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 549
    More: Obvious, mental healths  
•       •       •

3599 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 1:46 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



549 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.org
 
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.com

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.com
 
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!
www.insidesocal.com
 
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 (until 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.com
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.com
 
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.
 
2013-09-17 02:23:08 PM

birdmanesq: 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?


You've mis-labeled your fallatial straw-boater hat: He's not bringing a knife to a gun-fight. He goes stabby before the fight starts. Hell, he might even go stabby before the cop even realizes the guy's there. Altogether different.
 
2013-09-17 02:23:16 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.


The idea that Total Farkers as a majority have a monopoly on maturity and reasoning is laughable at best.
 
2013-09-17 02:23:33 PM

stovepipe: LOL

[i.imgur.com image 850x441]


And yet he missed the debut of GTA V.
 
2013-09-17 02:23:36 PM

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


he had clearance. But is this what the military defines as "secret" (most DoD researchers need this) or "top secret" (few peons need/have this, mostly an exec. thing) or simply the initial background checks and whatnot so you can be given access to a military installation (everybody goes though this)

or what the media defines as clearance: "he worked for the military and it says he had a background check...OMG HE KNEW ABOUT AREA 51 STUFF!!!!"

like the media and their understanding of different firearms, they also don't fully grasp the understanding of how clearance works in the military.
 
2013-09-17 02:24:55 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: mediablitz: Not real "up" on the facts I see

Entirely possible.


He worked for a subcontractor to HP. He had a secret clearance. That's how he got on the base.
 
2013-09-17 02:24:56 PM

ikanreed: Owning a gun increases the likelihood that you will kill someone illegally, rather substantially.


How much is 'rather substantially'?
 
2013-09-17 02:25:22 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: 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.


Oh goody, now YOU need to get your facts straight.  There was no rifle involved according to the most recent reports (shotgun and two handguns), and he had a CAC issued to him as part of his job.
 
2013-09-17 02:25:25 PM

ikanreed: Owning a gun increases the likelihood that you will kill someone illegally, rather substantially.


Owners with guns are also more likely to be victim of gun related crime.
 
2013-09-17 02:25:55 PM

stovepipe: LOL

[i.imgur.com image 850x441]


epic facepalm.
 
2013-09-17 02:25:56 PM
SSRI
 
2013-09-17 02:26:12 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: You've mis-labeled your fallatial straw-boater hat: He's not bringing a knife to a gun-fight. He goes stabby before the fight starts. Hell, he might even go stabby before the cop even realizes the guy's there. Altogether different.


The straw man argument is: He'd go on a mass homicidal rage with a knife, in order to gain access to a gun. That's absurdity and obfuscation at it's finest.

He brought a gun because of it's ease of use. The point and click interface is so easy, even a cavemen can do it.
 
2013-09-17 02:26:13 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: 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?

You've mis-labeled your fallatial straw-boater hat: He's not bringing a knife to a gun-fight. He goes stabby before the fight starts. Hell, he might even go stabby before the cop even realizes the guy's there. Altogether different.


Yeah, I'm going to be real honest here, I'm not willing to do what it takes to prevent stealth ninja attacks on law-enforcement officers in order to steal their guns in order to go on a shooting rampage.

I'm just going to draw the line there as being to remote in probability to really be worried about.
 
2013-09-17 02:27:20 PM

mediablitz: He worked for a subcontractor to HP. He had a secret clearance. That's how he got on the base.


Is there a newer article that spelled this out? I had heard that he still had his secret clearance, but it was my understanding (from a possibly out of date article) that the stolen ID that he had is what actually got him through the gate.
 
2013-09-17 02:27:25 PM

mediablitz: He worked for a subcontractor to HP. He had a secret clearance. That's how he got on the base.


you understand that you don't necessarily need a "secret" level of clearance to make it onto the naval yard. you will need identification, but in order to get that identification, you need to have a background check and brief investigation to make sure you're not lying or a threat, right?
 
2013-09-17 02:28:41 PM

stovepipe: LOL

[i.imgur.com image 850x441]


Proof positive that when gun crimes happen, the first thing the gun nutters do is muddy the waters in an attempt to sway the argument into absurdity before continuing. If they can derail the argument from it's core principles, we sway far from the actual argument.

People hate me because I keep directing it all back to the real arguments, pointing out their fallacies and flacidities.
 
2013-09-17 02:28:46 PM
jumping on the bandwagon of blaming "crazy people" seems to be really popular, but I have a better idea.
follow the logical line of reasoning that anyone who would commit a mass shooting like that is probably stupid, so I think it's a better idea to ban people with an IQ below 100 from owning guns
who's with me?
 
2013-09-17 02:29:01 PM

somedude210: mediablitz: He had a secret clearance. Are you nitpicking the term "military base"?

he had clearance. But is this what the military defines as "secret" (most DoD researchers need this) or "top secret" (few peons need/have this, mostly an exec. thing) or simply the initial background checks and whatnot so you can be given access to a military installation (everybody goes though this)

or what the media defines as clearance: "he worked for the military and it says he had a background check...OMG HE KNEW ABOUT AREA 51 STUFF!!!!"

like the media and their understanding of different firearms, they also don't fully grasp the understanding of how clearance works in the military.


I have no idea why your are rambling on with your "check out how cool I think I am" shiat. I was in the military 6 years. Submarines. Sonar Sup. Blab on to impress someone else.

He had a secret clearance. It gave him access to the base for the work he was doing as a sub contractor. No one is saying it's some sort of James Bond shiat. Just they GAVE HIM CLEARANCE.

Good enough? Jesus...
 
2013-09-17 02:29:24 PM
pretty sure the solution is more guns
 
2013-09-17 02:29:44 PM

ahab: Oh goody, now YOU need to get your facts straight. There was no rifle involved according to the most recent reports (shotgun and two handguns),


So not only did he not have an automatic rifle, he didn't have a rifle period? I'm still not seeing how that show he was allowed to buy automatic weapons.

The clearance item I'm looking up. Sounds like there's an updated article somewhere I missed.
 
2013-09-17 02:29:50 PM

Panatheist: jumping on the bandwagon of blaming "crazy people" seems to be really popular, but I have a better idea.
follow the logical line of reasoning that anyone who would commit a mass shooting like that is probably stupid, so I think it's a better idea to ban people with an IQ below 100 from owning guns
who's with me?


The NRA nutriders would be without their preciouses if this were true.
 
2013-09-17 02:31:07 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: ahab: Oh goody, now YOU need to get your facts straight. There was no rifle involved according to the most recent reports (shotgun and two handguns),

So not only did he not have an automatic rifle, he didn't have a rifle period? I'm still not seeing how that show he was allowed to buy automatic weapons.

The clearance item I'm looking up. Sounds like there's an updated article somewhere I missed.


You said he stole a rifle.  He did no such thing.  As for the clearance/CAC issue, here's a link for you.
 
2013-09-17 02:31:08 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: ikanreed: Owning a gun increases the likelihood that you will kill someone illegally, rather substantially.

How much is 'rather substantially'?


2.7 times more likely according to Kellermann, et al. (1993).
 
2013-09-17 02:33:04 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: 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?


Yes, education on the symptoms of depression has led to nothing but witchhunts.

/Seriously. No, that does not always happen.
 
2013-09-17 02:33:08 PM

mediablitz: It gave him access to the base for the work he was doing as a sub contractor.


Presumably the guys at the gate perform a check somewhat more stringent than "Are you allowed to be here?", and he had to show some sort of ID. All the reports I've seen so far say he stole the ID, but apparently that's wrong.
 
2013-09-17 02:33:42 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.


He also shot the tires out of some guy's car in Seattle, but the cops "lost" the paperwork and didn't file charges.
How convenient.
Farker should have lost his license AND guns after the second incident.
 
2013-09-17 02:33:47 PM

Kit Fister: 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.


He knifes his neighbor, whom he knows owns several unsecured firearms (let's say the neighbor's a bachelor; no kids in the house ever).  He then uses those guns to go on the rampage.

So, do we go so far as to alert all the neighbors about this guy?  I'm sure most already knew.
 
2013-09-17 02:34:09 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.


How about no fees? Once they are in place, there would be nothing to stop some shiatbag politician from raising the fees to a "more reasonable" level to institute a backdoor ban. If you don't believe such a thing would ever happen, just take a look at cigarette taxes. The government couldn't ban them either, so they did the next best thing.
 
2013-09-17 02:34:10 PM

I_C_Weener: 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.


blogs.phillymag.com Thanks for the free upgrade!
 
2013-09-17 02:34:48 PM

Maud Dib: 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.

He also shot the tires out of some guy's car in Seattle, but the cops "lost" the paperwork and didn't file charges.
How convenient.
Farker should have lost his license AND guns after the second incident.


So what you're saying is, he had no criminal record.  There were two arrests, 6 years apart, and neither one led to charges being filed, let alone a conviction.
 
2013-09-17 02:34:51 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: 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.


============

Here's the BBC version of the story:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24129442   He had access to the base.  It's known that he stole one of the handguns, so presumably, he possessed the other guns legally.   All the while this was a guy who had a leprechaun on his shoulder who was whispering in his ear, "Burn 'em!  Burn them all!"    Unless you you wanna believe that the BBC is part of Obama's Murican hatin conspiracy, I mean Alex Jones says so.
 
2013-09-17 02:35:31 PM

ahab: You said he stole a rifle. He did no such thing. As for the clearance/CAC issue, here's a link for you.


Thanks for that article. Seems I was wrong on the rifle, and the ID card.

birdmanesq: Kellermann


Oh dear lord. That study was as farked up as the Brady report.
 
2013-09-17 02:35:41 PM

doyner: 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.


Not a wizard, just a long time Farker.
 
2013-09-17 02:37:08 PM

Fissile: Here's the BBC version of the story


Thanks.
 
2013-09-17 02:37:16 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: birdmanesq: Kellermann

Oh dear lord. That study was as farked up as the Brady report.


I love to throw out Kellermann to provoke all of the Lott disciples.
 
2013-09-17 02:37:40 PM

pacified: pretty sure the solution is more guns


Except, in this case he shot guys with guns and ended up with....moar guns!
 
2013-09-17 02:37:41 PM
www.federaljack.com

The Navy Yard shooting didn't actually happen. Those are trained actors and special effects crews on TV.  You're all being lied to by the establishment, manipulated so that Obama can pass tighter gun control regulations.
 
2013-09-17 02:38:20 PM

somedude210: mediablitz: He worked for a subcontractor to HP. He had a secret clearance. That's how he got on the base.

you understand that you don't necessarily need a "secret" level of clearance to make it onto the naval yard. you will need identification, but in order to get that identification, you need to have a background check and brief investigation to make sure you're not lying or a threat, right?


The bare-bones check for pretty much all Fed workplaces is the "Public Trust" check which basically looks to see if there are any active arrest warrants for murder or bank robbery. He'll, I "know a guy" who had a felony drug conviction and was granted a Secret. The conviction happened about 20 years before his investigation and he disclosed it, but still, it ain't a deal-breaker.
 
2013-09-17 02:38:43 PM

I_C_Weener: pacified: pretty sure the solution is more guns

Except, in this case he shot guys with guns and ended up with....moar guns!


There can be only one ... Gunowner.
 
2013-09-17 02:38:57 PM
off to the new tfd extension. Have fun guys.
 
2013-09-17 02:39:16 PM

birdmanesq: I love to throw out Kellermann to provoke all of the Lott disciples.


>:|
 
2013-09-17 02:39:49 PM

AGremlin: Obligatory:

[thumbnails.hulu.com image 512x288]

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]


Thank you , I had that stuck in my head all day.
/=)
 
2013-09-17 02:40:26 PM

PsiChick: HST's Dead Carcass: 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?

Yes, education on the symptoms of depression has led to nothing but witchhunts.

/Seriously. No, that does not always happen.


No, not in recent history at all.

All I'm saying is we apply the term 'Professional' to individuals for a reason. Hell, how many people still think Obama is a Muslim? After all the evidence to the contrary they still insist upon this. And you want to empower people to make clinical diagnoses of other people that they may or may not have agendas against?
 
2013-09-17 02:40:54 PM

ahab: 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.


He's black so it's automatically assumed among Conservatives.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 02:40:55 PM

mediablitz: 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.


One of my current projects for the hospital is to comply with laws related to state notification for involuntary admission for psych treatment. I wonder if it'd be easy to sidestep such by trying to purchase in another state unless somehow the states agreed on one farking thing about information sharing without it being from (or managed by) the feds. STATES RIGHTS and all, but some things need to go across state lines.
 
2013-09-17 02:41:04 PM
The bible. You read it in the bible.

What do I win?
 
2013-09-17 02:41:44 PM

Coco LaFemme: 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.


THIS
When lawmaking is turned into an industry, the will of the people shall be drowned out by the will of the checkbook.
 
2013-09-17 02:42:23 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: The bare-bones check for pretty much all Fed workplaces is the "Public Trust" check which basically looks to see if there are any active arrest warrants for murder or bank robbery. He'll, I "know a guy" who had a felony drug conviction and was granted a Secret. The conviction happened about 20 years before his investigation and he disclosed it, but still, it ain't a deal-breaker.


rule of thumb normally is to admit to everything when filling out the forms so that they don't flag you when they find it in the investigation
 
2013-09-17 02:42:24 PM

ahab: As for the clearance/CAC issue, here's a link for you.


FTA: And he did have a CAC (common access card)

God, no wonder the guy went crazy.

/"?$%#*!! Whaddya mean I provided the wrong certificate?!?"
 
2013-09-17 02:43:02 PM
Thankfully, guns were restricted in that facility.

We wouldn't want any otherwise-responsible people "taking the law into their own hands," and stopping him before he got his full measure of rampage on, now would we?
 
2013-09-17 02:43:33 PM

umad: just take a look at cigarette taxes. The government couldn't ban them either, so they did the next best thing.


And now nobody smokes because they're too expensive!  I mean, a pack of cigs is more than a six pack of beer!
 
2013-09-17 02:45:09 PM
Some of you probably think George Zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to have a gun either.
 
2013-09-17 02:45:28 PM

Latinwolf: Quality work, background checkers...

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

He's black so it's automatically assumed among Conservatives.


He had run-ins with the law but none of them (reported so far) resulted in a conviction. he actually fired a gun in the house in what is reported to be a noise dispute with a downstairs neighbor but no charges were pressed when he claimed he was just cleaning his gun and it went off by accident.
 
2013-09-17 02:45:40 PM
As long as gun owners only shoot other gun owners I don't mind them shooting people quite as much.

Its when they shoot regular good people it becomes a problem
 
2013-09-17 02:46:01 PM
Also FTA:

The Experts Inc, which was helping service the Navy Marine Corps Intranet

My God. He was trying to fix NMCI.

Folks, this explains it all.
 
2013-09-17 02:46:07 PM
Better mental health care might save more lives than more gun control.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 02:46:17 PM

Bacontastesgood: umad: just take a look at cigarette taxes. The government couldn't ban them either, so they did the next best thing.

And now nobody smokes because they're too expensive!  I mean, a pack of cigs is more than a six pack of beer!


To be fair, a pack of smokes would last me significantly longer than a 6-pack of beer.
 
2013-09-17 02:46:47 PM

Fissile: Noticeably F.A.T.: 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.

============

Here's the BBC version of the story:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24129442   He had access to the base.  It's known that he stole one of the handguns, so presumably, he possessed the other guns legally.   All the while this was a guy who had a leprechaun on his shoulder who was whispering in his ear, "Burn 'em!  Burn them all!"    Unless you you wanna believe that the BBC is part of Obama's Murican hatin conspiracy, I mean Alex Jones says so.


In which paragraph of the BBC version of the story is an automatic rifle, or legal ability to acquire such, mentioned?

/I have read that the background check for NFA restricted devices is restrictive enough that his prior arrests alone may have been sufficient for the ATF to disqualify him.
//I, however, have not been able to corroborate that claim.
 
2013-09-17 02:48:03 PM
I heard them alot back in the 80's. "Don't look back, yesterday's gone, don't turn away, you can take it on ."
 
2013-09-17 02:48:31 PM

monoski: he actually fired a gun in the house in what is reported to be a noise dispute with a downstairs neighbor but no charges were pressed when he claimed he was just cleaning his gun and it went off by accident.


And this excuse is so lame, it should be precedence enough to remove all firearms from the home. I know it's been used by many people, supposedly responsible gun owners. If they are so responsible, they wouldn't be cleaning a loaded gun.

It's as lame as claiming your little brother was using your MMO account when you ninja looted a raid!
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 02:48:51 PM

ahab: Some of you probably think George Zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to have a gun either.


There are plenty of individuals in this country that haven't ever been convicted of a crime and I would rather see them without firearms.
 
2013-09-17 02:48:52 PM
Did he get fast tracked through clearance because of affirmative action?
 
2013-09-17 02:49:02 PM

DGS: To be fair, a pack of smokes would last me significantly longer than a 6-pack of beer.


To be fair, you smoke?
 
2013-09-17 02:49:29 PM
He had mental problems, he had two incidences with a gun -- shooting the tires out on someone's car in what he called a "blackout" moment of rage, and shooting a hole in the ceiling of his apartment, nearly hitting his upstairs neighbor, with whom he'd had an ongoing feud over noise complaints.

And yet it was still legal for him to purchase firearms. He was not a "responsible" gun owner, and we need to stop pretending that keeping people like him from possessing firearms infringes on anyone else's rights.
 
2013-09-17 02:49:35 PM
Is the Navy providing grief counseling for all the looney left liberal anti gun nuts? They were probably creaming their jeans until they found out this guy was black and used a shotgun with stolen pistols instead of the evil semi automatic rifle.
 
2013-09-17 02:49:45 PM

CleanAndPure: As long as gun owners only shoot other gun owners I don't mind them shooting people quite as much.

Its when they shoot regular good people it becomes a problem


Have you any rational commentary to offer, or are you issuing insults due to an awareness of your position lacking any intellectual merit?
 
2013-09-17 02:50:57 PM
Unfortunately, the widely promoted idea that guns will solve your problems and will magically protect and empower you, attracts the fearful and confused mentally ill. Loughner's car was full of "modern gun nut" magazines and  Lanza's parent encouraged him to focus on guns. This guy shot his neighbor and a car and went on to kill 13 while solving his problems with guns. You aren't going to be able to completely legislate away access for the mentally ill because no test for mental illness can predict future actions, but not promoting guns continuously as a solution to problems ("second amendment solutions!") would help. I think that the more that guns are promoted by proponents, the more we will have the weak minded fringe elements latching on to them as a solution to their troubles.
 
2013-09-17 02:51:39 PM

Launch Code: Is the Navy providing grief counseling for all the looney left liberal anti gun nuts? They were probably creaming their jeans until they found out this guy was black and used a shotgun with stolen pistols instead of the evil semi automatic rifle.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-17 02:52:54 PM

Evil Mackerel: AGremlin: Obligatory:

[thumbnails.hulu.com image 512x288]

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]

Thank you , I had that stuck in my head all day.
/=)


No problem.  For a minute I thought I had stumbled into a Mensa meeting in which all the world's problems were being solved by TFs.

Then I remembered that the people actually trying to solve the world's problems don't have time to philosophize on FARK all day.
 
2013-09-17 02:53:23 PM

shower_in_my_socks: And yet it was still legal for him to purchase firearms. He was not a "responsible" gun owner, and we need to stop pretending that keeping people like him from possessing firearms infringes on anyone else's rights.


Ah, yes, but it's easy to say that this fellow was no true Scotsman and therefore we need to concentrate on things other than guns.
 
2013-09-17 02:53:31 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: PsiChick: HST's Dead Carcass: 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?

Yes, education on the symptoms of depression has led to nothing but witchhunts.

/Seriously. No, that does not always happen.

No, not in recent history at all.

All I'm saying is we apply the term 'Professional' to individuals for a reason. Hell, how many people still think Obama is a Muslim? After all the evidence to the contrary they still insist upon this. And you want to empower people to make clinical diagnoses of other people that they may or may not have agendas against?


No, I want to empower people to realize that, if they hear voices, medications and talk therapy can help. And your sex-abuse link had far more to do with outdated techniques and idiot social workers than witchhunts.
 
2013-09-17 02:55:43 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: AngryJailhouseFistfark: You've mis-labeled your fallatial straw-boater hat: He's not bringing a knife to a gun-fight. He goes stabby before the fight starts. Hell, he might even go stabby before the cop even realizes the guy's there. Altogether different.

The straw man argument is: He'd go on a mass homicidal rage with a knife, in order to gain access to a gun. That's absurdity and obfuscation at it's finest.

He brought a gun because of it's ease of use. The point and click interface is so easy, even a cavemen can do it.


It is not a strawman argument.  It is merely pointing out that any solution with an easy workaround isn't really a good solution.  Especially if the negative consequences of the solution might outweigh the benefits even if the workaround isn't so easy.

It's akin to you deciding that you no longer wish to have salesmen or Mormans knocking on your door, so you propose a solution of putting a gate across your front sidewalk.  I point out to you that they will just walk on the grass to get around the gate.  You claim this is preposterous because everyone who ever comes to your front door comes on the sidewalk and never walks on the grass.
 
2013-09-17 02:55:44 PM

birdmanesq: Kellermann


lol
 
2013-09-17 02:56:06 PM
i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-17 02:59:32 PM
Shoulda got a shotgun.
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-17 02:59:49 PM

Bacontastesgood: umad: just take a look at cigarette taxes. The government couldn't ban them either, so they did the next best thing.

And now nobody smokes because they're too expensive!  I mean, a pack of cigs is more than a six pack of beer!


Exactly. Fark the poor! I can still afford them, so what is the problem? We should institute a poll tax too!
 
2013-09-17 03:02:39 PM
birdmanesq

Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me,

A guy pops of 'x' number of rounds into the tires of a person that "dissed" him and it doesn't bother you that he wasn't charged?


um ok that' makes a load of sense.
 
2013-09-17 03:02:52 PM

Carousel Beast: 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.


You mentioned bigotry, not me.

I think you need to switch to decaf tea.
 
2013-09-17 03:03:47 PM

ahab: Maud Dib: 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.

He also shot the tires out of some guy's car in Seattle, but the cops "lost" the paperwork and didn't file charges.
How convenient.
Farker should have lost his license AND guns after the second incident.

So what you're saying is, he had no criminal record.  There were two arrests, 6 years apart, and neither one led to charges being filed, let alone a conviction.


I would like to know why the fark he DIDN'T have a criminal record?
So it's OK to go around blasting people's cars according to Seattle po-po.
MMmmmkay. Sorry, occifer, it was an accidental discharge..AGAIN.
 
2013-09-17 03:05:37 PM
Ya know, an 'official' federal database of gun registrations is a rather moot point if the NSA is capturing all our data.
Just from that meta-data from our ISPs, phones and credit cards -- things we know they can and do collect and aggregate -- you could get a pretty darn good picture of who actually owns and shoots which firearms, where and how often.
 
2013-09-17 03:06:26 PM

Kit Fister: It would be interesting to see if there were some pharmacological correlations between the various mass shooters.


All except maybe one have been on SSRIs. When your 'anti-depressant' has warnings it might cause you to commit suicide, something isn't right.
 
2013-09-17 03:07:01 PM

OnlyM3: A guy pops of 'x' number of rounds into the tires of a person that "dissed" him and it doesn't bother you that he wasn't charged?


I think you misread the thrust of that sentence.

Neighborhood Watch: What does that tell you?


It tells me that you, sir, are no demographer. The chart would skew differently if it was done as a mass shootings per 10,000 residents.
 
2013-09-17 03:07:18 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Kit Fister: It would be interesting to see if there were some pharmacological correlations between the various mass shooters.

All except maybe one have been on SSRIs. When your 'anti-depressant' has warnings it might cause you to commit suicide, something isn't right.


I agree.
 
2013-09-17 03:07:24 PM

umad: Exactly. Fark the poor! I can still afford them, so what is the problem?


I'm glad you agree, and are a member of the uberelite who can still smoke.

We should institute a poll tax too!

Well, voting isn't a dispensable good, so no.
 
2013-09-17 03:08:56 PM
birdmanesq

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

See Tueller Drill and the stats on how many idiots...errr cops are killed with their own guns.
 
2013-09-17 03:12:24 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 agree, and so does my congressman, but he won't do anything about stopping people with mental illnesses from buying guns because the special interest groups will disembowel him.
 
2013-09-17 03:13:30 PM

umad: birdmanesq: Kellermann

lol


You missed my followup to that post.
 
2013-09-17 03:15:15 PM
Navy Yard shooter suffered from mental health issues, heard voices.

And had two prior arrests on gun-related charges.  But he had no problem at all getting more guns.
 
2013-09-17 03:15:19 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!!

When you've had an adult explain to you the difference between rights vs "personal luxuries" get back to us.
 
2013-09-17 03:16:10 PM
Access to guns by the mentally ill has always been the major problem, and the system is totally broken. I know a guy that lives on welfare due to being unable to work and professionally diagnosed with mental problems, who walked right into a place and bought an AK-47.

Did he lie on the questionnaire? I don't know. If he did, did they verify his answers? Do you think they verify the answers when you select the radial indicating you've never never been treated for mental illness? Hell, do they even check to make sure there are no restraining orders against you, or is it just "No," cause I said so? This guy had even been arrested the year before for domestic violence.

So, if these people can get guns, damn sure I'm going to match them. I'm probably paranoid from watching to much Investigation Discovery, but I pity the fool that breaks into my house looking to hurt me.
 
2013-09-17 03:18:27 PM

lilbjorn: Navy Yard shooter suffered from mental health issues, heard voices.

And had two prior arrests on gun-related charges.  But he had no problem at all getting more guns.


Because the cops failed to do their damn job, AGAIN
 
2013-09-17 03:18:51 PM
HST's Dead Carcass

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.
By posting your own troll posts you prove you're better than the rest of the trolls.

More proof that tf'ers are allowed to break the rules as long as their pay pal acct still works.


// but at least you're admitting you're trolling.
 
2013-09-17 03:19:04 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Hey, I just found this hand map which illustrates that most mass shootings happen on the east or west coast and in the Rust Belt - i.e. democrat/liberal controlled regions of the country.

What does that tell you?


/I know what it tells ME


That you made you mind up long before it told you anything?
 
2013-09-17 03:20:28 PM
One thing that has not been pointed out is that EVERYONE can have a psychotic break if put under enough stress. Attempts to define folks experiencing a psychotic break as 'them' or as easily identified is not going to solve anything.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 03:20:51 PM

Kit Fister: 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.


That is about as clear an analogy as I have seen on this subject. Well said.
 
2013-09-17 03:23:14 PM

lilbjorn: Navy Yard shooter suffered from mental health issues, heard voices.

And had two prior arrests on gun-related charges.  But he had no problem at all getting more guns.


And zero criminal convictions! Also, the two incidents were 6 years apart.  Clear pattern of behavior there, right?
 
2013-09-17 03:24:22 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.

Good plan. Lets apply that to all rights.
1st:
morse code is free (or a small fee)
but your pentiumII's and above costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.

4th:
Your bedroom is a search free zone -without a warrant- after you paid a small fee.
But your car and bathroom costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.

5th:
You have the right to remain silent if you're accused of a small infraction (jaywalking)
but if you're charged with a felony, it costs $10,000 per charge to exercise that right.
 
2013-09-17 03:24:53 PM
People who had "anger management issues" and heard voices in their heads used to be committed before the voices told them to kill people. We should get back to that.
 
2013-09-17 03:25:13 PM
If you're going to try to kill me, you'd better have a gun (as opposed to a knife or a baseball bat or a lead pipe). Because otherwise it probably won't work. So in my very specific case, people don't kill people, guns kill people.

/although I suppose a car might work
//or a bomb
///or some poison
////or burning my house down with me in it
//but my point still stands because slashies
 
2013-09-17 03:25:32 PM

ahab: lilbjorn: Navy Yard shooter suffered from mental health issues, heard voices.

And had two prior arrests on gun-related charges.  But he had no problem at all getting more guns.

And zero criminal convictions! Also, the two incidents were 6 years apart.  Clear pattern of behavior there, right?


To most sane people, yes.
 
2013-09-17 03:26:32 PM
Yeah!  We never have enough Joan of Arc threads.  I finally get to trot out all my Jean Seberg pictures.
 
2013-09-17 03:26:48 PM

mediablitz: 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.


That's precious.
 
2013-09-17 03:27:50 PM

doyner: ahab: lilbjorn: Navy Yard shooter suffered from mental health issues, heard voices.

And had two prior arrests on gun-related charges.  But he had no problem at all getting more guns.

And zero criminal convictions! Also, the two incidents were 6 years apart.  Clear pattern of behavior there, right?

To most sane people, yes.


It's a pity that the clearance adjudicators (plural because it sounds like he was screened at least twice, once this year!) are insane.
 
2013-09-17 03:28:28 PM
This event has all but paralyzed the "ZOMG! GUNS BAD!!!" crowd across all social media, including FARK, since they're also largely the "You can't say anything bad about a black guy, that would be 'racist'" crowd, so the amount of public hand wringing and bloviating over this compared to any other similar incident is hovering just above zero.*

*
Except for Slate, who've weighed in to say that  "Yeah, 12 people are dead, but the real problem is racists on Twitter."

Needless to say, Fark didn't dare greenlight that story.

Gotta' stick with the narrative!!!!

Trayvon! Red Lobster! Ms. America!!!!
 
2013-09-17 03:28:33 PM
Of all of the victims in that shooting.  Not one of them was carrying a firearm to protect themselves.
 
2013-09-17 03:29:26 PM

Oh_Enough_Already: This event has all but paralyzed the "ZOMG! GUNS BAD!!!" crowd across all social media, including FARK, since they're also largely the "You can't say anything bad about a black guy, that would be 'racist'" crowd, so the amount of public hand wringing and bloviating over this compared to any other similar incident is hovering just above zero.*

*Except for Slate, who've weighed in to say that  "Yeah, 12 people are dead, but the real problem is racists on Twitter."

Needless to say, Fark didn't dare greenlight that story.

Gotta' stick with the narrative!!!!

Trayvon! Red Lobster! Ms. America!!!!


Denny's?
 
2013-09-17 03:29:44 PM

OnlyM3: When you've had an adult explain to you the difference between rights vs "personal luxuries" get back to us.


OnlyM3: Good plan. Lets apply that to all rights.


I'm pretty sure that you don't understand Second Amendment law as it relates to taxes and fees: There are no specific prohibitions on taxes and fees. Now, upthread I suggested that if it came up that it would likely be handled in some sort of "undue burden" fashion.

I mean, we can live in a Randian fantasy world where we can proclaim things like "the government can't tax fundamental rights" but here in America taxing (up to a certain extent) is not a taking and there are few limitations on the government's ability to subject gun ownership to taxes and fees. That's reality.
 
2013-09-17 03:30:20 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).


How dare you bring common sense and problem solving into this sacred FARK thread!

All kidding aside, I support RTC and Private ownership of firearms with fewer restrictions on the type of firearms... But with the caveat that the mentally unsound and those with a history of violent crimes should be prevented from owning a firearm by means of a background check and severe penalties (Hard time, no bail) if they obtain firearms through illegal means.
 
2013-09-17 03:32:06 PM
On the other hand, he did injury Miz.
 
2013-09-17 03:33:01 PM

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


Guns?  He should not have access to the street. Apparently he was criminally insane, and should have been locked up and receiving treatment. If he had set fire to a movie theatre with a five gallon jerrycan of gasoline would you call for closing Shell Stations?
 
2013-09-17 03:34:25 PM
In a perfect world, we'd have unlimited funding and our mental health services would be top notch.  Everyone would get the absolute best medical treatment and we'd provide a warm, welcoming environment for everyone, for as long as they need treatment, even if it is their entire life.

But until we get there - I think we should give serious consideration to putting down mental unstable people.  Even if it isn't their fault.  It seems the most humane thing to do.
 
2013-09-17 03:35:09 PM

birdmanesq [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 03:29:44 PM


OnlyM3: When you've had an adult explain to you the difference between rights vs "personal luxuries" get back to us.

OnlyM3: Good plan. Lets apply that to all rights.

I'm pretty sure that you don't understand Second Amendment law as it relates to taxes and fees
Ah, so you support a poll tax.
 
2013-09-17 03:35:35 PM

Fusilier: If he had set fire to a movie theatre with a five gallon jerrycan of gasoline would you call for closing Shell Stations?


Arson isn't as fun as gunning down people one at a time.  That's a much more personal act that really satisfies the rampaging murderer.
 
2013-09-17 03:36:03 PM

birdmanesq: And the local jurisdictions need to be compelled to report gun-related incidents or other violent crime to the Federal database.


You must mean gun related incidents which result in some sort of conviction that would land a person over a year in jail. We already have that. 

birdmanesq: 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).


No the first step is incorporating disqualifying mental health diagnoses into the federally operated National Criminal Instant Check System. The NRA wouldn't oppose that. Left-leaning groups would.
 
2013-09-17 03:36:06 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: In a perfect world, we'd have unlimited funding and our mental health services would be top notch.  Everyone would get the absolute best medical treatment and we'd provide a warm, welcoming environment for everyone, for as long as they need treatment, even if it is their entire life.

But until we get there - I think we should give serious consideration to putting down mental unstable people.  Even if it isn't their fault.  It seems the most humane thing to do.


8% tax on firearms and ammo. Book it. Done.
 
2013-09-17 03:36:47 PM
Not this shiat again.
 
2013-09-17 03:38:14 PM

OnlyM3: birdmanesq [TotalFark] OnlyM3: When you've had an adult explain to you the difference between rights vs "personal luxuries" get back to us.

OnlyM3: Good plan. Lets apply that to all rights.

I'm pretty sure that you don't understand Second Amendment law as it relates to taxes and fees

Ah, so you support a poll tax.


My fingers are typing but you don't seem to be able to read what they're writing.

USP .45: birdmanesq: And the local jurisdictions need to be compelled to report gun-related incidents or other violent crime to the Federal database.

You must mean gun related incidents which result in some sort of conviction that would land a person over a year in jail. We already have that.


My fingers are typing but you don't seem to be able to read what they're writing either.
 
2013-09-17 03:38:19 PM

McJudo: Not this shiat again.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-17 03:39:50 PM

Witness99: I'm probably paranoid from watching to much Investigation Discovery, but I pity the fool that breaks into my house looking to hurt me.


Statistically, the most likely person to injure you in your house is already in your house.
 
2013-09-17 03:40:10 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: birdmanesq:

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?


I love the wording of the 2nd amendment. James Madison, in addition to being a damn clever lawyer, was a master of ambiguity and double meaning. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You could read that in at least a couple of different ways:

1. People must always have their guns handy in case they get called up to serve in a Militia.

2. Militias are an odious, fearsome but inescapable inevitability. So people must always have their guns handy to protect themselves from said militias.

I'd like to think Madison secretly leaned toward the second meaning, but that's just me.
 
2013-09-17 03:41:52 PM
Holy crap, this appears to be a gun thread with reasonable discussion! I didn't think it could happen.
 
2013-09-17 03:42:29 PM
The dots.  They are not connected.
 
2013-09-17 03:43:37 PM

Neighborhood Watch: Hey, I just found this hand map which illustrates that most mass shootings happen on the east or west coast and in the Rust Belt - i.e. democrat/liberal controlled regions of the country.

What does that tell you?


/I know what it tells ME


1) It tells me that you don't read XKCD.

imgs.xkcd.com 

2) Assuming that you've dealt with #1, it tells me that when you remove the absolute last-ditch everything else has failed method of preventing mass killings (Namely, someone else who may or may not be carrying, but  doesn't want to murder lots of people today and is in a position to stop the attacker), you get more "successful" mass killings.

Dude walks into crowded restaurant, pulls gun, gets shot by other person in restaurant who was also carrying, but like 99.99% of America didn't have plans to kill anyone today, doesn't make the national news.

Dude walks into crowded movie theater and successfully shoots 30 people before shooting himself when the cops show up 5 minutes later because no one was in a position to stop him and no one had the slightest idea what to do when a gunman walks in the front door and starts shooting DOES.
 
2013-09-17 03:44:00 PM

tricycleracer: Fusilier: If he had set fire to a movie theatre with a five gallon jerrycan of gasoline would you call for closing Shell Stations?

Arson isn't as fun as gunning down people one at a time.  That's a much more personal act that really satisfies the rampaging murderer.


It's probably also kind of fun (for the mentally deranged) to poison several bottles of medicine/food etc at Walmart. I bet the deranged would like to tamper with the water supply, spike the company coffee station or maybe just stand on a freeway overpass throwing random objects down that cause massive pile-ups.

The problem is mental illness. You can legislate guns away to never never land, but that doesn't even begin to solve the problem. Where there's a will, a dark will, there's a way.
 
2013-09-17 03:44:00 PM

pseudoscience: Holy crap, this appears to be a gun thread with reasonable discussion! I didn't think it could happen.


I could blame the Jews, if that would help.

/Or the gays.
//Or gay Jews.
 
2013-09-17 03:44:17 PM

birdmanesq: My fingers are typing but you don't seem to be able to read what they're writing either.


Well the literal meaning of your statement is so inane that I made your own point better and then addressed it. No good deed goes unpunished.

A federal database of "gun incidents" that don't result in anything that would disqualify a person from purchasing does nothing. The current standard is as follows...

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
 
2013-09-17 03:45:22 PM

Neighborhood Watch: What does that tell you?


It tells me that a whole hell of a lot of handy maps are little more than population maps.

/Not gonna bother to link the XKCD pic.
 
2013-09-17 03:46:02 PM
I'm offended that the Associated Press doesn't think I'm young.

pagead2.googlesyndication.com

/What were we talking about again?
 
2013-09-17 03:47:55 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


Unfortunately, now you also have a compulsion to violently teabag your victims before stealing their guns.
 
2013-09-17 03:48:37 PM
oh and, "A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years."
 
2013-09-17 03:51:33 PM

Kit Fister: Fark_Guy_Rob: In a perfect world, we'd have unlimited funding and our mental health services would be top notch.  Everyone would get the absolute best medical treatment and we'd provide a warm, welcoming environment for everyone, for as long as they need treatment, even if it is their entire life.

But until we get there - I think we should give serious consideration to putting down mental unstable people.  Even if it isn't their fault.  It seems the most humane thing to do.

8% tax on firearms and ammo. Book it. Done.


8% tax isn't going to get the job done.....

Let's be honest - if we killed all the people who were crazy, wouldn't the world be a better place?  Sure, sure, most crazy people are just crazy.  They exist.  Many of them, I'd argue, 'suffer' with their mental illness their entire life.  A small percentage do horrible, horrible things that make the world much, much, much worse for everyone else.
 
2013-09-17 03:54:07 PM
    It would be a sad day when mental health records get opened to a broader audience.  That is several steps back from an already  struggling  field.
 
2013-09-17 03:55:03 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.  

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


Well, he should be allowed to own a firearm simply because they are alleged incidents.   Should we prevent you from driving a car because someone alleges that you drive drunk?

"history of severe mental problems" is too vague.  What does that mean?   PMS.  ADHD?
 
2013-09-17 03:55:11 PM

Theaetetus: Witness99: I'm probably paranoid from watching to much Investigation Discovery, but I pity the fool that breaks into my house looking to hurt me.

Statistically, the most likely person to injure you in your house is already in your house.


Well, that's somewhat comforting. But I see it as insurance, just in case. As much as I can't stand people sometimes, I'm also one of the last people that would actually want to hurt someone. I hope I never have to use it. I don't wander the neighborhood looking for trouble. But, monsters are real. There are very harmful humans out and about. My firearm is the last defense and would only be used in a break and enter, rape/potential murder situation.

As for people under my roof, I try not to associate with unstable, violent people, and have never had any domestic problems.
 
2013-09-17 03:57:28 PM

Kit Fister: 8% tax on firearms and ammo. Book it. Done.


It's been tried. That silly SCOTUS keeps shutting it down. Something about laws that effectively ban items are bans on those items.
 
2013-09-17 03:58:31 PM
I think we're all avoiding the white elephant in the room.  Did he hold the guns sideways?
 
2013-09-17 04:00:15 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


Not at all pointless. I'm totally on your side with this. I seriously worry that psychotropic drugs are agitating this behavior. Obviously a gun requires someone operating it to do damage. The better part of the public seems to be such pill-popping maniacs, it baffles me that we don't start there.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 04:00:33 PM

somedude210: DGS: To be fair, a pack of smokes would last me significantly longer than a 6-pack of beer.

To be fair, you smoke?


Nope, but even if I did, no way I could chain smoke 20 before I could knock out the 6.


washington-babylon: 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

Unfortunately, now you also have a compulsion to violently teabag your victims before stealing their guns.


I never did that even in my CS days. My friday nights are a different story, though, and it has nothing to do with guns. Or is that off topic?
 
2013-09-17 04:00:43 PM

Nutsac_Jim: 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.  

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

Well, he should be allowed to own a firearm simply because they are alleged incidents.   Should we prevent you from driving a car because someone alleges that you drive drunk?

"history of severe mental problems" is too vague.  What does that mean?   PMS.  ADHD?


What any given pattern--in this case several alleged firearm-related incidents coupled with the history of mental health problems--should do is raise a flag that prompts an increased level of scrutiny. Does that mean that there is a de facto prohibition on some guy who accidentally discharged his gun purchasing another? No, that's silliness. But if there are several such incidents it ought to raise the level of inquiry into whether or not this person passes a background check. By broadening our definition of what rises to the level of a reportable incident, perhaps problematic patterns become more clear. And, as I mentioned above, if there is some problem with the bureaucratic determination, you should have the absolute right to appeal to a court.

Again, is it a 100% solution? No, of course not. But it at least ensures that there are more dots available for law enforcement to connect.
 
2013-09-17 04:02:43 PM

birdmanesq: But if there are several such incidents it ought to raise the level of inquiry into whether or not this person passes a background check should actually be charged with something meaningful that would prevent them from passing a background check.

 
2013-09-17 04:03:19 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.



Yeah, because those guys are just nuts.  There is no way that the government, that records everyones phone calls, would ever use tracking as a method of confiscating gun in the future... for our own safety, of course.

//no i am not talking about the 'we are just recording whom you called' garbage to which they admit .
 
2013-09-17 04:05:15 PM

USP .45: birdmanesq: But if there are several such incidents it ought to raise the level of inquiry into whether or not this person passes a background check should actually be charged with something meaningful that would prevent them from passing a background check.


You're still not reading what I am typing.
 
2013-09-17 04:05:52 PM

ahab: I think we're all avoiding the white elephant in the room.  Did he hold the guns sideways?


Why do you have to turn everything into a race thing?
 
2013-09-17 04:06:23 PM
There is no reason for this to have additional cuts to gun freedom.

The guy could have walked up behind a guard and knifed him in the back, taken his gun, and done the same shooting massacre.

The obvious solution is to ban security guards from carrying firearms.

Had we dont this, the shooter would simply have had a double barrelled shotgun.  That is easy enough for the crowd to rush him after he fires both shots into the air.
 
2013-09-17 04:07:43 PM

birdmanesq: USP .45: birdmanesq: But if there are several such incidents it ought to raise the level of inquiry into whether or not this person passes a background check should actually be charged with something meaningful that would prevent them from passing a background check.

You're still not reading what I am typing.


You're saying a pattern of things that result in no conviction should do something. Sorry but that's nonsense. If you want to bar certain people innocent of actual crimes from purchasing, start with the nutjobs. That standard is less arbitrary than just barring people never convicted of anything.
 
2013-09-17 04:07:54 PM
Former vet receiving improper mental care through the VA system. Color me shocked.
 
2013-09-17 04:09:53 PM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm offended that the Associated Press doesn't think I'm young.

img.fark.net

/What were we talking about again?


The middle two pics are of the same person:  noted MILFy porn star Deauxma.

/I guess its worse that I know that than it is that AP thinks your old, The First Four Black Sabbath Albums.
 
2013-09-17 04:09:59 PM

birdmanesq: Nutsac_Jim: 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.  

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

Well, he should be allowed to own a firearm simply because they are alleged incidents.   Should we prevent you from driving a car because someone alleges that you drive drunk?

"history of severe mental problems" is too vague.  What does that mean?   PMS.  ADHD?

What any given pattern--in this case several alleged firearm-related incidents coupled with the history of mental health problems--should do is raise a flag that prompts an increased level of scrutiny. Does that mean that there is a de facto prohibition on some guy who accidentally discharged his gun purchasing another? No, that's silliness. But if there are several such incidents it ought to raise the level of inquiry into whether or not this person passes a background check. By broadening our definition of what rises to the level of a reportable incident, perhaps problematic patterns become more clear. And, as I mentioned above, if there is some problem with the bureaucratic determination, you should have the absolute right to appeal to a court.

Again, is it a 100% solution? No, of course not. But it at least ensures that there are more dots available for law enforcement to connect.


It is a 0% solution.  He was not convicted of anything.  He has a *right* to own a firearm unless he is a criminal.

You might as well deny someone's *right* to vote because they did something silly in the past, like vote for LaRouche or Perot.
 
2013-09-17 04:10:29 PM

hailin: Former vet receiving improper mental care through the VA system. Color me shocked.


:-(

Unfortunately, true.
 
2013-09-17 04:11:41 PM
FACT: The Second Amendment says "...shall not be infringed!" It makes no exception for violent, homicidal schizophrenia. Get that through your thick lib skulls and nobody will get hurt. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-09-17 04:14:50 PM

Nutsac_Jim: He has a *right* to own a firearm unless he is a criminal.


You understand that that's not true, right? I mean, half the thread is talking about preventing "insane" people from having guns. And you understand that there are several civil reasons that result in you having your right to own a firearm taken away or temporarily suspended, right?

USP .45: That standard is less arbitrary than just barring people never convicted of anything.


We're still scoring fairly low on the reading comprehension portion of the exam.
 
2013-09-17 04:15:09 PM
pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-09-17 04:15:57 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!


Hey, wait. I thought I sponsored you for TF after the last mainpage thread I posted in...
 
2013-09-17 04:18:41 PM

that1guy77: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x366]


And 50% of the United States lives in these counties:

static4.businessinsider.com
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 04:20:37 PM

tricycleracer: that1guy77: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x366]

And 50% of the United States lives in these counties:

[static4.businessinsider.com image 800x520]


Pft, whatever. It's like you're trying to say that just because no one lives in the middle of a farking desert shouldn't sway you from the fact that there's low gun crime in the desert.
 
2013-09-17 04:21:18 PM
  Looks like society has a problem.   Spend millions on a daily basis to find a more efficient way of killing someone and  then spend  a buck fifty on the person handling weapons.  Color me shocked.
     Auditory Hallucinations are not as uncommon as one might think.  But hearing voices and being crazy carry more weight I guess.
 
2013-09-17 04:21:35 PM

lilbjorn: Navy Yard shooter suffered from mental health issues, heard voices.

And had two prior arrests on gun-related charges.  But he had no problem at all getting more guns.


You can thank federal background checks for that.
 
2013-09-17 04:26:01 PM
randy.house.gov

This fellow didn't seem too well regulated.
 
2013-09-17 04:30:07 PM

Nutsac_Jim: He has a *right* to own a firearm unless he is a criminal.


Actually it's well established that being mentally ill to the point of possibly being a danger to yourself or others can cause one to be unable to own a gun. There's a show on National Geographic called Doomsday Preppers about various end of the world types and in the first season there was a man who was apparently pretty far off his rocker. Not long after the show aired the state took away his guns because they had reason to believe he wasn't mentally competent to own the guns. Difficulty, the state was Tennessee.
 
2013-09-17 04:31:04 PM

birdmanesq: Uranus Is Huge!: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Hey, wait. I thought I sponsored you for TF after the last mainpage thread I posted in...


I don't know about all that, but what I do know is that if this country had kept crazy people away from guns, Mel Gibson would never have killed Lucius Malfoy to win the Revolutionary War. FACT!
 
2013-09-17 04:32:06 PM

birdmanesq: Nutsac_Jim: He has a *right* to own a firearm unless he is a criminal.

You understand that that's not true, right? I mean, half the thread is talking about preventing "insane" people from having guns. And you understand that there are several civil reasons that result in you having your right to own a firearm taken away or temporarily suspended, right?


Lets hear em.   Aside from being locked up in a mental institution,which of course limits you in a bit more than just owning a gun.......

Rattle me off this giant list that has nothing to do with you being a lawbreaker......
 
2013-09-17 04:35:25 PM

WhyteRaven74: Nutsac_Jim: He has a *right* to own a firearm unless he is a criminal.

Actually it's well established that being mentally ill to the point of possibly being a danger to yourself or others can cause one to be unable to own a gun. There's a show on National Geographic called Doomsday Preppers about various end of the world types and in the first season there was a man who was apparently pretty far off his rocker. Not long after the show aired the state took away his guns because they had reason to believe he wasn't mentally competent to own the guns. Difficulty, the state was Tennessee.


I mean, in Heller Scalia took pains to point out that the mentally ill could still be prohibited from owning firearms--along with felons and other classes of folks. In Moore v. Madigan Posner noted that guns could be "forbidden to a class of persons who present a higher than average risk of misusing a gun" with lower than strict scrutiny. Scalia and Posner are hardly pinko-commie gun grabbers. Plenty of states restrict gun ownership of folks who are the respondents in protective orders, and to my knowledge none of those statutes has been struck down under Federal law.

The fact is that the regulatory scheme that I'm pitching simply constitutes a risk assessment that perhaps triggers a higher level of scrutiny of folks who have a demonstrated pattern of behavior that suggests that they might misuse firearms. Nothing unconstitutional there, no rights infringed (without due process).
 
2013-09-17 04:35:35 PM

Theaetetus: Witness99: I'm probably paranoid from watching to much Investigation Discovery, but I pity the fool that breaks into my house looking to hurt me.

Statistically, the most likely person to injure you in your house is already in your house.


You are most likely to get in a car accident within 30 miles of your house. Obviously, this means you can drive as crazy as you want as long as you are far enough away from home.
 
2013-09-17 04:38:00 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Rattle me off this giant list that has nothing to do with you being a lawbreaker......


See above in my post to WhyteRaven74 for several examples, with applicable citations.
 
2013-09-17 04:38:52 PM

birdmanesq: WhyteRaven74: Nutsac_Jim: He has a *right* to own a firearm unless he is a criminal.

Actually it's well established that being mentally ill to the point of possibly being a danger to yourself or others can cause one to be unable to own a gun. There's a show on National Geographic called Doomsday Preppers about various end of the world types and in the first season there was a man who was apparently pretty far off his rocker. Not long after the show aired the state took away his guns because they had reason to believe he wasn't mentally competent to own the guns. Difficulty, the state was Tennessee.

I mean, in Heller Scalia took pains to point out that the mentally ill could still be prohibited from owning firearms--along with felons and other classes of folks. In Moore v. Madigan Posner noted that guns could be "forbidden to a class of persons who present a higher than average risk of misusing a gun" with lower than strict scrutiny. Scalia and Posner are hardly pinko-commie gun grabbers. Plenty of states restrict gun ownership of folks who are the respondents in protective orders, and to my knowledge none of those statutes has been struck down under Federal law.

The fact is that the regulatory scheme that I'm pitching simply constitutes a risk assessment that perhaps triggers a higher level of scrutiny of folks who have a demonstrated pattern of behavior that suggests that they might misuse firearms. Nothing unconstitutional there, no rights infringed (without due process).


Scalia is a well-known shill for the left.  Nice try, lawyer-man.
 
2013-09-17 04:39:42 PM

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

Guns?  He should not have access to the street. Apparently he was criminally insane, and should have been locked up and receiving treatment. If he had set fire to a movie theatre with a five gallon jerrycan of gasoline would you call for closing Shell Stations?


That all depends to him. What was their quarterly earnings?

-or-

He is a douche, so probably.
 
2013-09-17 04:40:48 PM
A mental health flag on any point of purchase maybe good.

If you aren't mentally fit to own gun, maybe you aren't mental fit to raise a kid.

There are any number of useful applications for thus mental health check.

Look at all the uses companies found for your Social security number.

There a lot of potential here.
 
2013-09-17 04:41:56 PM

ahab: Scalia is a well-known shill for the left. Nice try, lawyer-man.


You knew it was going to come to this.
 
2013-09-17 04:43:43 PM

birdmanesq: Nutsac_Jim: Rattle me off this giant list that has nothing to do with you being a lawbreaker......

See above in my post to WhyteRaven74 for several examples, with applicable citations.


OK.. so    If you are mentally a child and cant tell right from wrong, you cant have a gun.
Or you area  lawbreaker.

In both these cases, you have been removed from society.

If you do wrong, or you cant tell you do wrong, no gun for you.
 
2013-09-17 04:47:30 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.


But thy have no problem renewing things like car licenses every year which also require a fee, or at least in many states.
 
2013-09-17 04:47:34 PM

birdmanesq: Nutsac_Jim: Rattle me off this giant list that has nothing to do with you being a lawbreaker......

See above in my post to WhyteRaven74 for several examples, with applicable citations.


yeah, but those are people that do wrong, or cant differentiate.

the only case is where some house frau might allege some charge and get their husbands rights taken away in
some kind of end run on alimony or child support.    Other than that, you need to prove someone did a bad deed.
 
2013-09-17 04:47:39 PM

Kit Fister: 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.


I like to see people come together to agree on things. I know you're normally on the other side of this debate.

I also am a big fan of firearms, but there are limits to everything.
 
2013-09-17 04:48:03 PM

birdmanesq: ahab: Scalia is a well-known shill for the left. Nice try, lawyer-man.

You knew it was going to come to this.


Thanks for the sponsorship!

I don't know the etiquette here. Am I supposed to send you a pic of my junk now or something?
 
2013-09-17 04:48:57 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

1) This guy passed two background checks

2) And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form,...
Obama's choice for vice prez.

3) During the clinton years there were several terms where d's held both houses of congress as well as the white house. Where's the clinton mental health bill?
 
2013-09-17 04:50:03 PM

Nutsac_Jim: OK.. so If you are mentally a child and cant tell right from wrong, you cant have a gun.


Except that's not what the Second Amendment is limited to. See what Posner has to say there? "[Firearms can be] forbidden to a class of persons who present a higher than average risk of misusing a gun." That's a pretty broad category for possible restrictions which is certainly not limited to folks who are "mentally a child and can't tell right from wrong" or convicted felons.

Uranus Is Huge!: birdmanesq: Uranus Is Huge!: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Hey, wait. I thought I sponsored you for TF after the last mainpage thread I posted in...

I don't know about all that, but what I do know is that if this country had kept crazy people away from guns, Mel Gibson would never have killed Lucius Malfoy to win the Revolutionary War. FACT!


The situation has been rectified. You make me laugh, sir.
 
2013-09-17 04:52:06 PM

Nutsac_Jim: yeah, but those are people that do wrong, or cant differentiate.

the only case is where some house frau might allege some charge and get their husbands rights taken away in
some kind of end run on alimony or child support. Other than that, you need to prove someone did a bad deed.


Er, again, no. That's not what the Second Amendment's limit is. Again, off to Posner.
 
2013-09-17 04:54:16 PM
Mental health issues and hearing voices? Here is my short list.
Noah
Jesus
Moses

None of these guys ever killed anyone with a gun but historical records are a bit suspect for that time period.
 
2013-09-17 04:54:52 PM

OnlyM3: HST's Dead Carcass

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. By posting your own troll posts you prove you're better than the rest of the trolls.

More proof that tf'ers are allowed to break the rules as long as their pay pal acct still works.


// but at least you're admitting you're trolling.


I'm not trolling, I'm beating the hyperbole to the punch, and when I don't, I beat the hyperbole into submission. Gun threads bring out the worst of the worst for derp on both sides of the fence. I happen to be able to think in both arenas equally as well and show the final caboose/conclusion of a train of thought as soon as the engine of the train appears.

This doesn't make me a troll in any means, it makes me a lot sharper than many of the tools in these threads. I simply admit to being a sharp tool, but a tool, none the less.
 
2013-09-17 04:56:44 PM

Latinwolf: 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.

But thy have no problem renewing things like car licenses every year which also require a fee, or at least in many states.


I think the poster assumes the fee is per gun.
 
2013-09-17 04:57:14 PM

OnlyM3: 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
1) This guy passed two background checks
3) During the clinton years there were several terms where d's held both houses of congress as well as the white house. Where's the clinton mental health bill?


1) As TFA clearly states, the background checks need to be a federally regulated database for it to be at all effective. If the idea of the government having that information bothers you, then how about a quasi-government agency like the Federal Reserve which is bound by law NOT to release any information about who is actually buying guns? Background checks are currently extremely ineffective, as information which would be pertinent to such a background check is not shared on any federal basis.

3) Mental health treatment is a clusterfark.. There's no excuse for the lack of care we have currently established.
 
2013-09-17 04:59:38 PM
d233eq3e3p3cv0.cloudfront.net
 
2013-09-17 05:01:38 PM

OnlyM3: 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!!
When you've had an adult explain to you the difference between rights vs "personal luxuries" get back to us.


Let me know when the adults explain to you the difference as well. It's my right to own a gun, but it's a luxury to actually have one.

Pursuit of happiness vs. Inalienable rights. Whar diffarance, whar?
 
2013-09-17 05:01:51 PM
It's a small world after all...

From:   A cross-cultural review of sudden mass assault by a single individual in the oriental and occidental cultures.
(thought I'd mention owing to the Buddhist `angle')

...A  common  first  factor  in  both  groups  was  a  familiarity  with weapons and easy access. Many of the North American perpetrators were obsessed with weapons. Both groups had become familiar  with weapons  in  the  military.  The  other  two  studies  on Malaysian amok noted easy access and familiarity as significant in the pengamoks' choice of weapons (12,20).
Religion may have been a second significant factor regarding the amok perpetrator's choice of weapon. In Westermeyer's grenade amok  study  his  conversations  with  several  Laotian  soldiers revealed the notion that "they felt that direct shooting of the enemy went against their Theravada Buddhist tenets to preserve all life unless their own life was threatened" (p. 226, 22). Thus their choice
of a grenade may have been related to their Buddhist beliefs on killing. By throwing a grenade it was the responsibility of the individuals to not be in the space where the grenade would land...


https://www.google.com/#q=Researchgate+A+cross-cultural+review+of+su dd en+mass+assault+by+a+single+individual+in+the+oriental+and+occidental+ cultures.+
(first pdf to pop-up)
 
2013-09-17 05:04:05 PM

Cataholic: HST's Dead Carcass: AngryJailhouseFistfark: You've mis-labeled your fallatial straw-boater hat: He's not bringing a knife to a gun-fight. He goes stabby before the fight starts. Hell, he might even go stabby before the cop even realizes the guy's there. Altogether different.

The straw man argument is: He'd go on a mass homicidal rage with a knife, in order to gain access to a gun. That's absurdity and obfuscation at it's finest.

He brought a gun because of it's ease of use. The point and click interface is so easy, even a cavemen can do it.

It is not a strawman argument.  It is merely pointing out that any solution with an easy workaround isn't really a good solution.  Especially if the negative consequences of the solution might outweigh the benefits even if the workaround isn't so easy.

It's akin to you deciding that you no longer wish to have salesmen or Mormans knocking on your door, so you propose a solution of putting a gate across your front sidewalk.  I point out to you that they will just walk on the grass to get around the gate.  You claim this is preposterous because everyone who ever comes to your front door comes on the sidewalk and never walks on the grass.


But it is. No one wants to believe they throw up straw men, as that shows their mental ineptitude, but it is, in fact, quite the straw man argument to say he would have gone on a stabbing rampage if a gun wasn't available to him.
 
2013-09-17 05:07:03 PM
You folks who think this has anything to do with U.S. gun laws are pissing in the wind. If the reports are true, Alexis had a history of gun violence and gun negligence. If the story is being reported correctly, Alexis suffered from PTSD and allegedly "heard voices" (I personally think that report is BS). Furthermore and furtherallegedly, Aaron Alexis was cited for half a dozen conduct violations. If all that is true, then HOW THE HELL DID HE GET A DEFENSE CONTRACTOR JOB?!? ... and in DC of all places.

I'll tell you why. Alexis was hired because he was held up to a lower standard, by law. His behavior was affirmatively interpreted. Do you think Johnny Whiteguy would have gotten a defense contractor job with the same history?

This mass murder isn't about shotgun laws. It's about lowered standards. The human resources department that processed his paperwork should immediately be fired, the background check agency that processed his paperwork should be sued out of business and every person Alexis put on his application as a "personal reference" should be put in prison ... ... ok, that last part is probably crossing a line ... but I'm super pissed about 12 civilians being murdered on a military base.
 
2013-09-17 05:07:29 PM

red230: Mental health issues and hearing voices? Here is my short list.
Noah
Jesus
Moses

None of these guys ever killed anyone with a gun but historical records are a bit suspect for that time period.


 That made me laugh.  Thank you

    I probably shouldn't be surprised but outside of a few people, this is all about guns. Where is the outrage of a govt. failing to address mental health issues?    Handicapped?  No problem.   Crazy?  Lock em up. Really people?   That/s the solution?
 
2013-09-17 05:08:01 PM

crab66:


So mass shootings are going to happen regardless of laws and regulations?!?
 
2013-09-17 05:09:43 PM
SSRI's + guns do not mix
 
2013-09-17 05:09:50 PM
We're not going to solve problems like this by looking at it as a gun problem. It's a mental health problem.
 
2013-09-17 05:10:55 PM

The hopeless imp: We're not going to solve problems like this by looking at it as a gun problem. It's a mental health problem.


It has to be one problem or the other problem, right? It can't be the interaction of two problems.
 
2013-09-17 05:13:09 PM

crab66:


-OR-

THIS MOTHERFARKER TOOK GUNS FROM THE ONLY PEOPLE YOU WANT TO HAVE GUNS AND KILLED MOST OF HIS VICTIMS!

What part of your colorful cartoon doesn't understand that?
 
2013-09-17 05:17:52 PM
I'm surprised that our Fark conspiracy theorists and Freepers haven't postulated that this guy was a patsy, armed
and primed by the left wing radicals and then let loose to help further their 'gunz r bad' bannination program. Sort
of like taking the Village 'Tard, sticking a gun in his hand, blindfolding him and spinning him around, then whipping
off the blindfold and saying "Now shoot the pinatas...you won't get any candy if you don't shoot the pinatas!"

This tragic happenstance is going to stir up a whole bunch of derp. I'm mostly conservative and very pro-2nd Am.
(even though I don't own a gun - personal responsibility reasons), and even I think that *something* has to be done
to keep people who have a documented history of gun violence and / or mental illness from owning a gun.

A blanket solution isn't the answer though. You can't say 'OK, if the person has *ever* been diagnosed with a mental
illness, then they can't own a gun." That's wrong.

There has to be some way to classify people w/o violating HIPAA regulations. Maybe an eyes-on system of evaluation
where people's medical and criminal history is looked at and a notation is put in a database - CANNOT OWN A
FIREARM - without having to go into details that would violate that person's privacy. Sort of like a notation on one's
driver's license that they must drive with corrective lenses.
 
2013-09-17 05:18:41 PM
I doubt you'll get anywhere with health records, mental or otherwise. The Seattle incident should have been a felony and barred him from gun ownership ever after. ALL firearms and ammunition transactions should be subject to background checks, I don't care how well you know your son. You get ONE "accidental discharge" IF you report it yourself. Someone else reports, sorry, you're obviously too stupid to own.

Start taking some responsibility, gun owners.
 
2013-09-17 05:20:32 PM

digitalrain: I'm surprised that our Fark conspiracy theorists and Freepers haven't postulated that this guy was a patsy, armed
and primed by the left wing radicals and then let loose to help further their 'gunz r bad' bannination program. Sort
of like taking the Village 'Tard, sticking a gun in his hand, blindfolding him and spinning him around, then whipping
off the blindfold and saying "Now shoot the pinatas...you won't get any candy if you don't shoot the pinatas!"

This tragic happenstance is going to stir up a whole bunch of derp. I'm mostly conservative and very pro-2nd Am.
(even though I don't own a gun - personal responsibility reasons), and even I think that *something* has to be done
to keep people who have a documented history of gun violence and / or mental illness from owning a gun.

A blanket solution isn't the answer though. You can't say 'OK, if the person has *ever* been diagnosed with a mental
illness, then they can't own a gun." That's wrong.

There has to be some way to classify people w/o violating HIPAA regulations. Maybe an eyes-on system of evaluation
where people's medical and criminal history is looked at and a notation is put in a database - CANNOT OWN A
FIREARM - without having to go into details that would violate that person's privacy. Sort of like a notation on one's
driver's license that they must drive with corrective lenses.


You... I like you.
 
2013-09-17 05:21:28 PM

The hopeless imp: We're not going to solve problems like this by looking at it as a gun problem. It's a mental health problem.


Take away the instruments of death and the music isn't as loud.

Though, you are right, mental health issues in this country are out of control. Just look at all the troops suffering needlessly from PTSD that aren't getting the help they need from our own Military. The straight truth is the official stance was to ignore the problem and shoo the troops out the door on ambiguous charges.

I personally go to military bases and talk to the troops being rotated back from the war about the dangers of PTSD and 'self-medication', i.e. drugs and alcohol, as a way of masking or burying their problems. Does it help? Honestly, MAYBE 5 out of 100 go get help because of the Military Culture, and the stance of ignoring the problem from on high. It's a failure of our armed forces and the government that runs it. What makes anyone think the government is going to do something about mental health of it's citizens when it doesn't even take care of it's armed forces?

Truth is: They'll remove the guns from the issue. I said it before and I'll say it again: The Brady Bill did more against gun rights than anything the Left has done. When the Pro-Gun Right makes a move towards gun restrictions, it was accepted, but because we have a (D) in office, all of a sudden gun restrictions are a bad thing?

People need to quit thinking Left or Right and realize BOTH sides are more than willing to take away our rights and the only reason they haven't yet is because it garners them votes and keeps them on the gravy train.

I'm waiting for the fall out to see how the (R) politicians spin this so they keep their positions while still limiting guns.

/7th Annual 0-bammy's Coming For Your Guns sale is officially on
//If you listen really close, you can hear the price of ammo and guns rising
 
2013-09-17 05:22:43 PM
The solution is: a tax so heavy only rich people can own a gun.


I think everyone will be happy with that.

Not only will they hold the guns, they'll hold your mortgage!
 
2013-09-17 05:23:31 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I doubt you'll get anywhere with health records, mental or otherwise. The Seattle incident should have been a felony and barred him from gun ownership ever after. ALL firearms and ammunition transactions should be subject to background checks, I don't care how well you know your son. You get ONE "accidental discharge" IF you report it yourself. Someone else reports, sorry, you're obviously too stupid to own.

Start taking some responsibility, gun owners.


When I was in the reserves during the last part of my training (Infantry qualification) somebody had a negligent discharge, and then they found a live round he was trying to take home, which he left in his (UNLOCKED, wtf!) foot locker. He was immediately taken away by MPs, and I'm pretty sure he went to prison (military prison no less). If he'd have just locked his goddamn foot locker he would have just been discharged from the forces...
 
2013-09-17 05:24:44 PM
But ... SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE.
 
2013-09-17 05:24:48 PM

flynn80: SSRI's + guns do not mix


this.
 
2013-09-17 05:25:25 PM

LavenderWolf: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I doubt you'll get anywhere with health records, mental or otherwise. The Seattle incident should have been a felony and barred him from gun ownership ever after. ALL firearms and ammunition transactions should be subject to background checks, I don't care how well you know your son. You get ONE "accidental discharge" IF you report it yourself. Someone else reports, sorry, you're obviously too stupid to own.

Start taking some responsibility, gun owners.

When I was in the reserves during the last part of my training (Infantry qualification) somebody had a negligent discharge, and then they found a live round he was trying to take home, which he left in his (UNLOCKED, wtf!) foot locker. He was immediately taken away by MPs, and I'm pretty sure he went to prison (military prison no less). If he'd have just locked his goddamn foot locker he would have just been discharged from the forces...


...because they wouldn't have searched his foot locker when they were outprocessing him?
 
2013-09-17 05:25:41 PM

digitalrain: I'm surprised that our Fark conspiracy theorists and Freepers haven't postulated that this guy was a patsy, armed
and primed by the left wing radicals and then let loose to help further their 'gunz r bad' bannination program. Sort
of like taking the Village 'Tard, sticking a gun in his hand, blindfolding him and spinning him around, then whipping
off the blindfold and saying "Now shoot the pinatas...you won't get any candy if you don't shoot the pinatas!"

This tragic happenstance is going to stir up a whole bunch of derp. I'm mostly conservative and very pro-2nd Am.
(even though I don't own a gun - personal responsibility reasons), and even I think that *something* has to be done
to keep people who have a documented history of gun violence and / or mental illness from owning a gun.

A blanket solution isn't the answer though. You can't say 'OK, if the person has *ever* been diagnosed with a mental
illness, then they can't own a gun." That's wrong.

There has to be some way to classify people w/o violating HIPAA regulations. Maybe an eyes-on system of evaluation
where people's medical and criminal history is looked at and a notation is put in a database - CANNOT OWN A
FIREARM - without having to go into details that would violate that person's privacy. Sort of like a notation on one's
driver's license that they must drive with corrective lenses.


I agree with you on most of that. But it wouldn't have prevented Alexis from obtaining a shotgun. The gun laws argument doesn't apply in this case anyway. Who hired this guy and why?
 
2013-09-17 05:25:45 PM

CleanAndPure: The guy thought owning a gun was a good idea.

Of course he is a mental case.


too obvious
 
2013-09-17 05:27:42 PM

MJMaloney187: digitalrain: I'm surprised that our Fark conspiracy theorists and Freepers haven't postulated that this guy was a patsy, armed
and primed by the left wing radicals and then let loose to help further their 'gunz r bad' bannination program. Sort
of like taking the Village 'Tard, sticking a gun in his hand, blindfolding him and spinning him around, then whipping
off the blindfold and saying "Now shoot the pinatas...you won't get any candy if you don't shoot the pinatas!"

This tragic happenstance is going to stir up a whole bunch of derp. I'm mostly conservative and very pro-2nd Am.
(even though I don't own a gun - personal responsibility reasons), and even I think that *something* has to be done
to keep people who have a documented history of gun violence and / or mental illness from owning a gun.

A blanket solution isn't the answer though. You can't say 'OK, if the person has *ever* been diagnosed with a mental
illness, then they can't own a gun." That's wrong.

There has to be some way to classify people w/o violating HIPAA regulations. Maybe an eyes-on system of evaluation
where people's medical and criminal history is looked at and a notation is put in a database - CANNOT OWN A
FIREARM - without having to go into details that would violate that person's privacy. Sort of like a notation on one's
driver's license that they must drive with corrective lenses.

I agree with you on most of that. But it wouldn't have prevented Alexis from obtaining a shotgun. The gun laws argument doesn't apply in this case anyway. Who hired this guy and why?


He was a military contractor, right? What exactly did he *do*?
 
2013-09-17 05:27:45 PM

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


It's less of a problem if you have the element of surprise, and you're both determined and within 20-ft or so.
 
2013-09-17 05:28:07 PM

LavenderWolf: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I doubt you'll get anywhere with health records, mental or otherwise. The Seattle incident should have been a felony and barred him from gun ownership ever after. ALL firearms and ammunition transactions should be subject to background checks, I don't care how well you know your son. You get ONE "accidental discharge" IF you report it yourself. Someone else reports, sorry, you're obviously too stupid to own.

Start taking some responsibility, gun owners.

When I was in the reserves during the last part of my training (Infantry qualification) somebody had a negligent discharge, and then they found a live round he was trying to take home, which he left in his (UNLOCKED, wtf!) foot locker. He was immediately taken away by MPs, and I'm pretty sure he went to prison (military prison no less). If he'd have just locked his goddamn foot locker he would have just been discharged from the forces...


I know a soldier some years back that had an uncharged bullet from his .30 while in Iraq. He smuggled it all the way back home to his apartment and gave it to his wife to hold. He felt there was something special about the bullet and as long as it was safe, so was he. When he came back for good, he began drinking and beating his wife and child. When the MP's came for him, they found it in his apartment and he flipped his wig when they confiscated. He was cool with being arrested for spousal and child abuse, but touch his magic bullet, and it was on!

These are the kinds of issues I deal with on a monthly basis,
 
2013-09-17 05:28:08 PM

MJMaloney187: You folks who think this has anything to do with U.S. gun laws are pissing in the wind. If the reports are true, Alexis had a history of gun violence and gun negligence. If the story is being reported correctly, Alexis suffered from PTSD and allegedly "heard voices" (I personally think that report is BS). Furthermore and furtherallegedly, Aaron Alexis was cited for half a dozen conduct violations. If all that is true, then HOW THE HELL DID HE GET A DEFENSE CONTRACTOR JOB?!? ... and in DC of all places.

I'll tell you why. Alexis was hired because he was held up to a lower standard, by law. His behavior was affirmatively interpreted. Do you think Johnny Whiteguy would have gotten a defense contractor job with the same history?

This mass murder isn't about shotgun laws. It's about lowered standards. The human resources department that processed his paperwork should immediately be fired, the background check agency that processed his paperwork should be sued out of business and every person Alexis put on his application as a "personal reference" should be put in prison ... ... ok, that last part is probably crossing a line ... but I'm super pissed about 12 civilians being murdered on a military base.


Um wow... You went there.
 
2013-09-17 05:29:27 PM

birdmanesq: The hopeless imp: We're not going to solve problems like this by looking at it as a gun problem. It's a mental health problem.

It has to be one problem or the other problem, right? It can't be the interaction of two problems.


Well, see, the gun problem is only a "problem" because of societal factors:

1. Mental Illness that goes untreated/undetected.
2. Violence propagated from generation to generation by abuse and conditioning
3. A society conditioned to behave a certain way by exposure to concepts
4. Social status and economic status that promotes certain behaviors where violence in general is par for the course.

Banning guns reduces the symptoms. It does not cure the disease. Go back and read the analogy of the rotten floor boards given a new face rather than being addressed directly.

We have a society that is broken in some pretty fundamental ways. More guns, less guns, our society will still be broken. But fix the society, we'll fix a vast majority of the so-called "gun problem" and a host of other issues as well.
 
2013-09-17 05:30:46 PM

This text is now purple: birdmanesq: Isn't there some useful old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight that might be applicable here?

It's less of a problem if you have the element of surprise, and you're both determined and within 20-ft or so.


Nothing can stop a bad guy with a knife. Even a good guy with a gun.

Maybe a good guy with some sort of spiked pike. That maybe has spikes on the spikes for good measure. And then maybe a couple of more spikes on those spikes because you can never be too safe.
 
2013-09-17 05:31:19 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I doubt you'll get anywhere with health records, mental or otherwise. The Seattle incident should have been a felony and barred him from gun ownership ever after. ALL firearms and ammunition transactions should be subject to background checks, I don't care how well you know your son. You get ONE "accidental discharge" IF you report it yourself. Someone else reports, sorry, you're obviously too stupid to own.

Start taking some responsibility, gun owners.


Then you might as well enforce background checks on plumbing supplies and machine shop inventories. Hell, why stop there? We should make it a law that every toilet bowl should have a google camera installed in it.
 
2013-09-17 05:33:50 PM

birdmanesq: This text is now purple: birdmanesq: Isn't there some useful old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight that might be applicable here?

It's less of a problem if you have the element of surprise, and you're both determined and within 20-ft or so.

Nothing can stop a bad guy with a knife. Even a good guy with a gun.

Maybe a good guy with some sort of spiked pike. That maybe has spikes on the spikes for good measure. And then maybe a couple of more spikes on those spikes because you can never be too safe.


And bees on the end.  With lasers.  Delivered by sharks.
 
2013-09-17 05:34:24 PM

Kit Fister: birdmanesq: The hopeless imp: We're not going to solve problems like this by looking at it as a gun problem. It's a mental health problem.

It has to be one problem or the other problem, right? It can't be the interaction of two problems.

Well, see, the gun problem is only a "problem" because of societal factors:

1. Mental Illness that goes untreated/undetected.
2. Violence propagated from generation to generation by abuse and conditioning
3. A society conditioned to behave a certain way by exposure to concepts
4. Social status and economic status that promotes certain behaviors where violence in general is par for the course.

Banning guns reduces the symptoms. It does not cure the disease. Go back and read the analogy of the rotten floor boards given a new face rather than being addressed directly.

We have a society that is broken in some pretty fundamental ways. More guns, less guns, our society will still be broken. But fix the society, we'll fix a vast majority of the so-called "gun problem" and a host of other issues as well.


You know, I've been watching your posts and I have to say logic and intelligence have no place on Fark. Especially in a gun/mass shooting thread.

I say good day sir. *waves hand dismissively*
 
2013-09-17 05:34:32 PM

sleeps in trees: MJMaloney187: You folks who think this has anything to do with U.S. gun laws are pissing in the wind. If the reports are true, Alexis had a history of gun violence and gun negligence. If the story is being reported correctly, Alexis suffered from PTSD and allegedly "heard voices" (I personally think that report is BS). Furthermore and furtherallegedly, Aaron Alexis was cited for half a dozen conduct violations. If all that is true, then HOW THE HELL DID HE GET A DEFENSE CONTRACTOR JOB?!? ... and in DC of all places.

I'll tell you why. Alexis was hired because he was held up to a lower standard, by law. His behavior was affirmatively interpreted. Do you think Johnny Whiteguy would have gotten a defense contractor job with the same history?

This mass murder isn't about shotgun laws. It's about lowered standards. The human resources department that processed his paperwork should immediately be fired, the background check agency that processed his paperwork should be sued out of business and every person Alexis put on his application as a "personal reference" should be put in prison ... ... ok, that last part is probably crossing a line ... but I'm super pissed about 12 civilians being murdered on a military base.

Um wow... You went there.


It's the bare naked truth, Hoss. Quit the internet if you don't want to see it.
 
2013-09-17 05:36:09 PM

LavenderWolf: There has to be some way to classify people w/o violating HIPAA regulations. Maybe an eyes-on system of evaluation
where people's medical and criminal history is looked at and a notation is put in a database - CANNOT OWN A
FIREARM - without having to go into details that would violate that person's privacy. Sort of like a notation on one's
driver's license that they must drive with corrective lenses.

You... I like you.


 Let's bring in the lawyers.   If your patient kills someone with a gun, can you be sued? What is the consequence of not doing the extra paperwork?  If you can be sued and I tell the therapist the coffee lady got my order wrong and I really wanted to choke her.  Do I get flagged for threat of a suit?  Better safe than sorry. Does your insurance go up and  then   have to charge higher rates and have less people seek help.
 
2013-09-17 05:38:03 PM

Kit Fister: birdmanesq: The hopeless imp: We're not going to solve problems like this by looking at it as a gun problem. It's a mental health problem.

It has to be one problem or the other problem, right? It can't be the interaction of two problems.

Well, see, the gun problem is only a "problem" because of societal factors:

1. Mental Illness that goes untreated/undetected.
2. Violence propagated from generation to generation by abuse and conditioning
3. A society conditioned to behave a certain way by exposure to concepts
4. Social status and economic status that promotes certain behaviors where violence in general is par for the course.

Banning guns reduces the symptoms. It does not cure the disease. Go back and read the analogy of the rotten floor boards given a new face rather than being addressed directly.

We have a society that is broken in some pretty fundamental ways. More guns, less guns, our society will still be broken. But fix the society, we'll fix a vast majority of the so-called "gun problem" and a host of other issues as well.


I'm not one to write off structural issues. And I'm certainly not discounting societal factors.

However, I also quite strongly buy into the instrumental philosophy of guns and the effect that they have of mediating the individual-situational interaction. So, I think a more helpful outlook is not to reduce the issue to a single factor and, instead, look at how things affect each other.

That, though, requires the intellectual honesty to admit that guns themselves contribute to the problem.

/Note: I'm not accusing you of being intellectually dishonest. That was a general statement.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 05:41:22 PM
Let's see.. on the demonization score chart so far we've pointed fingers at video game players and people with ptsd/mental health issues.  What's next?
 
2013-09-17 05:41:34 PM

ahab: LavenderWolf: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I doubt you'll get anywhere with health records, mental or otherwise. The Seattle incident should have been a felony and barred him from gun ownership ever after. ALL firearms and ammunition transactions should be subject to background checks, I don't care how well you know your son. You get ONE "accidental discharge" IF you report it yourself. Someone else reports, sorry, you're obviously too stupid to own.

Start taking some responsibility, gun owners.

When I was in the reserves during the last part of my training (Infantry qualification) somebody had a negligent discharge, and then they found a live round he was trying to take home, which he left in his (UNLOCKED, wtf!) foot locker. He was immediately taken away by MPs, and I'm pretty sure he went to prison (military prison no less). If he'd have just locked his goddamn foot locker he would have just been discharged from the forces...

...because they wouldn't have searched his foot locker when they were outprocessing him?


Nope. A locked footlocker is the soldier's. An unlocked footlocker is the army's.
 
2013-09-17 05:41:37 PM
Obligatory.
images2.dailykos.com
[Sigh]
 
2013-09-17 05:48:46 PM

DGS: somedude210: DGS: To be fair, a pack of smokes would last me significantly longer than a 6-pack of beer.

To be fair, you smoke?

Nope, but even if I did, no way I could chain smoke 20 before I could knock out the 6.


washington-babylon: 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

Unfortunately, now you also have a compulsion to violently teabag your victims before stealing their guns.

I never did that even in my CS days. My friday nights are a different story, though, and it has nothing to do with guns. Or is that off topic?


Eeeeh, what you do in your own time is your business.

/Fair warning, I see anybody TangoFrag me in killcam I'll be hunting them next.
//Usually with my patented "Sail from window and knife the tangofragger on the way down" method.
 
2013-09-17 05:49:03 PM
Pretty much every mass shooter has been prescribed drugs whose side effects are violent outbursts and suicide, however the blame is put on guns and video games. I guess big pharma has more lobby power than guns & games.
 
2013-09-17 05:49:25 PM

red230: Mental health issues and hearing voices? Here is my short list.
Noah
Jesus
Moses

None of these guys ever killed anyone with a gun but historical records are a bit suspect for that time period.


Thanks for mentioning that. Many people that have had some type of spiritual revelation can fall under that category, and they aren't necessarily evil all of the time.  I don't consider myself a violent person, and if I heard a voice that told me to kill someone, I'd tell if to fark off.

Can anyone name some disorders from the DSM V that should automatically disqualify a person from owning a gun? Anything like narcissism shouldn't be included, or else our entire nation should be disarmed.
 
2013-09-17 05:50:10 PM

MJMaloney187: We should make it a law that every toilet bowl should have a google camera installed in it.


Fark is not your personal porn site.
 
2013-09-17 05:50:33 PM

JungleBoogie: [randy.house.gov image 320x214]

This fellow didn't seem too well regulated.


He had a secret clearance. Isn't that regulated enough
 
2013-09-17 05:50:58 PM

digitalrain: I'm surprised that our Fark conspiracy theorists and Freepers haven't postulated that this guy was a patsy, armed
and primed by the left wing radicals and then let loose to help further their 'gunz r bad' bannination program. Sort
of like taking the Village 'Tard, sticking a gun in his hand, blindfolding him and spinning him around, then whipping
off the blindfold and saying "Now shoot the pinatas...you won't get any candy if you don't shoot the pinatas!"

This tragic happenstance is going to stir up a whole bunch of derp. I'm mostly conservative and very pro-2nd Am.
(even though I don't own a gun - personal responsibility reasons), and even I think that *something* has to be done
to keep people who have a documented history of gun violence and / or mental illness from owning a gun.

A blanket solution isn't the answer though. You can't say 'OK, if the person has *ever* been diagnosed with a mental
illness, then they can't own a gun." That's wrong.

There has to be some way to classify people w/o violating HIPAA regulations. Maybe an eyes-on system of evaluation
where people's medical and criminal history is looked at and a notation is put in a database - CANNOT OWN A
FIREARM - without having to go into details that would violate that person's privacy. Sort of like a notation on one's
driver's license that they must drive with corrective lenses.


That's because conspiracy theorists (with the exception of farkhead Alex Jones, who says he is liberation because it shields him from both) are usually Democrats. Farking corporations are putting stuff in our:
Food
Water
Air
Chem trails

Those things are all something a Democrat would worry about. Pubs don't take about that stuff. Blackie McLeft-Wing is just more revenue for them.
 
2013-09-17 05:51:39 PM

red230: Mental health issues and hearing voices? Here is my short list.
Noah
Jesus
Moses

None of these guys ever killed anyone with a gun but historical records are a bit suspect for that time period.


You absolutely left out Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and L. Ron Hubbard.
 
2013-09-17 05:52:10 PM
Do most people NOT hear voices from time to time?
 
2013-09-17 05:52:34 PM

NDP2: Obligatory.

[Sigh]


He killed most of his victims with guns he stole from federal employees.
 
2013-09-17 05:54:30 PM

nekom: 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.


Tell Feinstein and the pundits out there who call for total gun bans to STFU and propose these sensible laws and the voters will stop paying as much attention to those who claim that any new law restricting guns is a step towards that goal. The first step to any new restriction will have to be taking any bans off the table, stop submitting such bills to congress and focus on the actual problem which is crazy people running loose when they should clearly be in an institution.
 
2013-09-17 06:00:41 PM

mizchief: Pretty much every mass shooter has been prescribed drugs whose side effects are violent outbursts and suicide, however the blame is put on guns and video games. I guess big pharma has more lobby power than guns & games.


The only time I ever actually took a prescription to treat my depression, it made things worse. So much worse. It turned my life into a nightmare land, a mockery of the mindscape that was and is again. It is a  miracle I survived.
 
2013-09-17 06:02:21 PM

MrHappyRotter: Do most people NOT hear voices from time to time?


That lack an immediately obvious external source and are telling you to burn it, burn it all, yes.
 
2013-09-17 06:03:54 PM

mizchief: nekom: 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.

Tell Feinstein and the pundits out there who call for total gun bans to STFU and propose these sensible laws and the voters will stop paying as much attention to those who claim that any new law restricting guns is a step towards that goal. The first step to any new restriction will have to be taking any bans off the table, stop submitting such bills to congress and focus on the actual problem which is crazy people running loose when they should clearly be in an institution.


Maybe the gun grabbers are needed to counterbalance the no gun restrictions anywhere, carry everywhere, and stand your ground folks on the other side. Those folks need to STFU too. And, frankly, they pose a lot bigger threat to meaningful discussion because they actually seem to hold a little political clout.

Or maybe reasonable folks on both sides ought to quit caricaturing the extremes of the other side (or even quit thinking about this in terms of "sides"), and engage in a more meaningful discourse.
 
2013-09-17 06:03:55 PM
I need a good trivia team name from this event.  I'm thinking, Ceiling Shakers? Noisy Upstairs Neighbors? I Knew I Shouldn't Have Taken My Mind Control Microwave on that trip to D.C.?
 
2013-09-17 06:04:57 PM
Someone who hears voices generally sees this as well
▼▼▼▼

i466.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-17 06:06:01 PM
I called it.

Shooter's best friend admits shooter was a liberal and obama supporter


So much for the total farkers that were blaming the right while mods quickly deleting posts showing almost all spree killers to be liberals.
 
2013-09-17 06:07:57 PM

DubtodaIll: I need a good trivia team name from this event.  I'm thinking, Ceiling Shakers? Noisy Upstairs Neighbors? I Knew I Shouldn't Have Taken My Mind Control Microwave on that trip to D.C.?


The Experts.
 
2013-09-17 06:10:14 PM

OnlyM3: I called it.

Shooter's best friend admits shooter was a liberal and obama supporter


So much for the total farkers that were blaming the right while mods quickly deleting posts showing almost all spree killers to be liberals.


"he wasn't happy with the former [Bush] administration. He was more happy with this [the Obama] administration"

Just like most Americans. How about that.
 
2013-09-17 06:10:17 PM

OnlyM3: I called it.

Shooter's best friend admits shooter was a liberal and obama supporter


So much for the total farkers that were blaming the right while mods quickly deleting posts showing almost all spree killers to be liberals.


When did posts get deleted?
 
2013-09-17 06:11:45 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DubtodaIll: I need a good trivia team name from this event.  I'm thinking, Ceiling Shakers? Noisy Upstairs Neighbors? I Knew I Shouldn't Have Taken My Mind Control Microwave on that trip to D.C.?

The Experts.


I don't get the reference.
 
2013-09-17 06:14:15 PM

birdmanesq: 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.


Black males cannot possess handguns.

50% of potential gun violence disappears by inconveniencing 6% of the population.

There's your reasonable solution.
 
2013-09-17 06:15:12 PM
SSRIs claim more victims.
 
2013-09-17 06:16:16 PM

birdmanesq: 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.


1. Once upon a time, poll taxes were legal and common. Then it became a right incorporated against the states.
2. The second amendment received that bump on June 28, 2010.
3. Whether firearm license fees are legal hasn't been challenged yet.
 
2013-09-17 06:19:49 PM
Yes, this will happen so long as the US remains a Free nation. Removing Freedom entirely will solve the issue.

Other than that, you're stuck with stop-gaps and half-measures.
 
2013-09-17 06:21:14 PM

MJMaloney187: sleeps in trees: MJMaloney187: You folks who think this has anything to do with U.S. gun laws are pissing in the wind. If the reports are true, Alexis had a history of gun violence and gun negligence. If the story is being reported correctly, Alexis suffered from PTSD and allegedly "heard voices" (I personally think that report is BS). Furthermore and furtherallegedly, Aaron Alexis was cited for half a dozen conduct violations. If all that is true, then HOW THE HELL DID HE GET A DEFENSE CONTRACTOR JOB?!? ... and in DC of all places.

I'll tell you why. Alexis was hired because he was held up to a lower standard, by law. His behavior was affirmatively interpreted. Do you think Johnny Whiteguy would have gotten a defense contractor job with the same history?

This mass murder isn't about shotgun laws. It's about lowered standards. The human resources department that processed his paperwork should immediately be fired, the background check agency that processed his paperwork should be sued out of business and every person Alexis put on his application as a "personal reference" should be put in prison ... ... ok, that last part is probably crossing a line ... but I'm super pissed about 12 civilians being murdered on a military base.

Um wow... You went there.

It's the bare naked truth, Hoss. Quit the internet if you don't want to see it.


Aaand you went there again. I said squat about my opinions. Personally it takes balls to go there, regardless of how I lean.

As for you very original comment about "quitting the Internet". Don't be a farking canoe douche twatwaffle licking candy ass. I appreciate creativity.
 
2013-09-17 06:21:30 PM

OnlyM3: I called it.

Shooter's best friend admits shooter was a liberal and obama supporter


So much for the total farkers that were blaming the right while mods quickly deleting posts showing almost all spree killers to be liberals.


Let's be totally fair.

Most spree killers are bug-fark nuts.  They're not left or right (except orthogonally to their being nuts), they're just nuts.  Nuts is their political affiliation.

Sometimes, we get lucky and notice that they're nuts before they do something stupid.
Sometimes, they're just that "kind of quiet" kid (And since kind of quiet describes every single introverted person EVER, that's not good enough if only due to the massive false positive rate) until they do something stupid.
 
2013-09-17 06:21:31 PM

DubtodaIll: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DubtodaIll: I need a good trivia team name from this event.  I'm thinking, Ceiling Shakers? Noisy Upstairs Neighbors? I Knew I Shouldn't Have Taken My Mind Control Microwave on that trip to D.C.?

The Experts.

I don't get the reference.


Alexis' employer.

/trivial
 
2013-09-17 06:21:42 PM

somedude210: you understand that you don't necessarily need a "secret" level of clearance to make it onto the naval yard.


The intersection of people who can pass the background check that enables secret clearance but cannot pass the background check for a gun is vanishingly small.

And considering it consists almost solely of politicians with felony background -- they can just change the law anyway.
 
2013-09-17 06:24:57 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DubtodaIll: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DubtodaIll: I need a good trivia team name from this event.  I'm thinking, Ceiling Shakers? Noisy Upstairs Neighbors? I Knew I Shouldn't Have Taken My Mind Control Microwave on that trip to D.C.?

The Experts.

I don't get the reference.

Alexis' employer.

/trivial


I like it, but I need something that will make a bar full of moderately informed people laugh for points.
 
2013-09-17 06:25:30 PM

Theaetetus: Witness99: I'm probably paranoid from watching to much Investigation Discovery, but I pity the fool that breaks into my house looking to hurt me.

Statistically, the most likely person to injure you in your house is already in your house.


100% chance, I'd think.

Unless you're standing right next to a window or something, and they just punch through it from the outside.
 
2013-09-17 06:27:19 PM

sleeps in trees: As for you very original comment about "quitting the Internet". Don't be a farking canoe douche twatwaffle licking candy ass. I appreciate creativity.


Apparently.
 
2013-09-17 06:28:22 PM
What prescriptions was he on, or formerly on?  That often seems to be a factor in these cases, although I sense that the valiant media doesn't want to antagonize pharma companies by putting knowledge of prescription drug use front and center.
 
2013-09-17 06:28:32 PM

wolfpaq777: sleeps in trees: As for you very original comment about "quitting the Internet". Don't be a farking canoe douche twatwaffle licking candy ass. I appreciate creativity.

Apparently.


Eh, I'm bored and making dinner. I need an outlet.
 
2013-09-17 06:28:40 PM

velvetrevolution00: SSRIs claim more victims.


^^THIS^^
 
2013-09-17 06:29:51 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Start taking some responsibility, gun owners.


Maybe this grabber troll is on to something.  Perhaps gun owners should start shooting everyone that seems crazy.
 
2013-09-17 06:29:54 PM

birdmanesq: This text is now purple: birdmanesq: Isn't there some useful old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight that might be applicable here?

It's less of a problem if you have the element of surprise, and you're both determined and within 20-ft or so.

Nothing can stop a bad guy with a knife. Even a good guy with a gun.

Maybe a good guy with some sort of spiked pike. That maybe has spikes on the spikes for good measure. And then maybe a couple of more spikes on those spikes because you can never be too safe.


I didn't say it was impossible. I was merely pointing out that some situations favor the man with a knife involved in a gun fight.
 
2013-09-17 06:31:00 PM

This text is now purple: birdmanesq: 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.

1. Once upon a time, poll taxes were legal and common. Then it became a right incorporated against the states.
2. The second amendment received that bump on June 28, 2010.
3. Whether firearm license fees are legal hasn't been challenged yet.


Except that the Heller and Washington opinions (incorporating the Second Amendment) expressly acknowledged permissible regulations, including taxes and fees. They're constitutional. Poll taxes are not analogous.

Tax and fee-free gun ownership is a wet dream.
 
2013-09-17 06:31:07 PM

netweavr: Yes, this will happen so long as the US remains a Free nation. Removing Freedom entirely will solve the issue.

Other than that, you're stuck with stop-gaps and half-measures.


Exactly!  If we lock down this nation like a prison, everyone will live in a safe, drug-free, weapon-free, orderly society, just like our prisons.
 
2013-09-17 06:31:34 PM

Nutsac_Jim: birdmanesq: Nutsac_Jim: Rattle me off this giant list that has nothing to do with you being a lawbreaker......

See above in my post to WhyteRaven74 for several examples, with applicable citations.

yeah, but those are people that do wrong, or cant differentiate.

the only case is where some house frau might allege some charge and get their husbands rights taken away in
some kind of end run on alimony or child support.    Other than that, you need to prove someone did a bad deed.


Restraining orders, another broken system. It's almost standard to get them during a divorce, regardless of harm potential (so I've heard, never been married or divorced). Both men and women use them vindictively or simply to make the person you used for sex stop calling you. These things seem to be rarely applied to an actual dangerous situation, and judges grant them with little thought.

HOWEVER...once you have a restraining order against you...gun rights taken away. And it's like being sued...anyone can sue you and anyone can get a frivolous restraining order against you.
 
2013-09-17 06:31:50 PM

birdmanesq: This text is now purple: birdmanesq: 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.

1. Once upon a time, poll taxes were legal and common. Then it became a right incorporated against the states.
2. The second amendment received that bump on June 28, 2010.
3. Whether firearm license fees are legal hasn't been challenged yet.

Except that the Heller and Washington opinions (incorporating the Second Amendment) expressly acknowledged permissible regulations, including taxes and fees. They're constitutional. Poll taxes are not analogous.

Tax and fee-free gun ownership is a wet dream.


Give me my Obamagun.
 
2013-09-17 06:32:48 PM

sleeps in trees: Eh, I'm bored and making dinner. I need an outlet.


I appreciated the unconventional insult.
 
2013-09-17 06:32:55 PM

mizchief: nekom: 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.

Tell Feinstein and the pundits out there who call for total gun bans to STFU and propose these sensible laws and the voters will stop paying as much attention to those who claim that any new law restricting guns is a step towards that goal. The first step to any new restriction will have to be taking any bans off the table, stop submitting such bills to congress and focus on the actual problem which is crazy people running loose when they should clearly be in an institution.


He illegally acquired him. What farking part of that do either of you two sides not understand. The farker bypassed the "we need to enforce the laws we have" folks and stole his guns from the "only people who should have guns folks" to commit MOST of his murders.

Gawd Damn, you tards wonder why no one likes you.
 
2013-09-17 06:33:56 PM

birdmanesq: I'm not one to write off structural issues. And I'm certainly not discounting societal factors.

However, I also quite strongly buy into the instrumental philosophy of guns and the effect that they have of mediating the individual-situational interaction. So, I think a more helpful outlook is not to reduce the issue to a single factor and, instead, look at how things affect each other.

That, though, requires the intellectual honesty to admit that guns themselves contribute to the problem.

/Note: I'm not accusing you of being intellectually dishonest. That was a general statement.


Sure. but if a guy sees a gun as a hunting tool and is conditioned to see it only that way, it changes whether he'll use it as a tool to solve his problems, or not.

Here's an example that comes to mind, not directly appropriate, but speaks to behavioral conditioning:

In the old west, one of the most sacred things you *didn't* do was rape a woman. You didn't hurt a woman, you didn't mistreat her, no matter how bad you were. Were there exceptions? yes. But by and large, even criminals in the old west would respect a woman and wouldn't tolerate harming a woman.  This was something you were brought up to, and something that was ingrained into you by societal conditioning.

However, in the modern world, we have no such compunctions, and such behavioral conditioning has gone by the wayside.

Yes, a gun, by virtue of being a great equalizer, gives power to a person who wields it. But the gun and its availability does not inherently change behavior, save for the decision making of what to use of the available tools (No gun? can't use one, will use something else), so by taking away the tool you're again not fixing the problem or the underlying issue, you're just reducing the toolset and masking the problem.

We have these discussions and people throw out Canada and Europe and other such countries as examples of gun control. But gun control itself is not the complete story. Canada has, arguably, fairly lax gun control laws. France, the Czech Republic, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, all allow firearms ownership to some degree, and the tradition of sport shooting and hunting and so on are quite alive there.

What is different in these places is that in those societies, the use of guns as a tool to solve problems doesn't exist. People are conditioned to have an entirely different response to guns. Until that german teenager took his father's guns and shot up a school with them, guns were even more permissive, and yet they didn't have the same level of crime we do.

You argue that we need to be "whollistic" as if somehow addressing guns as the problem is going to cure anything. In the short term, it might reduce certain criminal acts, but it's not going to solve the problem and it's going to in some ways exacerbate certain others.  The key here is that until we fix the shiat that's wrong with society itself, taking away guns isn't going to solve all of these problems.

Now, before you jump on me about "do nothing", please keep in mind that I'm not advocating that. I'm all for better background checks, screening, and better ways to tie the criminal and mentally ill to gun checks so that they don't get access to guns. I'm also all for laws that make penalties for certain unsafe behavior with a deadly weapon a crime and/or reason to make a person inelligible to own firearms.  You endanger someone else's life by having an AD? you lose your right to own them. You kill someone with a gun because you were being stupid? You get charged with a crime and lose your rights.

NOTHING says that that is incompatible with continuing to allow us to enjoy a rich culture of hunting, sports shooting, and concealed carry. The NFA didn't stop people from owning full-auto weapons or short barreled shotguns, etc., it just made it take more time to get them, and it made it cost a little, and required some forms of extensive background checks and registration to take place to do so, and as far as I know, no one has, or has proposed, rounding up and confiscating those items from lawful owners.

There have been cases, such as in NY, where the states attempted to pass laws including mandatory confiscation, or have leveraged registries to perform confiscation (NYC in the 1990s sticks out in my head when they outlawed the ownership of certain weapons within the city and people living in the city with registered firearms were compelled to move or have their weapons confiscated), so having any kind of process like this requires some degree of visibility and checks/balances that mitigates the temptation to abuse the system.

But even I, an ardent owner of guns and supporter of the 2A (Pro-gunner-in-name-only? PGINO? I guess...) am forced to admit that save for a few rare cases, just registering weapons hasn't lead to a a sudden rush to confiscate guns.

Let this be a lesson to us all, though: If we continue to biatch and bicker about whether it's Off-White, Bone White, or Linen, and keep thrashing about over feel-good, knee-jerk reactions to this shiat and we don't take a long, serious, hard look at ourselves in the mirror and how we choose to live our lives, as well as the behavior we espouse, then we're not going to get very far in changing people's reactions and conditioned responses to stress, depression, and conflict. We're just going to make them prove that they REALLY want to do something bad, and/or choose other alternatives.
 
2013-09-17 06:34:37 PM

birdmanesq: This text is now purple: birdmanesq: 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.

1. Once upon a time, poll taxes were legal and common. Then it became a right incorporated against the states.
2. The second amendment received that bump on June 28, 2010.
3. Whether firearm license fees are legal hasn't been challenged yet.

Except that the Heller and Washington opinions (incorporating the Second Amendment) expressly acknowledged permissible regulations, including taxes and fees. They're constitutional. Poll taxes are not analogous.

Tax and fee-free gun ownership is a wet dream.


Maybe, maybe not. McDonald also turned over this:
'Mandate that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee'
 
2013-09-17 06:34:50 PM

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


No the fact that there were at least two other gun incidents that were swept under the rug was the problem.
 
2013-09-17 06:35:47 PM

wolfpaq777: sleeps in trees: Eh, I'm bored and making dinner. I need an outlet.

I appreciated the unconventional insult.


Well thank you. I'll set an extra place for you at the table. Any food allergies I should know about?
 
2013-09-17 06:37:46 PM

phenn: 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

Not at all pointless. I'm totally on your side with this. I seriously worry that psychotropic drugs are agitating this behavior. Obviously a gun requires someone operating it to do damage. The better part of the public seems to be such pill-popping maniacs, it baffles me that we don't start there.


I think the problem is much deeper than that. American society is sick. We've become so divided on everything that it seems normal to hate others and we've dehumanize each other to the point that we simply can't feel empathy at all. It's a lot easier to kill someone you don't think of as human.

This is a fundamental principle of war, but Hate Radio and Rovian Politics has brought it into everyday discourse by demonizing Libruls and Conservitards, dividing us into enemy camps. Of course, politics is just one manifestation of a general trend. I don't know the answer, but I think that's the problem.
 
2013-09-17 06:41:15 PM
Oh, and another thought crosses my mind, as rare as that is to happen: If you compare societal factors between the US and Britain or almost any other country where gun violence is historically low, including the media and role models they have, the entire attitude towards violence and problem solving is vastly different.

Watching any British program, for example, and violence is an afterthought. it's expressed, but mutely, and in such a way that it doesn't become grotesque or the centerpiece.

Watch an American movie? The top-grossing films here involve guns, explosions, fight scenes, and so much over-the-top machismo and need-to-be-bad that the plot is just tacked onto something made up of people shooting each other, blowing each other up, beating each other, and otherwise just being violent.

I enjoy good action films, and I enjoy violent video games. But I really had to take a look at myself and how I reacted, and still react, to some situations. When the first thought that comes to mind is "god, I really want to kick that guy in the balls" or "I really wish that guy would get jumped and be beaten up" or worse, that's neither healthy nor, really, appropriate. I'm guilty of having my moments where a violent solution is really appealing. But we can't do that anymore. I can't do that anymore. I can't wish death on someone because I dislike or disagree with them.

I wish we all could recognize this about ourselves, and recognize that owning firearms, as well as using them as self defense tools, is fine as long as we accept the gravity and seriousness that go along with them.

/I'm just fine with owning a few guns that serve my purposes for hunting, killing coyotes, and competing in the sports I enjoy
//When I just want to have a gun because it looks cool or because I want to play soldier, I'm also just fine with going out and buying the airsoft equivalent so I can play army without actually killing someone.
 
2013-09-17 06:42:18 PM

MrBallou: I think the problem is much deeper than that. American society is sick. We've become so divided on everything that it seems normal to hate others and we've dehumanize each other to the point that we simply can't feel empathy at all. It's a lot easier to kill someone you don't think of as human.

This is a fundamental principle of war, but Hate Radio and Rovian Politics has brought it into everyday discourse by demonizing Libruls and Conservitards, dividing us into enemy camps. Of course, politics is just one manifestation of a general trend. I don't know the answer, but I think that's the problem.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

You make this sound new.
 
2013-09-17 06:43:05 PM

ahab: doyner: ahab: lilbjorn: Navy Yard shooter suffered from mental health issues, heard voices.

And had two prior arrests on gun-related charges.  But he had no problem at all getting more guns.

And zero criminal convictions! Also, the two incidents were 6 years apart.  Clear pattern of behavior there, right?

To most sane people, yes.

It's a pity that the clearance adjudicators (plural because it sounds like he was screened at least twice, once this year!) are insane.


Why? Did he leak any secrets?
 
2013-09-17 06:44:11 PM

This text is now purple: MrBallou: I think the problem is much deeper than that. American society is sick. We've become so divided on everything that it seems normal to hate others and we've dehumanize each other to the point that we simply can't feel empathy at all. It's a lot easier to kill someone you don't think of as human.

This is a fundamental principle of war, but Hate Radio and Rovian Politics has brought it into everyday discourse by demonizing Libruls and Conservitards, dividing us into enemy camps. Of course, politics is just one manifestation of a general trend. I don't know the answer, but I think that's the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

You make this sound new.


Yeah, when people talk about the "polarization of America", I just ask whether or not we've had one Senator beat another Senator into a coma on the Senate floor yet.

As long as they answer "No," I'm not terribly worried.
 
2013-09-17 06:44:55 PM

Kit Fister: Oh, and another thought crosses my mind, as rare as that is to happen: If you compare societal factors between the US and Britain or almost any other country where gun violence is historically low, including the media and role models they have, the entire attitude towards violence and problem solving is vastly different.

Watching any British program, for example, and violence is an afterthought. it's expressed, but mutely, and in such a way that it doesn't become grotesque or the centerpiece.


That might be an interesting point, if the violent crime rate in Britain wasn't higher than the violent crime rate in the US.
 
2013-09-17 06:45:50 PM