-17 02:11:51 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Fissile: and he's allowed to buy an automatic rifle, AND get secret clearance with access to military bases.

He wasn't allowed to do either of those things.

But it's your story, I'll let you tell it.


==========

You splain it, John Galt.
 
2013-09-17 02:11:58 PM  

Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.


I'm sorry, did someone interrupt your circle jerk?
 
2013-09-17 02:12:38 PM  

Kirk's_Toupee: There are people that would avoid getting any mental help due to the fact they would lose the ability to own a gun.


There are always exceptions. That doesn't mean you ignore a good idea.
 
2013-09-17 02:12:47 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Any ospitalization?


Fortunately, for the most part the Cockneys don't have to worry about this kind of thing.
 
2013-09-17 02:13:05 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Fissile: and he's allowed to buy an automatic rifle, AND get secret clearance with access to military bases.

He wasn't allowed to do either of those things.

But it's your story, I'll let you tell it.


He did have a secret clearance and a CAC, so he could get onto most military bases (the clearance is irrelevant to that, but that's a different issue).  However, a shotgun is not an automatic rifle.  But, if he had wanted to buy an automatic rifle, he probably would have been able to pass the rather long and laborious background check for that as well.
 
2013-09-17 02:13:06 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: It's already virtually illegal to own or sell a firearm in DC.  Think of that - the place where the 2nd Amendment is actually enshrined.  And he went in with a shotgun, not an 'assault weapon'.  Nonetheless, Obama is pushing ahead with new "executive actions" today and the usual liberal loudmouths are back on the bandwagon with the bullhorns.

Why is it that when someone does a mass shooting like this, liberals demand that those who didn't do it be disarmed?


What's great is the Republicans have done more for gun control than all of the left, including Obama.

Brady Bill and all that.
 
2013-09-17 02:13:22 PM  

ahab: doyner: ahab: doyner: ahab: Quality work, background checkers...

I haven't seen any reports that he had a criminal record.

So what?  Arrest records are fair game for a clearance.

If he lied about them, maybe.  Otherwise, not so much.

WAT?  They search arrest records...normally.  If he lied and got caught he'd be denied clearance.  If he declared them, he'd likely not get a clearance.  He probably lied and didn't get caught, but searching law enforcement databases (to include ARRESTS) is kind of THE WHOLE FARKING POINT of a background check.

If he shot through a ceiling, police came and investigated, but he wasn't arrested or charged with anything, that wouldn't really be a red flag unless he was applying to be a weapons safety expert.


So maybe we need to add "to stupid to own a gun" to the list of reasons to deny a CCW/gun purchase.  Because if you ever manage to discharge a firearm in the process of "cleaning" it (muzzle loaders excepted), or manage to shoot through your neighbors floor, etc. then you are to stupid to own a firearm and it should be confiscated and held in trust on the spot.  Not a criminal offence - just a judgement of mental competence.  Upon completion of an intensive safety course and evaluation for mental health, you can see about getting that ban lifted.

// at least half serious
 
2013-09-17 02:13:35 PM  
I find it galling that the anti-gun freaks would use this terrible incident to argue that crazy dangerous people should be prevented from buying guns.
 
2013-09-17 02:13:46 PM  

Fissile: Noticeably F.A.T.: Fissile: and he's allowed to buy an automatic rifle, AND get secret clearance with access to military bases.

He wasn't allowed to do either of those things.

But it's your story, I'll let you tell it.

==========

You splain it, John Galt.


You first.  Tell us about this automatic rifle he had.
 
2013-09-17 02:13:54 PM  

Fissile: Just astonishing.   I know someone who has a permanent job with the Census Bureau.  Her job involves really super high security stuff like asking people about how many bathrooms they have, and what time they go to work in the morning.  She put me down as a reference when she applied for the job.  I was called and interviewed by the Census Bureau, and they sent me a detailed questionnaire to fill out asking about her qualifications.   No weapons of any kind are involved with this type of work.....well, I think she has a pair of sharp scissors in her bag.

Here we have a dude who believes dogs are talking to him, and he's allowed to buy an automatic rifle, AND get secret clearance  with access to military bases.

/Putin laughs at Murica
//Even harder


I had not read that the shooter had purchased an automatic rifle. from what source does that information originate? Additionaly, was his history of hearing voices from dogs ever reported to any meqningful agency?
 
2013-09-17 02:14:58 PM  

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.


Registry.
 
2013-09-17 02:15:34 PM  

Phinn: the Left's absolutism


NOPE you do NOT get to derail the thread that way.
 
2013-09-17 02:16:01 PM  
If any personal freedoms are lost it will be an emotion based decision.  Logic and rationale thought cannot and will not prevail here.  Lawmakers want quick solutions and that means addressing the symptom and not the problem.  Gun owners will lose this battle and mental health privacy will remain sacrosanct.  We have the technology and thought leadership to implement a system that could address this and help to minimize the potential for repeat scenarios.  What we lack is political leadership with the backbone to drive this.  They will gain far more political capital by infringing on gun owner rights than people with mental afflictions; therefore, expect any action they take to fully align with that capital gain.  Sadly, they will declare victory yet leave the American public in the same danger.
 
2013-09-17 02:16:19 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Fissile: and he's allowed to buy an automatic rifle, AND get secret clearance with access to military bases.

He wasn't allowed to do either of those things.

But it's your story, I'll let you tell it.


He had a secret clearance. Are you nitpicking the term "military base"?

/Such a good thread, ruined...
 
2013-09-17 02:16:31 PM  

Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.


memedepot.comView Full Size

Honestly, can you be more smug?
Pathetic.
 
2013-09-17 02:17:26 PM  

69gnarkill69: Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.

[memedepot.com image 413x413]
Honestly, can you be more smug?
Pathetic.


I mean, look at the comments before it went green and after.  Then tell me he doesn't have at least a little bit of a point.
 
2013-09-17 02:18:53 PM  

Loucifer: I find it galling that the anti-gun freaks would use this terrible incident to argue that crazy dangerous people should be prevented from buying guns.


It's ok. I felt it was in exceedingly poor taste for people to use Sandy Hook for political screeds on their facebook feeds about WHY guns should be legal, so I guess we're even.
 
2013-09-17 02:19:01 PM  

Fissile: You splain it, John Galt.


I'll get right on that, right after you 'splain how buying a shotgun and stealing a rifle means he was allowed to buy automatic weapons, and how stealing an ID means he was allowed into the facility.

/I'm assuming you mean 'legally allowed', as in he had permission. If not, never mind, I misread something.
 
2013-09-17 02:19:08 PM  

Loucifer: I find it galling that the anti-gun freaks would use this terrible incident to argue that crazy dangerous people should be prevented from buying guns.


Gun owners are arguing crazy dangerous peple shouldn't have access to guns.

You're just showing your childishness lack of actual contribution.
 
2013-09-17 02:19:53 PM  
The guy thought owning a gun was a good idea.

Of course he is a mental case.
 
2013-09-17 02:20:04 PM  

ahab: 69gnarkill69: Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.

[memedepot.com image 413x413]
Honestly, can you be more smug?
Pathetic.

I mean, look at the comments before it went green and after.  Then tell me he doesn't have at least a little bit of a point.


yeah, I already stuffed one guy down the laundry chute in here...
 
2013-09-17 02:20:06 PM  
Maybe we could try educating the public on schizophrenia symptoms and advising them to see mental health professionals\doctors.
 
2013-09-17 02:20:17 PM  
The lack of hot-pink-fav-o-douche stinking up my monitor in this thread is.....LOVELY.
 
2013-09-17 02:20:57 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: I'll get right on that, right after you 'splain how buying a shotgun and stealing a rifle means he was allowed to buy automatic weapons, and how stealing an ID means he was allowed into the facility.


Not real "up" on the facts I see. Keep being a dick about it. Doesn't make you look petulant at all!
 
2013-09-17 02:21:40 PM  

mediablitz: Not real "up" on the facts I see


Entirely possible.
 
2013-09-17 02:22:04 PM  

Kittypie070: Phinn: the Left's absolutism

NOPE you do NOT get to derail the thread that way.



How is it derailing?  It seems like a natural response to the argument that absolutism, as a mode of political discourse, is some sort of problem.

Is it or isn't it?
 
2013-09-17 02:22:21 PM  

PsiChick: Maybe we could try educating the public on schizophrenia symptoms and advising them to see mental health professionals\doctors.


Nothing like telling the uneducated masses about symptoms to watch for to explain someone's behavior. I mean, it worked so well for Salem, what could go wrong?
 
2013-09-17 02:22:36 PM  
LOL

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-09-17 02:22:59 PM  
Owning a gun increases the likelihood that you will kill someone illegally, rather substantially.
 
2013-09-17 02:23:06 PM  

PsiChick: Maybe we could try educating the public on schizophrenia symptoms and advising them to see mental health professionals\doctors.


Heh. Take a look at the trashing Amanda Bynes has received. We have a LONG way to go. Mental illness remains one of the few "respectable" bigotries.