Do you have adblock enabled?
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 136
    More: Obvious, mental healths  
•       •       •

3617 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 1:46 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-09-17 10:15:02 AM  
18 votes:
This incident is a much more compelling example of how stricter regulations could have reduced the possibility of a mass shooting than was Sandy Hook. Here you have a guy with a pretty clear record of gun incidents coupled with mental health problems who purchased one of the guns that he used in the incident legally. Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.

So now the question is whether you think someone who has a clear record of alleged gun incidents and a history of severe mental health problems should be allowed to own a firearm. If the answer to that question is no, well, then it's fairly straightforward to reverse-engineer a regulatory scheme that might prevent that from happening.

Who needed to know what at the point of sale of that shotgun for folks to hit pause on this for a while? Well, clearly a background check needed to show the mental health problems and the alleged gun incidents. Now those things took place across several states, so this needs to be a Federal solution, not a state solution. And the local jurisdictions need to be compelled to report gun-related incidents or other violent crime to the Federal database. The mental health is a little trickier because there needs to be some sort of flag that triggers reporting--but I'm sure that we can work out the details there without too much trouble.

So the first step looks like a more comprehensive and mandatory system of background checks, which compels participation from local authorities and health care providers (easily coerced through public-safety and Medicare dollars).
2013-09-17 11:55:43 AM  
5 votes:

ahab: doyner: ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."

That's a valid fear, and a difficult one to get around.  There is a different problem, however, in this case: HOW HE WAS EMPLOYED THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I have background investigations on me and will get booted the moment I fart near a cop.  This guy gets all shooty when he's annoyed and yet is allowed to access most NAVSEA spaces in his job.

Well, let's see.  He had no felony convictions.  He had a secret clearance, so a background check was indeed done (although it's not a super rigorous one for Secret).  He had served in the military and had an honorable discharge.  Why should he not have worked there?


Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health.  If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.
2013-09-17 11:11:27 AM  
5 votes:

birdmanesq: Kit Fister: No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.

I think you're right, and that's where this conversation gets stuck. I don't think most pro-regulation folks are looking to ban certain kinds of guns as much as they are looking to restrict access to folks that shouldn't be getting them. And it seems to me like Responsible Gun Ownerstm should be invested in figuring out some reasonable way to restrict access before one of these mass shooting incidents truly shifts the public conversation into considering significant restrictions that significantly inconvenience folks who really shouldn't be inconvenienced.


I've been trying to push such "reasonable methods" and have written my congress critters about it.

The problem is, you are fighting a couple of things:

1. Gun owners who are afraid that anti-gun people will use these methods as a means of indiscriminately getting people declared unfit to own guns just to push a defacto ban.
2. The obvious fear that gun owners who need treatment who know that seeking treatment can lead to loss of rights simply avoiding treatment
3. The problem of HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality that would make a database of patient information next to impossible to implement.


However, there are ways around it, such as having a certified board of people that need to sign off on a patient's unfitness and certify to a judge that the patient is indeed unfit in order to have them adjudicated unfit legally that requires unanimous decision, with the proviso that the patient be regularly rescreened and that the ban only last for a certain period of time (5 years?) before the state has to have his case reviewed otherwise his record is automatically expunged.

Also, by requiring that a patient exhibiting certain disqualifying symptoms be reported to a state health board, for example, who then reviews an dinterviews the patient, comes to a conclusion, and then files with the court to have him declared unfit and undergoing treatment, you get around the HIPAA thing such that you then only have those who are found unfit, or who have a temporary order entered into the system preventing them from owning firearms, etc., without needing to expose all patients.
2013-09-17 03:24:22 PM  
3 votes:
birdmanesq: But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.

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

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

5th:
You have the right to remain silent if you're accused of a small infraction (jaywalking)
but if you're charged with a felony, it costs $10,000 per charge to exercise that right.
2013-09-17 10:56:41 AM  
3 votes:

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


No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.

I completely agree that we need to find a way to not give certified crazy people access to dangerous objects, with the proviso that there have to be checks and balances, means of contesting findings and diagnosis, and means of restoring rights.

I don't want to see a system become a catchall means of denying rights to people that you don't like without any way to contest or overturn a finding, but at the same time, i don't want to see douchebags like this getting their hands on guns.   After being reported for the discharge in an apartment with a neighbor saying they were terrified of him, he should've been charged with reckless endangerment and had his rights revoked then. Why are we not doing this? Why are there not penalties against such behavior?
2013-09-18 01:13:27 AM  
2 votes:

MBooda: 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.


Or, there's option 3, which NOBODY ever mentions EVAR:

3) The US Army did not exist in peacetime and law enforcement as we know it now did not exist at the time (and would not exist until the 1840s), hence the only way to put down a domestic insurrection or even a criminal gang (much less incursions from First Nations and the like)...was, quite literally, calling up a posse (the "unorganised militia" in question).

3a) The part nobody ever, EVER mentions--this was in fact a neutering of an older provision in the Articles of Confederation (the "First Constitution" that had the US organised in a very European Union-esque confederacy of what amounted to thirteen distinct and separate countries with a currency union and a common defense and foreign policy) that not only mandated that every competent adult male be explicitly trained in the use of firearms at regular intervals but explicitly required the state governments to maintain armories and staff to train men to serve in the state guard should they need to be called up in an emergency.

(Yes, the original policy of the US re the "right to keep and bear arms" from roughly 1779 to 1791 or so was pretty much the same as Switzerland's national defense force; every male was considered a member of his state's (canton's, in the case of Switzerland) defense force, was required to undergo two weeks of mandatory weapons training, and was required to keep weapons issued by the state/canton armory up until the youngest male in the household hit 40 and aged out of the national militia.)

3b) Because the concepts of "state police with shooty weapons" (much less "city police") and "permanent standing armed forces" were Not Yet A Thing during Madison's time, and pretty much everyone assumed that short of frank war with France or the UK or Spain that any war or insurrection to be fought would be either in the form of armed gangs or First Nations uprisings...well, the writers pretty much instantly assumed that anything short of Frank National Emergency status would be handled by calling up the "unorganised militia" to start up a posse.  In other words, that whole section should be read as "Since we will need to start up a posse now and again, folks should be allowed to have guns" (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation's "Everyone is a member of their state Army Reserves, and the state must give mandatory military weapons training and maintain a stocked arsenal in case the goddamn Redcoats start marching through from Canada or the Iroquois Confederacy starts getting really pissy about the land we stole").

3c) The "Well regulated militia" bit pretty much is a giveaway (especially in conjunction with the old Articles of Confederation version) that it was assumed by the Founding Fathers that people would be getting regular firearms training--basically the Revolutionary War Era version of CCW and Home Defense courses, provided courtesy of the governor of your state.  The concept was far less "Every goddamn yahoo with a gun" and more "We're actually going to teach the guys how NOT to shoot their own peckers off and how to properly point the gun and fire it at the OTHER guy, and also make sure his damn musket that's been in his family since 1589 isn't going to blow the hell up in his face when he tries to fire it".

"Well regulated" in this case meant "Properly trained"--translated to modern English, "A properly trained state defense force being necessary to public safety, people shall be allowed to keep and bear arms for home defense and state defense (and, we assume, the state will keep on training them how to do this without killing themselves)".

tl;dr version: Madison never quite anticipated the invention of police departments or permanent armed forces, and people all assumed the state guards would keep going (they do still exist, both in the form of the National Guard and a few non-National Guard state militias in places like Texas and Alaska)--what unfortunately changed is that pretty much the old mechanism where training was MANDATORY went away.

This is an easy enough bugfix, and could be done very, very easily in keeping with the spirit of the Founding Fathers:

a) Define "unorganised militia" explicitly as persons who have received training in the use of weapons for defense after an appropriate training period.

b) Establish a national training program for use of firearms and require persons who wish to own a firearm to receive specific training including safety training and target training and to be certified by a trainer as being capable of safe use of a firearm.  (There is already precedent for this in two separate programs--CCW courses and hunter safety courses; pretty much all states have required mandatory hunter safety courses for anyone younger than about thirty to get a hunting license for gun season, and some have expanded this to bow and crossbow hunting too.  In essence, we're expanding the training programs for CCW and/or hunter safety courses to all firearms use, with an additional psychological screening component and vision check--depression that is controlled would not be disqualifying, whilst severe/profound mental illness would; correctable vision issues would be fine, folks who require prismatic lenses to drive might have more issues :D.  (This is also the current definition for whether or not someone is considered 4-F, as an aside.))  Provisions can even be made for persons who have passed a hunter safety course or a CCW course or similar training course to be grandfathered in.  Persons shall be required to retrain and recertify on a regular basis.

(As an aside--I personally am unaware of any successful legal challenges, or even attempts at legal challenges, to CCW laws and hunter safety courses.  The closest I've seen to legal challenges is where states have been reluctant to issue CCW permits when reciprocity agreements exist.  This is true even though pretty much all CCW courses and hunter safety courses cost money, and is still applicable even in states where "right to hunt" laws exist.)

c) Explicitly note that firearms sales shall only be made to persons who are eligible to be members of the unorganised militia under law (that is, mentally competent persons whom have completed a firearms safety course of some sort) and that documentation that the person has completed a firearms safety and training course must be provided to complete a sale.  Further mandate that states may not prohibit a person who has successfully completed a federally approved firearms safety course from owning a firearm unless a major disqualifying condition occurs such as diagnosis of severe/profound mental illness.

d) In the event that a major disqualifying condition becomes apparent between certification testing periods (such as loss of vision, severe/profound mental illness or intellectual disability, other severe physical handicap that renders use of a firearm unsafe even with assistive technology, domestic violence conviction, or other federally disqualifying condition) then the firearms will be confiscated to be held in trust and permit denied until such time as a hearing can be held whether it is likely the person can be sufficiently trained in the safe use of firearms.  If it is likely that the disqualifying condition is permanent or relapsing to such a point as to render their use or possession of firearms unsafe the weapons will be sold at fair market price to an authorised firearms sales agent and the person shall receive full compensation, or may alternatively sell their weapons to a person who successfully has completed a federally approved firearms safety course.

e) Amend the Constitution appropriately with said bugfix (easiest way to get things through).

Pretty much the only people who would be unhappy are the Gun Owners of America types who even think background checks for gun sales are condensed evil.  The NRA et al would be grousy at first but would end up happy (as they could make money from firearms training courses including adaptive firearms training for persons with disabilities--the NRA actually tends to run most of the hunter safety courses nationwide and a goodly chunk of the CCW training courses as well).  People wanting to keep weapons out of the hands of the excessively violent and severely mentally ill (and folks who literally can't see to shoot straight) would be happy.  Derpy history geeks like me would be happy (as we'd actually have a well-regulated unorganised militia for the first time since 1791 :D).  If we can make the training cheap or free with subsidy, even folks worried re the poor and/or folks worried re the constitutionality of charging for a Firearms Safety Training Cert will be happy (though I'd argue anyone who can afford a handgun could afford training courses, and certainly so with long-guns and shotguns).
2013-09-17 06:14:15 PM  
2 votes:

birdmanesq: But there are all sorts of little ways that we can work to reduce the overall impact of gun violence. Hopefully without inconveniencing Responsible Gun Ownerstm.


Black males cannot possess handguns.

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

There's your reasonable solution.
2013-09-17 03:36:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:46:01 PM  
2 votes:
Also FTA:

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

My God. He was trying to fix NMCI.

Folks, this explains it all.
2013-09-17 02:03:22 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: Plus, he could have just made one or more improvised guns, if he was prevented from buying one, and used that to take a real gun from the guards.


See, now something like this I have a problem with. Not that it's impossible to do, but that it does require some ability to engineer something like that and have it work on the first go. These guys that go on these mass killings are not the brightest bulbs in the bunch when it comes to coming up with plans to cause mass amounts of damage/casualties and yet we treat them like they're farking Bond villains.

so while agree that he could very well have improvised a gun to kill a guard and then steal his gun, I don't think he is capable of the foresight and planning needed to execute such a plan, let alone the engineering ability to actually build such things and have them work the first time.

Just because something works in movies or video games and watching/playing them makes you go "oh yeah, I totally see how they could do such a thing. That's so easy!" doesn't mean you'll actually know how to do it or think to do it when in a situation.
2013-09-17 01:17:48 PM  
2 votes:
birdmanesq:
I mean, I grew up in rural Illinois. I started shooting before I started school. I look around at the folks I knew growing up--many of whom are incredibly responsible gun owners--and certainly wouldn't want to create some system of regulations and background checks that would prevent them from enjoying their pasttime relatively hassle free.

I grew up in western Pennsylvania where it was much the same.  My uncle took me out shooting when I was 8, prior to that I had a bb gun.  I'm surrounded by a lot of people who love to hunt deer, and while that's not my cup of tea, I wouldn't want to take away their pastime.  I'm also a responsible gun owner myself, though I only have one 12 gauge and it rarely sees any use.  The balance between allowing responsible gun owners to pursue their hobbies and keeping guns out of the hands of nutters isn't all that difficult, really.

How's this for an idea:  Let's assume when he shot through his neighbor's roof he was telling the truth.  Cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off.  Ok, no charges but guess what, no guns for you.  Clearly if you are so stupid that you clean a gun and it goes off, you have no business anywhere near one.  That could have potentially stopped this from happening, maybe.
2013-09-17 01:15:50 PM  
2 votes:

Kit Fister: An enumerated right should not have a fee associated with it. MI has a mandatory registration on all handguns. It has not yet once been used to grab guns. I'm OK with a registration because, well, frankly, if the government wants to know what guns I have, they can find out in other ways anyway, and having a registration improves my chances that I'll get my shiat back if they ever get stolen.


This is important. Registration is fine (like voting), but shouldn't cost money.
2013-09-17 12:22:22 PM  
2 votes:

Kit Fister: birdmanesq: DjangoStonereaver: I agree with you, but to the defenders of the Holy Constitutiontm, the only amendments that matter are the 2nd and the 10th.

Anybody who seriously thinks that the Tenth Amendment is constitutionally relevant hasn't been paying attention to the last 200 years of constitutional history.

Passes 10th Amendment, proceeds to marginalize state governments at every turn. #USAproblems


There's a key part of the 10th Amendment that "states rights!!!" people seem happy to ignore. The part that says "or to the people".
2013-09-17 11:47:18 AM  
2 votes:

birdmanesq: ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents. Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged! Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."

It's hard to see how that can become systematic. Mostly because most of the hardcore gun nuts and most of the hardcore anti-gun nuts don't have a whole lot to do with each other. I mean, it's not like Michael Bloomberg is going to be calling the cops on Joe Bob in Alabama...

That's a little too paranoid for me to even come up with a coherent response beyond that.


on a whole-sale level? No. On a "i hate that guy, I'm going to fark him over" level? Yes, very easily.  Look at how easy it is to have men accused of domestic violence with literally no proof and having that fark with them.
2013-09-17 11:41:08 AM  
2 votes:

DjangoStonereaver: The Alexis case proves the screaming need for a central, federal registry of people who should never be allowed to own firearms, but there is no way in hell the 'Second Amendment as a check against tyrrany" LARP brigade and their political lapdogs will ever let that happen because, you know, state's rights.


I think, though that this Navy Yard case provides a pretty convincing argument against parochial control of gun regulation. I mean, there is no way that Virginia would be able to identify a pattern without Texas, Washington, and whatever jurisdictions he was receiving mental health treatment in being required to report incidents to the Federal government.
2013-09-17 11:32:04 AM  
2 votes:
I have an imperfect scheme that might just work: gladiatorial combat.

We just make it so totally insane people can quit normal society, join a gladiatorial school, and fight to the death. It would allow us to maintain the status quo while just acting like a vacuum to suck up all the crazy, violent people in our country and reduce their numbers drastically. It would also pay for itself 1000 times over because bloodsports are always popular. In the end, instead of crazy people everywhere ticking like time bombs, we'd see only a few crazy people who were well supervised and with blood lust sated and tempered with hard sports training.
2013-09-17 11:14:39 AM  
2 votes:

Kit Fister: No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.

I completely agree that we need to find a way to not give certified crazy people access to dangerous objects, with the proviso that there have to be checks and balances, means of contesting findings and diagnosis, and means of restoring rights.


Maybe, just MAYBE, instead of you going into gun threads and complaining about "gun grabbers", you could put some effort towards helping get reasonable legislation passed. The vocal 10% manages to prevent ANY legislation making it to discussion level.

There are many of us (gun owners) that agree legislation is needed. I've spoken out. I've gone to the Montana legislature. MORE NEED TO DO THE SAME.
2013-09-17 11:01:54 AM  
2 votes:

Kit Fister: No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.


I think you're right, and that's where this conversation gets stuck. I don't think most pro-regulation folks are looking to ban certain kinds of guns as much as they are looking to restrict access to folks that shouldn't be getting them. And it seems to me like Responsible Gun Ownerstm should be invested in figuring out some reasonable way to restrict access before one of these mass shooting incidents truly shifts the public conversation into considering significant restrictions that significantly inconvenience folks who really shouldn't be inconvenienced.
2013-09-17 10:29:06 AM  
2 votes:
Obviously his legal access to guns isn't the problem. Right?
2013-09-18 11:43:01 AM  
1 vote:

Great Porn Dragon: MBooda: 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.

Or, there's option 3, which NOBODY ever mentions EVAR:

3) The US Army did not exist in peacetime and law enforcement as we know it now did not exist at the time (and would not exist until the 1840s), hence the only way to put down a domestic insurrection or even a criminal gang (much less incursions from First Nations and the like)...was, quite literally, calling up a posse (the "unorganised militia" in question).

3a) The part nobody ever, EVER mentions--this was in fact a neutering of an older provision in the Articles of Confederation (the "First Constitution" that had the US organised in a very European Union-esque confederacy of what amounted to thirteen distinct and separate countries with a currency union and a common defense and foreign policy) that not only mandated that every competent adult male be explicitly trained in the use of firearms at reg ...


Now, here's a guy that actually put some logical thought into his ideas, using history as the guidelines for what he wants to accomplish. It's not knee jerk, it's not inflammatory (except to a specific mindset that want NO provisions), and it makes a lot of sense.

Come around in the next gun thread and copy/paste this bad boy into it. Do it early, though, or it'll be lost in the morass of screed, misdirection and straw men.
2013-09-18 07:40:07 AM  
1 vote:

Great Porn Dragon: MBooda: 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.

Or, there's option 3, which NOBODY ever mentions EVAR:

3) The US Army did not exist in peacetime and law enforcement as we know it now did not exist at the time (and would not exist until the 1840s), hence the only way to put down a domestic insurrection or even a criminal gang (much less incursions from First Nations and the like)...was, quite literally, calling up a posse (the "unorganised militia" in question).

3a) The part nobody ever, EVER mentions--this was in fact a neutering of an older provision in the Articles of Confederation (the "First Constitution" that had the US organised in a very European Union-esque confederacy of what amounted to thirteen distinct and separate countries with a currency union and a common defense and foreign policy) that not only mandated that every competent adult male be explicitly trained in the use of firearms at regular intervals but explicitly required the state governments to maintain armories and staff to train men to serve in the state guard should they need to be called up in an emergency.

(Yes, the original policy of the US re the "right to keep and bear arms" from roughly 1779 to 1791 or so was pretty much the same as Switzerland's national defense force; every male was considered a member of his state's (canton's, in the case of Switzerland) defense force, was required to undergo two weeks of mandatory weapons training, and was required to keep weapons issued by the state/canton armory up until the youngest male in the household hit 40 and aged out of the national militia.)

3b) Because the concepts of "state police with shooty weapons" (much less "city police") and "permanent standing armed forces" were Not Yet A Thing during Madison's time, and pretty much everyone assumed that short of frank war with France or the UK or Spain that any war or insurrection to be fought would be either in the form of armed gangs or First Nations uprisings...well, the writers pretty much instantly assumed that anything short of Frank National Emergency status would be handled by calling up the "unorganised militia" to start up a posse.  In other words, that whole section should be read as "Since we will need to start up a posse now and again, folks should be allowed to have guns" (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation's "Everyone is a member of their state Army Reserves, and the state must give mandatory military weapons training and maintain a stocked arsenal in case the goddamn Redcoats start marching through from Canada or the Iroquois Confederacy starts getting really pissy about the land we stole").

3c) The "Well regulated militia" bit pretty much is a giveaway (especially in conjunction with the old Articles of Confederation version) that it was assumed by the Founding Fathers that people would be getting regular firearms training--basically the Revolutionary War Era version of CCW and Home Defense courses, provided courtesy of the governor of your state.  The concept was far less "Every goddamn yahoo with a gun" and more "We're actually going to teach the guys how NOT to shoot their own peckers off and how to properly point the gun and fire it at the OTHER guy, and also make sure his damn musket that's been in his family since 1589 isn't going to blow the hell up in his face when he tries to fire it".

"Well regulated" in this case meant "Properly trained"--translated to modern English, "A properly trained state defense force being necessary to public safety, people shall be allowed to keep and bear arms for home defense and state defense (and, we assume, the state will keep on training them how to do this without killing themselves)".

tl;dr version: Madison never quite anticipated the invention of police departments or permanent armed forces, and people all assumed the state guards would keep going (they do still exist, both in the form of the National Guard and a few non-National Guard state militias in places like Texas and Alaska)--what unfortunately changed is that pretty much the old mechanism where training was MANDATORY went away.

This is an easy enough bugfix, and could be done very, very easily in keeping with the spirit of the Founding Fathers:

a) Define "unorganised militia" explicitly as persons who have received training in the use of weapons for defense after an appropriate training period.

b) Establish a national training program for use of firearms and require persons who wish to own a firearm to receive specific training including safety training and target training and to be certified by a trainer as being capable of safe use of a firearm.  (There is already precedent for this in two separate programs--CCW courses and hunter safety courses; pretty much all states have required mandatory hunter safety courses for anyone younger than about thirty to get a hunting license for gun season, and some have expanded this to bow and crossbow hunting too.  In essence, we're expanding the training programs for CCW and/or hunter safety courses to all firearms use, with an additional psychological screening component and vision check--depression that is controlled would not be disqualifying, whilst severe/profound mental illness would; correctable vision issues would be fine, folks who require prismatic lenses to drive might have more issues :D.  (This is also the current definition for whether or not someone is considered 4-F, as an aside.))  Provisions can even be made for persons who have passed a hunter safety course or a CCW course or similar training course to be grandfathered in.  Persons shall be required to retrain and recertify on a regular basis.

(As an aside--I personally am unaware of any successful legal challenges, or even attempts at legal challenges, to CCW laws and hunter safety courses.  The closest I've seen to legal challenges is where states have been reluctant to issue CCW permits when reciprocity agreements exist.  This is true even though pretty much all CCW courses and hunter safety courses cost money, and is still applicable even in states where "right to hunt" laws exist.)

c) Explicitly note that firearms sales shall only be made to persons who are eligible to be members of the unorganised militia under law (that is, mentally competent persons whom have completed a firearms safety course of some sort) and that documentation that the person has completed a firearms safety and training course must be provided to complete a sale.  Further mandate that states may not prohibit a person who has successfully completed a federally approved firearms safety course from owning a firearm unless a major disqualifying condition occurs such as diagnosis of severe/profound mental illness.

d) In the event that a major disqualifying condition becomes apparent between certification testing periods (such as loss of vision, severe/profound mental illness or intellectual disability, other severe physical handicap that renders use of a firearm unsafe even with assistive technology, domestic violence conviction, or other federally disqualifying condition) then the firearms will be confiscated to be held in trust and permit denied until such time as a hearing can be held whether it is likely the person can be sufficiently trained in the safe use of firearms.  If it is likely that the disqualifying condition is permanent or relapsing to such a point as to render their use or possession of firearms unsafe the weapons will be sold at fair market price to an authorised firearms sales agent and the person shall receive full compensation, or may alternatively sell their weapons to a person who successfully has completed a federally approved firearms safety course.

e) Amend the Constitution appropriately with said bugfix (easiest way to get things through).

Pretty much the only people who would be unhappy are the Gun Owners of America types who even think background checks for gun sales are condensed evil.  The NRA et al would be grousy at first but would end up happy (as they could make money from firearms training courses including adaptive firearms training for persons with disabilities--the NRA actually tends to run most of the hunter safety courses nationwide and a goodly chunk of the CCW training courses as well).  People wanting to keep weapons out of the hands of the excessively violent and severely mentally ill (and folks who literally can't see to shoot straight) would be happy.  Derpy history geeks like me would be happy (as we'd actually have a well-regulated unorganised militia for the first time since 1791 :D).  If we can make the training cheap or free with subsidy, even folks worried re the poor and/or folks worried re the constitutionality of charging for a Firearms Safety Training Cert will be happy (though I'd argue anyone who can afford a handgun could afford training courses, and certainly so with long-guns and shotguns).


This is really, really important stuff that doesn't receive the attention it deserves (and won't receive the attention it deserves in this thread).
2013-09-17 06:32:55 PM  
1 vote:

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

It's certainly part of the problem.  Better mental health screening and background checks are perfectly sensible, but good luck getting the slightest bit of that passed with the current political climate.

But truth be told, if he was hell bent on it no law would have stopped him.  There are plenty of channels where guns can be illegally acquired, so let's not forget that end of the equation as well.  That too needs to be addressed, even though it wasn't a factor in this particular incident.

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


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

Gawd Damn, you tards wonder why no one likes you.
2013-09-17 06:31:07 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


Exactly!  If we lock down this nation like a prison, everyone will live in a safe, drug-free, weapon-free, orderly society, just like our prisons.
2013-09-17 06:28:22 PM  
1 vote:
What prescriptions was he on, or formerly on?  That often seems to be a factor in these cases, although I sense that the valiant media doesn't want to antagonize pharma companies by putting knowledge of prescription drug use front and center.
2013-09-17 06:06:01 PM  
1 vote:
I called it.

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


So much for the total farkers that were blaming the right while mods quickly deleting posts showing almost all spree killers to be liberals.
2013-09-17 05:52:34 PM  
1 vote:

NDP2: Obligatory.

[Sigh]


He killed most of his victims with guns he stole from federal employees.
2013-09-17 05:50:33 PM  
1 vote:

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

This fellow didn't seem too well regulated.


He had a secret clearance. Isn't that regulated enough
2013-09-17 05:18:41 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:07:03 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:48:57 PM  
1 vote:
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 04:18:41 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

static4.businessinsider.com
2013-09-17 04:03:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:00:43 PM  
1 vote:

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.
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 04:00:33 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:44:00 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:40:10 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:30:20 PM  
1 vote:

birdmanesq: This incident is a much more compelling example of how stricter regulations could have reduced the possibility of a mass shooting than was Sandy Hook. Here you have a guy with a pretty clear record of gun incidents coupled with mental health problems who purchased one of the guns that he used in the incident legally. Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.

So now the question is whether you think someone who has a clear record of alleged gun incidents and a history of severe mental health problems should be allowed to own a firearm. If the answer to that question is no, well, then it's fairly straightforward to reverse-engineer a regulatory scheme that might prevent that from happening.

Who needed to know what at the point of sale of that shotgun for folks to hit pause on this for a while? Well, clearly a background check needed to show the mental health problems and the alleged gun incidents. Now those things took place across several states, so this needs to be a Federal solution, not a state solution. And the local jurisdictions need to be compelled to report gun-related incidents or other violent crime to the Federal database. The mental health is a little trickier because there needs to be some sort of flag that triggers reporting--but I'm sure that we can work out the details there without too much trouble.

So the first step looks like a more comprehensive and mandatory system of background checks, which compels participation from local authorities and health care providers (easily coerced through public-safety and Medicare dollars).


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

All kidding aside, I support RTC and Private ownership of firearms with fewer restrictions on the type of firearms... But with the caveat that the mentally unsound and those with a history of violent crimes should be prevented from owning a firearm by means of a background check and severe penalties (Hard time, no bail) if they obtain firearms through illegal means.
2013-09-17 03:25:32 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


To most sane people, yes.
2013-09-17 03:18:27 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


Because the cops failed to do their damn job, AGAIN
2013-09-17 03:16:10 PM  
1 vote:
Access to guns by the mentally ill has always been the major problem, and the system is totally broken. I know a guy that lives on welfare due to being unable to work and professionally diagnosed with mental problems, who walked right into a place and bought an AK-47.

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

So, if these people can get guns, damn sure I'm going to match them. I'm probably paranoid from watching to much Investigation Discovery, but I pity the fool that breaks into my house looking to hurt me.
2013-09-17 03:12:24 PM  
1 vote:
Kit Fister:
I agree. As much as I'm a gun guy, I'd like to see more comprehensive reporting of people with dangerous mental illnesses and a higher bar for mental health in general, with the recurrence of compulsory institutionalization if you're really bad.

I agree, and so does my congressman, but he won't do anything about stopping people with mental illnesses from buying guns because the special interest groups will disembowel him.
2013-09-17 03:07:24 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

We should institute a poll tax too!

Well, voting isn't a dispensable good, so no.
2013-09-17 03:06:26 PM  
1 vote:

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


All except maybe one have been on SSRIs. When your 'anti-depressant' has warnings it might cause you to commit suicide, something isn't right.
2013-09-17 03:05:37 PM  
1 vote:
Ya know, an 'official' federal database of gun registrations is a rather moot point if the NSA is capturing all our data.
Just from that meta-data from our ISPs, phones and credit cards -- things we know they can and do collect and aggregate -- you could get a pretty darn good picture of who actually owns and shoots which firearms, where and how often.
2013-09-17 03:03:47 PM  
1 vote:

ahab: Maud Dib: mediablitz: ahab: I haven't seen any reports that he had a criminal record.

Yeah. He had a noise dispute with his downstairs neighbor in Texas and shot through his floor (her roof) while she was home. They could only charge him with unlawful discharge of a firearm.

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

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


I would like to know why the fark he DIDN'T have a criminal record?
So it's OK to go around blasting people's cars according to Seattle po-po.
MMmmmkay. Sorry, occifer, it was an accidental discharge..AGAIN.
2013-09-17 03:02:39 PM  
1 vote:
birdmanesq

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

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


um ok that' makes a load of sense.
2013-09-17 02:59:32 PM  
1 vote:
Shoulda got a shotgun.
31.media.tumblr.com
2013-09-17 02:55:43 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


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

It's akin to you deciding that you no longer wish to have salesmen or Mormans knocking on your door, so you propose a solution of putting a gate across your front sidewalk.  I point out to you that they will just walk on the grass to get around the gate.  You claim this is preposterous because everyone who ever comes to your front door comes on the sidewalk and never walks on the grass.
2013-09-17 02:53:31 PM  
1 vote:

HST's Dead Carcass: PsiChick: HST's Dead Carcass: PsiChick: Maybe we could try educating the public on schizophrenia symptoms and advising them to see mental health professionals\doctors.

Nothing like telling the uneducated masses about symptoms to watch for to explain someone's behavior. I mean, it worked so well for Salem, what could go wrong?

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

/Seriously. No, that does not always happen.

No, not in recent history at all.

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


No, I want to empower people to realize that, if they hear voices, medications and talk therapy can help. And your sex-abuse link had far more to do with outdated techniques and idiot social workers than witchhunts.
2013-09-17 02:50:57 PM  
1 vote:
Unfortunately, the widely promoted idea that guns will solve your problems and will magically protect and empower you, attracts the fearful and confused mentally ill. Loughner's car was full of "modern gun nut" magazines and  Lanza's parent encouraged him to focus on guns. This guy shot his neighbor and a car and went on to kill 13 while solving his problems with guns. You aren't going to be able to completely legislate away access for the mentally ill because no test for mental illness can predict future actions, but not promoting guns continuously as a solution to problems ("second amendment solutions!") would help. I think that the more that guns are promoted by proponents, the more we will have the weak minded fringe elements latching on to them as a solution to their troubles.
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 02:48:51 PM  
1 vote:

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


There are plenty of individuals in this country that haven't ever been convicted of a crime and I would rather see them without firearms.
2013-09-17 02:46:47 PM  
1 vote:

Fissile: Noticeably F.A.T.: Fissile: You splain it, John Galt.

I'll get right on that, right after you 'splain how buying a shotgun and stealing a rifle means he was allowed to buy automatic weapons, and how stealing an ID means he was allowed into the facility.

/I'm assuming you mean 'legally allowed', as in he had permission. If not, never mind, I misread something.

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

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


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

/I have read that the background check for NFA restricted devices is restrictive enough that his prior arrests alone may have been sufficient for the ATF to disqualify him.
//I, however, have not been able to corroborate that claim.
2013-09-17 02:43:33 PM  
1 vote:

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


And now nobody smokes because they're too expensive!  I mean, a pack of cigs is more than a six pack of beer!
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 02:40:55 PM  
1 vote:

mediablitz: I wrote some code a while back for the state. It involved the unemployment department and county jails. If you are arrested, the county jail database notifies unemployment overnight (there is an "availability" issue that arises if you are collecting unemployment and become incarcerated). Account is flagged, person collecting unemployment can't file for benefits until the issue is investigated.

If we as a country agreed to beef up background checks, someone arrested for a violent crime (domestic violence, for example) could have a simiar issue created that prevented that person from temporarily purchasing a weapon (not perfect, I realize, but just throwing out a simple scenario) until investigated. This slows down the "I'm angry, now I'm going to go buy a gun and plan my revenge" killer.

There are many simple measaures we could take as a country to lessen violent crime. None of them have to involve taking everyones guns permanently.


One of my current projects for the hospital is to comply with laws related to state notification for involuntary admission for psych treatment. I wonder if it'd be easy to sidestep such by trying to purchase in another state unless somehow the states agreed on one farking thing about information sharing without it being from (or managed by) the feds. STATES RIGHTS and all, but some things need to go across state lines.
2013-09-17 02:40:26 PM  
1 vote:

PsiChick: HST's Dead Carcass: PsiChick: Maybe we could try educating the public on schizophrenia symptoms and advising them to see mental health professionals\doctors.

Nothing like telling the uneducated masses about symptoms to watch for to explain someone's behavior. I mean, it worked so well for Salem, what could go wrong?

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

/Seriously. No, that does not always happen.


No, not in recent history at all.

All I'm saying is we apply the term 'Professional' to individuals for a reason. Hell, how many people still think Obama is a Muslim? After all the evidence to the contrary they still insist upon this. And you want to empower people to make clinical diagnoses of other people that they may or may not have agendas against?
2013-09-17 02:38:20 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


The bare-bones check for pretty much all Fed workplaces is the "Public Trust" check which basically looks to see if there are any active arrest warrants for murder or bank robbery. He'll, I "know a guy" who had a felony drug conviction and was granted a Secret. The conviction happened about 20 years before his investigation and he disclosed it, but still, it ain't a deal-breaker.
2013-09-17 02:34:51 PM  
1 vote:

Noticeably F.A.T.: Fissile: You splain it, John Galt.

I'll get right on that, right after you 'splain how buying a shotgun and stealing a rifle means he was allowed to buy automatic weapons, and how stealing an ID means he was allowed into the facility.

/I'm assuming you mean 'legally allowed', as in he had permission. If not, never mind, I misread something.


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

Here's the BBC version of the story:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24129442   He had access to the base.  It's known that he stole one of the handguns, so presumably, he possessed the other guns legally.   All the while this was a guy who had a leprechaun on his shoulder who was whispering in his ear, "Burn 'em!  Burn them all!"    Unless you you wanna believe that the BBC is part of Obama's Murican hatin conspiracy, I mean Alex Jones says so.
2013-09-17 02:33:04 PM  
1 vote:

HST's Dead Carcass: PsiChick: Maybe we could try educating the public on schizophrenia symptoms and advising them to see mental health professionals\doctors.

Nothing like telling the uneducated masses about symptoms to watch for to explain someone's behavior. I mean, it worked so well for Salem, what could go wrong?


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

/Seriously. No, that does not always happen.
2013-09-17 02:31:07 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


You said he stole a rifle.  He did no such thing.  As for the clearance/CAC issue, here's a link for you.
2013-09-17 02:29:50 PM  
1 vote:

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


The NRA nutriders would be without their preciouses if this were true.
2013-09-17 02:29:44 PM  
1 vote:

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


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

The clearance item I'm looking up. Sounds like there's an updated article somewhere I missed.
2013-09-17 02:23:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:20:06 PM  
1 vote:
Maybe we could try educating the public on schizophrenia symptoms and advising them to see mental health professionals\doctors.
2013-09-17 02:20:04 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:19:08 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:16:01 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:15:34 PM  
1 vote:

Phinn: the Left's absolutism


NOPE you do NOT get to derail the thread that way.
2013-09-17 02:14:58 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:13:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:11:07 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:09:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:08:33 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:08:21 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:07:51 PM  
1 vote:

birdmanesq: it's fairly straightforward to reverse-engineer a regulatory scheme that might prevent that from happening



The fact that you believe this is the reason why we can't have nice things.

News flash -- people adapt.

Also, to the Fark Socialists who stamp their feet in impotent rage about how the Gun Rights crowd is so unreasonable for refusing to budge on anything, consider the nature of the Left's absolutism when it comes to issues like abortion and/or voter ID laws.
2013-09-17 02:07:34 PM  
1 vote:
Just astonishing.   I know someone who has a permanent job with the Census Bureau.  Her job involves really super high security stuff like asking people about how many bathrooms they have, and what time they go to work in the morning.  She put me down as a reference when she applied for the job.  I was called and interviewed by the Census Bureau, and they sent me a detailed questionnaire to fill out asking about her qualifications.   No weapons of any kind are involved with this type of work.....well, I think she has a pair of sharp scissors in her bag.

Here we have a dude who believes dogs are talking to him, and he's allowed to buy an automatic rifle, AND get secret clearance  with access to military bases.

/Putin laughs at Murica
//Even harder
2013-09-17 02:06:05 PM  
1 vote:

Neighborhood Watch: It's already virtually illegal to own or sell a firearm in DC.  Think of that - the place where the 2nd Amendment is actually enshrined.  And he went in with a shotgun, not an 'assault weapon'.  Nonetheless, Obama is pushing ahead with new "executive actions" today and the usual liberal loudmouths are back on the bandwagon with the bullhorns.

Why is it that when someone does a mass shooting like this, liberals demand that those who didn't do it be disarmed?


Someone shot up a place in a gun free zone using a shotgun, and two handguns he picked up from his victims.  Time to ban the AR-15.
2013-09-17 02:05:01 PM  
1 vote:

MrBallou: As usual, the only two choices being offered are to restrict guns or to lock away anyone deemed to be unstable. Both are slippery slopes to loss of liberty and they wouldn't have prevented this case anyway, let alone prevent the general phenomenon.

How about we try to figure what's made our society so farking crazy that people want to do this sort of thing, and fix it?

//pointless, but I had to say it


Nope, not pointless. Keep sayin it.
2013-09-17 02:04:54 PM  
1 vote:

doglover: I have an imperfect scheme that might just work: gladiatorial combat.

We just make it so totally insane people can quit normal society, join a gladiatorial school, and fight to the death. It would allow us to maintain the status quo while just acting like a vacuum to suck up all the crazy, violent people in our country and reduce their numbers drastically. It would also pay for itself 1000 times over because bloodsports are always popular. In the end, instead of crazy people everywhere ticking like time bombs, we'd see only a few crazy people who were well supervised and with blood lust sated and tempered with hard sports training.


You've got your bread in my circuses!

Seriously, though, some of the old ways are the best ways. Particularly going forward.

1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-09-17 02:00:45 PM  
1 vote:

birdmanesq: This incident is a much more compelling example of how stricter regulations could have reduced the possibility of a mass shooting than was Sandy Hook. Here you have a guy with a pretty clear record of gun incidents coupled with mental health problems who purchased one of the guns that he used in the incident legally. Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.

So now the question is whether you think someone who has a clear record of alleged gun incidents and a history of severe mental health problems should be allowed to own a firearm. If the answer to that question is no, well, then it's fairly straightforward to reverse-engineer a regulatory scheme that might prevent that from happening.

Who needed to know what at the point of sale of that shotgun for folks to hit pause on this for a while? Well, clearly a background check needed to show the mental health problems and the alleged gun incidents. Now those things took place across several states, so this needs to be a Federal solution, not a state solution. And the local jurisdictions need to be compelled to report gun-related incidents or other violent crime to the Federal database. The mental health is a little trickier because there needs to be some sort of flag that triggers reporting--but I'm sure that we can work out the details there without too much trouble.

So the first step looks like a more comprehensive and mandatory system of background checks, which compels participation from local authorities and health care providers (easily coerced through public-safety and Medicare dollars).


There are people that would avoid getting any mental help due to the fact they would lose the ability to own a gun.
2013-09-17 01:58:09 PM  
1 vote:

birdmanesq: HST's Dead Carcass: Hunter Safety Courses are required for hunting licenses, why can't we make some kind of safety course mandatory for owning any kind of firearm?

How about state's requiring militia membership as a co-requisite for gun ownership? Fine, you can own whatever guns you want (provided that they are registered--we need to know what's available when we're mustering the militia) provided you participate in once-annual militia drilling. Which, you know, can focus on gun safety and all that jazz.


Do you think Iowa will let blind people in their militia? Since they feel it is okay for them to buy and carry a weapon
2013-09-17 01:56:13 PM  
1 vote:
Obligatory:

thumbnails.hulu.com

Minister: He was a loner, and a quiet young man. He attended church, and Sunday School. I remember he was always very polite.

Ted Koppel: Do you believe he killed Buckwheat?

Minister: Oh, yes. Definitely. That's all he talked about.

Ted Koppel: John David Stutts graduated from Unionville High School.
Ted Koppel: His classmates called him "the loner."
Ted Koppel: Stutts was a member of the Key Club...
Ted Koppel: The Audio-Visual Squad...
Ted Koppel: And president of the Future Assassins of America.

Ted Koppel: It's no wonder that his classmates chose him, "Most Likely to Kill Buckwheat."

Gas Station Attendant: [in New England accent] Sure, I remember Stutts. He was a loner, but a real hard worker. I mean, he pumped the gas, he checked the oil, he washed the windows. Nice kid.

Ted Koppel: Do you believe he killed Buckwheat?

Man: Oh, yes, definitely. That's all he talked about. I remember one day I says, uh, "Stutts, why are you working so hard?" He says, "'Cause I'm saving up to buy a gun, so I can kill Buckwheat." [shrugs]
2013-09-17 01:52:47 PM  
1 vote:

HotWingConspiracy: Legal gun owner.


fuuka.warosu.org
2013-09-17 01:49:42 PM  
1 vote:

birdmanesq: ahab: doyner: ahab: And I assert that the adjudicator probably looked at the arrest record, saw there were no charges filed and no convictions, decided that two incidents 6 years apart didn't make a pattern, and approved the clearance.

So I guess the third incident yesterday finally makes a pattern, huh?

 And the unit I was in is based in DC, so my neck of the woods was exactly where you are.

Well I guess you just proved my point then.

Well, I think we can both agree that he probably won't be granted a clearance in the future.

Ug. I laughed.


Sometimes, that's all you can do.  Hindsight is 20/20, but two arrests w/o convictions 6 years apart doesn't jump out as OMG THIS GUY HAS SERIOUS ANGER MANAGEMENT ISSUES.
2013-09-17 01:47:34 PM  
1 vote:
As usual, the only two choices being offered are to restrict guns or to lock away anyone deemed to be unstable. Both are slippery slopes to loss of liberty and they wouldn't have prevented this case anyway, let alone prevent the general phenomenon.

How about we try to figure what's made our society so farking crazy that people want to do this sort of thing, and fix it?

//pointless, but I had to say it
2013-09-17 01:43:55 PM  
1 vote:

doyner: ahab: And I assert that the adjudicator probably looked at the arrest record, saw there were no charges filed and no convictions, decided that two incidents 6 years apart didn't make a pattern, and approved the clearance.

So I guess the third incident yesterday finally makes a pattern, huh?

 And the unit I was in is based in DC, so my neck of the woods was exactly where you are.

Well I guess you just proved my point then.


Well, I think we can both agree that he probably won't be granted a clearance in the future.
2013-09-17 01:40:15 PM  
1 vote:

ahab: And I assert that the adjudicator probably looked at the arrest record, saw there were no charges filed and no convictions, decided that two incidents 6 years apart didn't make a pattern, and approved the clearance.


So I guess the third incident yesterday finally makes a pattern, huh?

 And the unit I was in is based in DC, so my neck of the woods was exactly where you are.

Well I guess you just proved my point then.
2013-09-17 01:36:39 PM  
1 vote:

nekom: ahab:
I know infantry Marines who had negligent discharges in Afghanistan.  They got in all sorts of trouble, but they didn't have their weapons taken away from them.  That's a ridiculous overreaction.

Well it's a completely different situation in a warzone.  Seriously, if somebody is so irresponsible that they accidentally discharge a firearm in their own home, do you really want them anywhere near a gun?  We could even allow gun ownership rights to be given back on completion of a gun safety course or some such.

Just a thought.


It'd be pretty easy to argue that if you're as trained in firearm usage as an infantry Marine is, and you still obviously neglect at least two of the 4 fundamental safety rules (weapon not on safe, finger on the trigger) to have a negligent discharge on a routine patrol, that you're much more irresponsible than someone accidentally discharging a firearm in their own home.

doyner: ahab: Oooh, I can use bold text too!

Yes, it appears we have both mastered that functionality.  But clearly you're better than me at arguing in circles.

I'll boil it down to this:  I assert that the clearance process should have caught him beforehand, and it's obviously much easier to get a clearance in your neck of the woods than anywhere I've ever been.


And I assert that the adjudicator probably looked at the arrest record, saw there were no charges filed and no convictions, decided that two incidents 6 years apart didn't make a pattern, and approved the clearance.  And the unit I was in is based in DC, so my neck of the woods was exactly where you are.
2013-09-17 01:34:13 PM  
1 vote:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I've put this forward before:

But I like a drivers license system. Just like Commercial/auto/motorcycle weapon owners would have to test every couple of years pay a small fee to have enforcements on their Weapons License.

Something like hand gun/rifle/shotgun/full auto.

Example: Me. I have a few hand guns and a couple rifles in the house. My wife has no interest in the rifles but has a hand gun of her very own. So in order to be legal I would have to take, pass and pay for both Hand Gun and Rifle enforcements while the wife has to get only Hand Gun. Tickets and Jail time for those operating weapons they are not licensed to use without having a training instructor present.

Use the money raised to support the mental healthcare in this country. Maybe a few trained mental healthcare professionals to visit schools? That would be nice wouldn't it?


I agree with everything you've put forth. Now, convince the rabid 2nd Amendmenters that this is a good idea.

Hunter Safety Courses are required for hunting licenses, why can't we make some kind of safety course mandatory for owning any kind of firearm?
2013-09-17 01:32:59 PM  
1 vote:

mediablitz: ahab: Two arrests, one of which was for a negligent discharge and neither of which led to charges being filed, let alone a conviction.

I thought I read he WAS convicted of negligent discharge. Looked again, and you are correct. Charged, never convicted.

Also:

"There were mental issues that he sought help for from the VA a number of times. He was ... acting normally during work and then having these episodes for which he was trying to get treatment."


"He said he was hearing voices, he was detached from reality at certain points. He had sought treatment a number of times at a number of places and he was also frustrated there. He claimed he wasn't getting his full VA benefits," Miller said.

Sources say he carried out the attack with three weapons -- an assault rifle, pistol, and shotgun, which was recently purchased at a gun store in Lorton, Virginia, CBS News' Bob Orr reports.

The timing of the firearms purchase is "key" according Miller because "it shows when he went through the 'I'm angry' stage to the 'I'm planning' stage" in the days before the attack.

We have no laws that would prevent him from purchasing weapons. Even if he HAD been convicted, he wouldn't have been prevented. No laws.

But it seems there should be something in place for a person seeking treatment for anger issues and detatchment from reality.


I agree with the last part of that completely.  But the first part shows how ridiculous reporting in the first 24 hours is.  There was no "assault rifle" used at all according to the latest reports.  Shotgun and two handguns.
2013-09-17 01:32:30 PM  
1 vote:

ahab: Oooh, I can use bold text too!


Yes, it appears we have both mastered that functionality.  But clearly you're better than me at arguing in circles.

I'll boil it down to this:  I assert that the clearance process should have caught him beforehand, and it's obviously much easier to get a clearance in your neck of the woods than anywhere I've ever been.
2013-09-17 01:32:20 PM  
1 vote:
ahab:
I know infantry Marines who had negligent discharges in Afghanistan.  They got in all sorts of trouble, but they didn't have their weapons taken away from them.  That's a ridiculous overreaction.

Well it's a completely different situation in a warzone.  Seriously, if somebody is so irresponsible that they accidentally discharge a firearm in their own home, do you really want them anywhere near a gun?  We could even allow gun ownership rights to be given back on completion of a gun safety course or some such.

Just a thought.
2013-09-17 01:31:17 PM  
1 vote:

ahab: Two arrests, one of which was for a negligent discharge and neither of which led to charges being filed, let alone a conviction.


I thought I read he WAS convicted of negligent discharge. Looked again, and you are correct. Charged, never convicted.

Also:

"There were mental issues that he sought help for from the VA a number of times. He was ... acting normally during work and then having these episodes for which he was trying to get treatment."


"He said he was hearing voices, he was detached from reality at certain points. He had sought treatment a number of times at a number of places and he was also frustrated there. He claimed he wasn't getting his full VA benefits," Miller said.

Sources say he carried out the attack with three weapons -- an assault rifle, pistol, and shotgun, which was recently purchased at a gun store in Lorton, Virginia, CBS News' Bob Orr reports.

The timing of the firearms purchase is "key" according Miller because "it shows when he went through the 'I'm angry' stage to the 'I'm planning' stage" in the days before the attack.


We have no laws that would prevent him from purchasing weapons. Even if he HAD been convicted, he wouldn't have been prevented. No laws.

But it seems there should be something in place for a person seeking treatment for anger issues and detatchment from reality.
2013-09-17 01:29:58 PM  
1 vote:

nekom: xanadian:
Sure, but that's a case where one problem (being an idiot) would've prevented the shooting due to a second problem (being a nutbar).  It would've been a happy coincidence.

True, but it would act as a bit of a catch-all for people who they can't prove intended to shoot.  Fine, accidental discharge?  Fair enough, but you can't ever have a gun again seeing as how you fail at guns so badly.  Not that I think his story is true, especially in light of what he did yesterday, but they probably didn't have enough evidence to prove he intended to fire the shot.  This would have given them a way to keep guns away from him without needing the burden of proof required for a criminal charge.  There are probably a lot of little thing like that that could help weed out potential crazies.


I know infantry Marines who had negligent discharges in Afghanistan.  They got in all sorts of trouble, but they didn't have their weapons taken away from them.  That's a ridiculous overreaction.
2013-09-17 01:26:41 PM  
1 vote:

birdmanesq: I mean, the reality is that the gun-grabbing registry paranoia doesn't make a whole lot of sense--blanket gun bans face serious political and legal challenges that are not going to be overcome on a whim.


Like warrantless wiretapping, data-mining, the NSA's domestic surveillance program and their interpretation of the Patriot Act, etc.  All you have to do is find a pile of corpses to climb on, then loudly claim to be acting for the children/brave heroes/America, and you're golden.  Hell, confiscation was "on the table" in New York when they deliberated on and drafted the SAFE Act in secret, behind closed doors.

/it's not paranoia if they really can't be trusted
2013-09-17 01:24:19 PM  
1 vote:

nekom: How's this for an idea: Let's assume when he shot through his neighbor's roof he was telling the truth. Cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off. Ok, no charges but guess what, no guns for you. Clearly if you are so stupid that you clean a gun and it goes off, you have no business anywhere near one. That could have potentially stopped this from happening, maybe.


Sure, but that's a case where one problem (being an idiot) would've prevented the shooting due to a second problem (being a nutbar).  It would've been a happy coincidence.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, mind you.  I think if you want a gun, you should know how to properly USE the gun before you hurt yourself or someone else.

/this is coming from a guy who took a hunter's safety course when he was 11.
2013-09-17 01:23:05 PM  
1 vote:

HST's Dead Carcass: I have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.


I've put this forward before:

But I like a drivers license system. Just like Commercial/auto/motorcycle weapon owners would have to test every couple of years pay a small fee to have enforcements on their Weapons License.

Something like hand gun/rifle/shotgun/full auto.

Example: Me. I have a few hand guns and a couple rifles in the house. My wife has no interest in the rifles but has a hand gun of her very own. So in order to be legal I would have to take, pass and pay for both Hand Gun and Rifle enforcements while the wife has to get only Hand Gun. Tickets and Jail time for those operating weapons they are not licensed to use without having a training instructor present.

Use the money raised to support the mental healthcare in this country. Maybe a few trained mental healthcare professionals to visit schools? That would be nice wouldn't it?


Main problem: The left hates the idea of picture ids and fees. For some reason they think this is suppression and unfair to minorities. Right just hates anything that keeps guns behind the glass case.
2013-09-17 01:21:20 PM  
1 vote:

birdmanesq: But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.


1. A gatling gun does not count as fully automatic.
2. Fully automatics already cost money to register, not to mention the exhorbitant cost to own. $250 per gun, plus the cost of the weapon, including federal registration.
2013-09-17 01:20:18 PM  
1 vote:

HST's Dead Carcass: Damn straight! Why do I have to register my car every year? And my boat? And my Hog? And my camper? F those Government assholes prying into my personal life! They're probably taxing me on all those things, too! They have no right to impede my success and collection of personal luxuries!!


You didn't answer my question, and owning a gun is an enumerated right.  Driving your car on public roads isn't.

mediablitz: 2. Who is "they"?


Gun control advocates, via the legislature.
2013-09-17 01:19:50 PM  
1 vote:

dittybopper: OK, so why not a crossbow? Or perhaps a compound bow? Or perhaps a 3D printed handgun? Or perhaps a zip gun made from parts he bought at Lowes or Home Depot. Heck, if you want to make an improvised 12 gauge shotgun, the information is out there, and if your goal is to kill a guard and get his gun, it will work just dandy for that.


True story:

In high school some kid thought I'd be an easy target to pick on. I knocked him out with one punch in front of everyone. I'll admit it was a lucky shot and a few weeks later tried to come at me again and I whooped him fiercely that time (couldn't get the knock out punch again, soM I kept beating him). He swore he would get me back, but never did.

I found out after high school he shot his dad in the chest TWICE with a crossbow. His dad had been molesting him his whole life and he was acting out at school and all sorts of other issues (including his fights with me). He went to prison for life.

When I watched Billy Madison, I was probably the ONLY person in the theater that didn't laugh when Adam Sandler called Steve Buschemi. That hit a little close to home for me.
2013-09-17 01:18:35 PM  
1 vote:

HST's Dead Carcass: How has this changed your opinion?

I am not trolling, I am truly honestly wondering if your opinion of Guns has changed at all regarding this since it was more personal to you than the rest of us.


It hasn't changed my opinion on guns or mental health.  It did, however, reinforce my views on the DoD contractor culture.
2013-09-17 01:17:42 PM  
1 vote:

doyner: ahab: Let's not nitpick and say he was arrested twice.  If no charges were filed and/or he wasn't convicted, I still fail to see how that matters.

Because you don't have to be convicted to be denied clearance for it.

Seriously, dude, WTF?


I'm just saying...I know plenty of people with secret clearances.  My entire unit had to get them before we deployed.  An arrest record doesn't disqualify you from getting a secret clearance.  It probably adds a little time onto the adjudication process, but it's not an automatic disqualification.  And when that arrest doesn't lead to a conviction, it's probably a wash at adjudication.
2013-09-17 01:16:59 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: HST's Dead Carcass: have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.

An enumerated right should not have a fee associated with it.  MI has a mandatory registration on all handguns. It has not yet once been used to grab guns. I'm OK with a registration because, well, frankly, if the government wants to know what guns I have, they can find out in other ways anyway, and having a registration improves my chances that I'll get my shiat back if they ever get stolen.


I don't know that licensing and registration needs to be associated with a fee. Though, certainly, it makes it more financially self-sustaining if it was.

But how about a graduated fee structure? You know, your over-under shotgun is free (or a small fee), but your fully-automatic gatling gun costs, oh, dunno, $10,000 a year to register.
2013-09-17 01:15:10 PM  
1 vote:

HST's Dead Carcass: dittybopper: One problem: He exploited the Castle Wolfenstein Loophole (ie., he appears to have taken guns off of the guards he killed). What would have stopped him from, say, killing a guard manually with a knife or bludgeon of some sort and then taking the gun and killing others?

Ah, yes, the whole: "If he wanted to kill someone, he coulda used a knife" theory. Well, a knife is a up close and personal weapon that needs much more effort and skill to use properly than a gun with it's point and kill method of use. Proximity being a big part of the ease of gathering new weapons. If the guards have guns and he has a knife, well, what's that old saying about how he's coming to the fight?

But, yes, perfectly logical argument that's not obfuscating or propping up straw men to make a point.

/keep on farking that chicken!


OK, so why not a crossbow?  Or perhaps a compound bow?  Or perhaps a 3D printed handgun?  Or perhaps a zip gun made from parts he bought at Lowes or Home Depot.  Heck, if you want to make an improvised 12 gauge shotgun, the information is out there, and if your goal is to kill a guard and get his gun, it will work just dandy for that.

All of those things can be acquired even if you are felon, and all are lethal.  And he had the element of surprise.

Now, try to tell me where I am wrong.
2013-09-17 01:12:59 PM  
1 vote:

HST's Dead Carcass: The Stealth Hippopotamus: What about those that will not seek help simple because they want to keep their guns? And who will be the ones that will say when or if someone can get their rights restored once they get diagnosed?

Tin Foil Hat time: wouldn't be simple to use that as a gun grab? 1 in 10 people are are on antidepressants right now and climbing. That's one tenth of the population that would have to turn over their guns right now. And that's just for antidepressants. Fun times will happen when we add paranoia to the list of reasons to remove the guns! All those preppers would really go off.

I have more than a few gun nut friends. They are all adamant about not having Gun Registrations. They have a myriad of reasons (The Guvernment shouldn't know how many guns I have) and the like, but the truth is: They'd have to pay a registration fee every year, and if that were the case, some of them would be bankrupt immediately.


I'm sorry, but why is it unreasonable to not want to pay a fee to the government for permission to exercise your constitutional rights?  What happens when when they establish a registry, and then decide on a blanket ban of all semi-automatic weapons?
2013-09-17 01:12:49 PM  
1 vote:
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 01:11:59 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:11:33 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:10:31 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:07:50 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:04:47 PM  
1 vote:

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.
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 12:59:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:59:42 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:53:59 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:51:52 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:51:16 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:50:57 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:45:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:39:45 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:36:30 PM  
1 vote:

ahab: mediablitz: Kit Fister: doyner: Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health. If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.

This.

He was a sub contractor. I doubt a secret clearance was run. I do wonder though.

I do some work for the State, but it is in a Federal building here. I had to complete the full background check, finger printing, surveys sent to friends hoop jumping just to be able to go into the building a couple days a month.

I would *think* the same would be needed for a military installation with civilian employees.

I think I took for granted back in my military days that they had gone back and talked to my classmates/teachers etc. when I got my sonar shack level clear as sonar supervisor. Because it took next to nothing to get on base. An ID and nothing else. No car inspection, no metal detectors etc.

I'm betting rules are being re-written TODAY.

You don't need a secret clearance to get on base at the Navy Yard.  He had one as part of his job, according to his employer.   Link


Jesus. He was in trouble while he was a reservist, had a record, and still got a secret clearance?!?!? I knew you didn't need a secret clearance to get on base, but holy shiat. He DID get one.

Quality work, background checkers...
2013-09-17 12:33:11 PM  
1 vote:
birdmanesq:
I think that's a legitimate question, right? In two parts: (1) Do you think that guy should have been able to purchase a gun? (2) If not, how can we back into some sort of regulatory scheme that would have made it harder (or impossible) for him?

Well, again in hindsight it's obvious that he shouldn't have had a gun.  Were the warning signs enough that some new system could have marked him down as "batshiat crazy, no gun for him"?  That's the tough part, because it's insanely complicated and involves a lot of arbitrary lines.  What if you had an episode of depression and checked yourself in to a mental hospital?  What if you went to drug or alcohol rehab?  Saw a therapist?  Made a sad :( on a twitter post?  What exactly constitutes crossing the line?

And a third point, if he had not been able to legally acquire those guns, could he have easily illegally acquired them?  That's also a concern, because if you're hell bent on getting a gun in this country without the government knowing about it, it's not terribly difficult to do so.
2013-09-17 12:32:50 PM  
1 vote:

mediablitz: Kit Fister: doyner: Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health. If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.

This.

He was a sub contractor. I doubt a secret clearance was run. I do wonder though.

I do some work for the State, but it is in a Federal building here. I had to complete the full background check, finger printing, surveys sent to friends hoop jumping just to be able to go into the building a couple days a month.

I would *think* the same would be needed for a military installation with civilian employees.

I think I took for granted back in my military days that they had gone back and talked to my classmates/teachers etc. when I got my sonar shack level clear as sonar supervisor. Because it took next to nothing to get on base. An ID and nothing else. No car inspection, no metal detectors etc.

I'm betting rules are being re-written TODAY.


You don't need a secret clearance to get on base at the Navy Yard.  He had one as part of his job, according to his employer.   Link
2013-09-17 12:31:06 PM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: doyner: Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health. If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.

This.


He was a sub contractor. I doubt a secret clearance was run. I do wonder though.

I do some work for the State, but it is in a Federal building here. I had to complete the full background check, finger printing, surveys sent to friends hoop jumping just to be able to go into the building a couple days a month.

I would *think* the same would be needed for a military installation with civilian employees.

I think I took for granted back in my military days that they had gone back and talked to my classmates/teachers etc. when I got my sonar shack level clear as sonar supervisor. Because it took next to nothing to get on base. An ID and nothing else. No car inspection, no metal detectors etc.

I'm betting rules are being re-written TODAY.
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 12:30:24 PM  
1 vote:

doyner: nekom: Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care back

Of course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health care

And they'd be right.  Not that they sincerely want to do anything about it, but it really is a pretty obvious problem here.  I realize hindsight is 20/20, but this guy was a giant walking red flag.  How do we keep guns out of the hands of such people?  Hell if I know, but it should definitely be a major goal of any gun reform.

Above all, we must lower taxes, obviously.


Anything that includes any sort of new regulation, no matter the details, will be decried by a significant portion of the federal, state, and local legislators. The only acceptable change is deregulation. Because freedom.
2013-09-17 12:27:25 PM  
1 vote:

Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care back

Of course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health care


Well, fark republicans. Also, fark people who took a universal background check bill and arsed it by adding provisions that do nothing but throw up as many roadblocks as they could get in there.

You want universal background checks? Fine. Make NICS available to the public and stiff penalties on failure to run a check and retain paperwork, or make it a requirement (with funding) that local police provide the background check for free.  Don't pass a bill that requires an FFL to do the NICS check without actually requiring FFLs to do the check, or limited the cost that FFLs charge for doing said check.

Local FFLs will do the check -- if you awnt to pay them $150 to do it. Also, some flat out refuse to do it at all because it takes away from their business.

That bill deserved to die.
2013-09-17 12:23:35 PM  
1 vote:

mediablitz: Then why are you constantly on Fark, complaining about "gun grabbers"?

And my apologies if I have you confused with someone else. I don't generally label people. Just seems like you spent a lot of time pooh poohing gun control laws in the last thread I submitted that went green.


Because it gets frustrating that we keep having the same goddamn arguments bade by the same goddamn people that boil down to "fark mental health, restrict rights" and it gets really stupid.  Anyone who wants to actually DISCUSS the problem and work together to come up with meaningful solutions like we're doing here get drowned out by people who shall remain nameless who just throw out snark and assholish trolling on the topic that turns the threads into a major clusterfark.
2013-09-17 12:22:48 PM  
1 vote:
Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care back

Of course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health care
2013-09-17 12:09:17 PM  
1 vote:

DjangoStonereaver: I agree with you, but to the defenders of the Holy Constitutiontm, the only amendments that matter are the 2nd and the 10th.


Anybody who seriously thinks that the Tenth Amendment is constitutionally relevant hasn't been paying attention to the last 200 years of constitutional history.
2013-09-17 12:01:10 PM  
1 vote:

doyner: ahab: doyner: ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."

That's a valid fear, and a difficult one to get around.  There is a different problem, however, in this case: HOW HE WAS EMPLOYED THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I have background investigations on me and will get booted the moment I fart near a cop.  This guy gets all shooty when he's annoyed and yet is allowed to access most NAVSEA spaces in his job.

Well, let's see.  He had no felony convictions.  He had a secret clearance, so a background check was indeed done (although it's not a super rigorous one for Secret).  He had served in the military and had an honorable discharge.  Why should he not have worked there?

Getting a secret clearance requires a check of arrest history and mental health.  If he was granted one with this history then I think we've found the primary failure in the system for this case.


Even *I* have a secret clearance.
2013-09-17 11:52:09 AM  
1 vote:

doyner: ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."

That's a valid fear, and a difficult one to get around.  There is a different problem, however, in this case: HOW HE WAS EMPLOYED THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I have background investigations on me and will get booted the moment I fart near a cop.  This guy gets all shooty when he's annoyed and yet is allowed to access most NAVSEA spaces in his job.


Well, let's see.  He had no felony convictions.  He had a secret clearance, so a background check was indeed done (although it's not a super rigorous one for Secret).  He had served in the military and had an honorable discharge.  Why should he not have worked there?
2013-09-17 11:49:01 AM  
1 vote:

ahab: I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."


That's a valid fear, and a difficult one to get around.  There is a different problem, however, in this case: HOW HE WAS EMPLOYED THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

I have background investigations on me and will get booted the moment I fart near a cop.  This guy gets all shooty when he's annoyed and yet is allowed to access most NAVSEA spaces in his job.
2013-09-17 11:41:02 AM  
1 vote:

birdmanesq: ahab: birdmanesq:  Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.

The bold part bothers me, kind of a lot.  If neither incident was ruled to be criminal, then why should they show up on any background check and what would they say?  "Accused of gun negligence, no charges filed"?

I don't like the idea of hard and fast lines in these things (which, again, leads to concerns about discretion), but it seems to me that an incident-based reporting system could give folks some sort of idea about behavior patterns that might be a concern (especially where, in this case, they are coupled with mental health issues). As another example, you could imagine somebody with lots of arrests for domestic battery, but no charges or convictions.

It seems to me like those kinds of patterns are sensible to flag for further inquiry.

Is that going to inconvenience some innocent folks? Sure. Is it prone to abuse? Possibly, though I think that any sort of rejection of a background check should come hand in hand with the ability to appeal that rejection to a judge.


I just see anti-gun nuts saying, "Hey, all we have to do is accuse this list of gun nuts of gun incidents.  Doesn't need to be any proof or evidence, and they don't even need to be charged!  Once we accuse them, it goes on their record and makes it harder for them to buy guns."
2013-09-17 11:37:26 AM  
1 vote:
Kit Fister:

I've been trying to push such "reasonable methods" and have written my congress critters about it.
The problem is, you are fighting a couple of things:
1. Gun owners who are afraid that anti-gun people will use these methods as a means of indiscriminately getting people declared unfit to own guns just to push a defacto ban.
2. The obvious fear that gun owners who need treatment who know that seeking treatment can lead to loss of rights simply avoiding treatment
3. The problem of HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality that would make a database of patient information next to impossible to implement.

However, there are ways around it, such as having a certified board of people that need to sign off on a patient's unfitness and certify to a judge that the patient is indeed unfit in order to have them adjudicated unfit legally that requires unanimous decision, with the proviso that the patient be regularly rescreened and that the ban only last for a certain period of time (5 years?) before the state has to have his case reviewed otherwise his record is automatically expunged.
Also, by requiring that a patient exhibiting certain disqualifying symptoms be reported to a state health board, for example, who then reviews an dinterviews the patient, comes to a conclusion, and then files with the court to have him declared unfit and undergoing treatment, you get around the HIPAA thing such that you then only have those who are found unfit, or who have a temporary order entered into the system preventing them from owning firearms, etc., without needing to expose all patients.


I happen to agree with you 100% that rather than more gun laws we need mental health screening, but
if anyone ever proposes that, the gun nuts will scream that back in SOCIALIST SOVIET ROOSHA, they
used to label political dissidents as 'mentally ill'.

The Alexis case proves the screaming need for a central, federal registry of people who should never be
allowed to own firearms, but there is no way in hell the 'Second Amendment as a check against tyrrany"
LARP brigade and their political lapdogs will ever let that happen because, you know, state's rights.
2013-09-17 11:24:09 AM  
1 vote:

mediablitz: Kit Fister: No, his legal access to guns IS the problem, coupled with lack of reporting of dangerous behavior and poor treatment of said individuals.

I completely agree that we need to find a way to not give certified crazy people access to dangerous objects, with the proviso that there have to be checks and balances, means of contesting findings and diagnosis, and means of restoring rights.

Maybe, just MAYBE, instead of you going into gun threads and complaining about "gun grabbers", you could put some effort towards helping get reasonable legislation passed. The vocal 10% manages to prevent ANY legislation making it to discussion level.

There are many of us (gun owners) that agree legislation is needed. I've spoken out. I've gone to the Montana legislature. MORE NEED TO DO THE SAME.


You mean like my repeated calls and letters to my congress critters, starting petitions, and actively working in my local gun stores as an employee to ensure that I'm at least getting people involved in basic safety courses and the like?
2013-09-17 11:18:05 AM  
1 vote:

Kit Fister: 1. Gun owners who are afraid that anti-gun people will use these methods as a means of indiscriminately getting people declared unfit to own guns just to push a defacto ban.
2. The obvious fear that gun owners who need treatment who know that seeking treatment can lead to loss of rights simply avoiding treatment
3. The problem of HIPAA regulations and patient confidentiality that would make a database of patient information next to impossible to implement.


I'd add a 1.5 there: Gun owners who are afraid that any sort of regulatory scheme is designed to simply act as a prelude to gun-confiscation efforts.

And, truthfully, there's not a whole lot that can be done about (1) or (1.5). I'm not sure that the government has earned the trust of folks in this area, and there is a whole lot of political momentum that suggests that the government shouldn't be trusted. I'd like to think that narrow drafting would be able to solve the problem, but no matter what we'll just have Sarah Palin and Mark Levin braying about Death Panels for firearm owners...

I don't see 3 as a problem. There could certainly be an exception to certain kinds of medical privacy carved out to allow these kinds of disclosures. Statutes are written. They can be modified. (Though, that brings you right back to the trust of government.)

Number 2 is the real kicker.
2013-09-17 10:56:09 AM  
1 vote:

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


It's certainly part of the problem.  Better mental health screening and background checks are perfectly sensible, but good luck getting the slightest bit of that passed with the current political climate.

But truth be told, if he was hell bent on it no law would have stopped him.  There are plenty of channels where guns can be illegally acquired, so let's not forget that end of the equation as well.  That too needs to be addressed, even though it wasn't a factor in this particular incident.
2013-09-17 10:53:56 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Displayed 136 of 136 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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