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 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*
 
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