Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

[Mick]

Are you asking me to take these tests?

No just maybe an evaluation before you purchase your first gun and reported to the BGC system. Something that may catch some before it goes to the legal system.

 

[Grand Vol]

Broadly speaking, my proposal would be as follows:

1) When any school counselor, principal, teacher, or other officer of local government determines that in his or her view a student, former student, or person associated with them represents a threat, based on words or actions, then that official may report that person to the FBI.

2) The FBI shall place that person on a list whereby they cannot purchase a firearm or ammunition until removed from the list.

3) The person gets notice they are on the list and how to clear from it in a process that lasts no longer than 90 days.

4) If a person is denied removal, they can reapply to be off the list within 6 months and can renew each 6 months until off the list.

5) Upon listing a person as above, the FBI shall check all databases to see if the person listed has purchased any guns. If so, the FBI sends someone to interview them within 7 days. If the person is deemed a threat by the interviewer and still possesses a firearm, the FBI can seize the firearm and house it and step 3 is applied, i..e they can apply to be off the lit and get it back within 90 days.

6) All persons involved in this process are immune from suit unless they act in bad faith or with malice toward the person on the list.



Something like this balances the person's right to have a firearm against the situation in which there is a relatively acute concern that the person is a threat. Worst case scenario, someone wrongfully on the list or with a gun seized has a mechanism to get it back within 90 days. The other thing it does is identify risks and gets them "in the system." There is value to that, as well, because it makes upticks in any threat level more apparent as they are on the radar, so to speak.

Did you write this up or copy/paste it from somewhere?

 

[Mick]

Psychologists are NOT medical professionals.

I think of psychology as a copout degree, like the kid who got a gimme degree so that he’d be written in on his dad’s will and be given stake in the family business. Same goes for PhDs, only they sit in a comfortable chair and use the Dr. Phil approach.

No one needs a definition thrown at them, they need professional, medical intervention.

Psychiatrist are and require a medical school degree.

 

[hog88]

I do think there is something to be said about this. More and more you have people interacting in society that before would be receiving psychiatric help, possibly in a facility. And in order to do so they must take these drugs to alter their mind. So what happens when they stop taking them, or these lose their efficacy? It’s like walking a tiger in a park, but it’s ok because he has a muzzle. What happens when the muzzle falls off?

I don't even think it's that. I think it boils down to more and more people, especially younger people cannot deal with life's disappointments. They were never forced to face failure or consequences. It's easier for them to blame their problems on a mental problem and doctors are way to eager to write prescriptions.

In short I believe most people on anti-depressants and similar drugs are not mentally ill they are just looking for an excuse.

 

[Grand Vol]

No just maybe an evaluation before you purchase your first gun and reported to the BGC system. Something that may catch some before it goes to the legal system.

Lol

 

[luthervol]

You keep falling back on this argument...

That's not by accident. It's a critical component of the debate that should be taking place.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Are cars designed to kill people? What % or peoplr who die in car accidents arent wearing their seatbelts? Cars have safety features toprevent loss of life. Guns have 1 feature - kill.

Guns also act as a deterrent just as nuclear weapons do, and actually prevent loss of life, violent crime, and crime in general. Desperate people have no respect for authority, their neighbors, family members, churches, or anything else. The fact that armed police, security, and citizens are present prevents massive amounts of crime. Even desperate people such as addicts in withdrawal, the hungry, drunk or high, they all respect 1 thing...the imminent threat of a gun in the hands of a cop or law abiding citizen.

 

[hog88]

Broadly speaking, my proposal would be as follows:

1) When any school counselor, principal, teacher, or other officer of local government determines that in his or her view a student, former student, or person associated with them represents a threat, based on words or actions, then that official may report that person to the FBI.

2) The FBI shall place that person on a list whereby they cannot purchase a firearm or ammunition until removed from the list.

3) The person gets notice they are on the list and how to clear from it in a process that lasts no longer than 90 days.

4) If a person is denied removal, they can reapply to be off the list within 6 months and can renew each 6 months until off the list.

5) Upon listing a person as above, the FBI shall check all databases to see if the person listed has purchased any guns. If so, the FBI sends someone to interview them within 7 days. If the person is deemed a threat by the interviewer and still possesses a firearm, the FBI can seize the firearm and house it and step 3 is applied, i..e they can apply to be off the lit and get it back within 90 days.

6) All persons involved in this process are immune from suit unless they act in bad faith or with malice toward the person on the list.



Something like this balances the person's right to have a firearm against the situation in which there is a relatively acute concern that the person is a threat. Worst case scenario, someone wrongfully on the list or with a gun seized has a mechanism to get it back within 90 days. The other thing it does is identify risks and gets them "in the system." There is value to that, as well, because it makes upticks in any threat level more apparent as they are on the radar, so to speak.

Not bad, shows some promise. I think those proposals could be workable with some more details and oversight.

 

[Squints]

Psychiatrist are and require a medical school degree.

Did I say psychiatrist, or did I say psychologist?

You posted something from a psychology journal, whereby I gave you my take on psychology.

I don’t need schooling on who does/can and who doesn’t/can’t practice medicine. Just offering an important distinction that many don’t understand, and maybe even you.

 

[lawgator1]

Did you write this up or copy/paste it from somewhere?

I wrote it up, why?

 

[luthervol]

So just how should I properly dispose of it? I had intended to use it at an Eminem concert.

But you also used the word 'either'. I take that to mean you are not opposed to calling a 9mm a weapon of mass destruction.

But, seriously you idiot, what law abiding citizen wants to have sarin gas in his garage?

Many would same the same of assault weapons.

But the right wing nut answer to your question would be "It doesn't matter, what right do you have to say what I can have?"

 

[Mick]

Lol

Did you get your results and found out that you and hog have the same diagnosis.

I thought you were discussing this seriously. It's not a laughing matter. Doing nothing is fine for you right?

 

[Grand Vol]

Did you get your results and found out that you and hog have the same diagnosis.

I thought you were discussing this seriously. It's not a laughing matter. Doing nothing is fine for you right?

I took them. Scored perfectly fine.

 

[hog88]

I took them. Scored perfectly fine.

Denial, first sign of being crazy.

 

[Mick]

Did I say psychiatrist, or did I say psychologist?

You posted something from a psychology journal, whereby I gave you my take on psychology.

I don’t need schooling on who and who doesn’t/can’t practice medicine. Just offering an important distinction that many don’t understand, and maybe even you.

You would be a fool to listen to a psychologist. I bet your are the type to self diagnose.

 

[1972 Grad]

I don't even think it's that. I think it boils down to more and more people, especially younger people cannot deal with life's disappointments. They were never forced to face failure or consequences. It's easier for them to blame their problems on a mental problem and doctors are way to eager to write prescriptions.

In short I believe most people on anti-depressants and similar drugs are not mentally ill they are just looking for an excuse.

I agree .

 

[hog88]

I agree .

I find it interesting than none of our resident liberals will even discuss the subject.

 

[lawgator1]

Not bad, shows some promise. I think those proposals could be workable with some more details and oversight.

Well, the details would be like how he gets off the list, i.e. does he satisfy an FBI psychiatrist he's ok or does he hire his own and submit a report, stuff like that.

But the basic premise is, create a mechanism to identify students at risk or creating risk, and stop them from buying guns and get guns out of their hands until it is determined there is no threat. Make it easier and more acceptable for officials to not just kick the can down the road. Plus reasonably quick means to get off the list.

 

[lawgator1]

I find it interesting than none of our resident liberals will even discuss the subject.

I am indirectly discussing it by suggesting that if someone pops up as a risk, get them separated from any guns until it can be figured out, and within 90 days.

 

[T-TownVol]

114 called me an idiot because I pointed this out.

I caught him making shat up yesterday........

 

[hog88]

Well, the details would be like how he gets off the list, i.e. does he satisfy an FBI psychiatrist he's ok or does he hire his own and submit a report, stuff like that.

But the basic premise is, create a mechanism to identify students at risk or creating risk, and stop them from buying guns and get guns out of their hands until it is determined there is no threat. Make it easier and more acceptable for officials to not just kick the can down the road. Plus reasonably quick means to get off the list.

I would think any certified psychiatrist should work. I'd include in your proposal that a prescription for any anti-depressant or psychotropic drug be an immediate flag also. Even if prescribed to a minor, it doesn't get hidden just because they turn 18.

 

[Squints]

You would be a fool to listen to a psychologist. I bet your are the type to self diagnose.

Do you even realize what the hell you’re saying? That’s been my point this whole time!

Are you looter 2.0?

Follow me now, you’re the one who posted an article from a psychology journal, I then gave you my take on psychology as a “profession.” What are you missing? Seems you’re the one using the article to bolster your point, only to end up backpedaling and deflecting.

 

[Mick]

I am indirectly discussing it by suggesting that if someone pops up as a risk, get them separated from any guns until it can be figured out, and within 90 days.

I would think any certified psychiatrist should work. I'd include in your proposal that a prescription for any anti-depressant or psychotropic drug be an immediate flag also. Even if prescribed to a minor, it doesn't get hidden just because they turn 18.

You're making progress.

 

[TheDeeble]

I am indirectly discussing it by suggesting that if someone pops up as a risk, get them separated from any guns until it can be figured out, and within 90 days.

Any teacher, counselor, govt official is too broad. They just say the word and that person instantly loses their rights?

What are the parameters that qualify someone as a threat? What's preventing someone that dislikes hunting from just singling out students/parents they know are duck/deer hunters?

This suggested course of action has abuse written all over it.

 

[Grand Vol]

I wrote it up, why?

Just seems a little flowery for something spur of the moment. A lot of lawyer-ese in that one.

1) When any school counselor, principal, teacher, or other officer of local government determines that in his or her view a student, former student, or person associated with them represents a threat, based on words or actions, then that official may report that person to the FBI.

The problem here is reliance on the federal level when the local or state might be better suited to investigating such matters. Provided there's a criteria across the board.

2) The FBI shall place that person on a list whereby they cannot purchase a firearm or ammunition until removed from the list.

Without due process?

3) The person gets notice they are on the list and how to clear from it in a process that lasts no longer than 90 days.

Maybe. However, what formal "notice" is taken?

4) If a person is denied removal, they can reapply to be off the list within 6 months and can renew each 6 months until off the list.

Again, without due process? This is a judicial matter rather than a legislative or executive one.

5) Upon listing a person as above, the FBI shall check all databases to see if the person listed has purchased any guns. If so, the FBI sends someone to interview them within 7 days. If the person is deemed a threat by the interviewer and still possesses a firearm, the FBI can seize the firearm and house it and step 3 is applied, i..e they can apply to be off the lit and get it back within 90 days.

I'll just substitute "FBI" for "law enforcement" to stop beating the dead horse the FBI is ill equipped to deal with the volume of calls that likely can/will be made.

But you're reaching here. The FBI are not clinical psychologists nor are they trained to determine if someone is a "threat." Nor are local/state LEOs. This has to be a court ordered psychological evaluation with proper evidence presented, not done by fiat.

Plus, we don't have a national database.

6) All persons involved in this process are immune from suit unless they act in bad faith or with malice toward the person on the list.

Okay, except there are a lot of holes in your theory here.

You specifically mentioned students. Let's say they are high school students. Do you take away the parent's firearms (if they own them) again, without due process and based on the actions of their children? How can you justify seizing property without due process based on the assumption it might be used in a crime? And before you get into legal precedent of the 4th Amendment drug money/property seizures, that to me is the most blatant violation of the US Constitution that's ever been upheld by the SCOTUS.