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  
•       •       •

3602 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 1:46 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



549 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 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 549 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report