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

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

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



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 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......
 
Displayed 50 of 548 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report