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 547
    More: Obvious, mental healths  
•       •       •

3606 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 1:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 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?
 
Displayed 50 of 547 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report