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

[Grand Vol]

Denial, first sign of being crazy.

I'm sane. Everyone else is nucking futs though.

 

[hog88]

You're making progress.

I agree this is tremendous progress for LG.

 

[hog88]

I'm sane. Everyone else is nucking futs though.

The voices used to say the same thing to me.

 

[Mick]

I agree this is tremendous progress for LG.

Getting on the same page and being able to verbalize it is progress.

 

[zeppelin128]

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

Most of us have mentioned mental health reform. The system is woefully lacking and folks fall through the cracks. We have jails and police officers having to act as mental health providers when they do not have the proper training to do so. And I don't mean medicating the hell out of everyone. There is an over abundance of that now. Good access to mental health services with actual therapy.

I read an article a long time ago that the spikes in crime rates of the 60s-80s coincides with the nationwide de-funding and mass closures of mental institutions. That is something else that can be addressed on a national level.

 

[Squints]

I posted links to tools not articles you tool. The links are similar to the ones psychiatrist use in evaluations. Did you even read past the link? By your response you didn't. Grow up.

You’re right, I don’t read any external links you post. Apparently, you didn’t read my posts, whether they had anything to do with the link or not.

I saw “Psychology” in the headline and aptly gave a condensed opinion. So, how you took a clear, distinct thought, then flipped it and reversed it, needs addressing.

Maybe you’re in need of professional, medical intervention...?

 

[Mick]

You’re right, I don’t read any external links you post. Apparently, you didn’t read my posts, whether they had anything to do with the link or not.

I saw “Psychology” in the headline and aptly gave a condensed opinion. So, how you took a clear, distinct thought, then flipped it and reversed it, needs addressing.

Maybe you’re in need of professional, medical intervention...?

You responded to my post with a false assumption because you didn't read it. That is your problem.

 

[Squints]

You responded to my post with a false assumption because you didn't read it. That is your problem.

No, it’s not. You argued for argument’s sake, only to prove your d-baggery and inability to understand message board opinion/conversation.

Congrats!

 

[lawgator1]

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

Its the kind of language I deal with every day, that's probably why.

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.

I'm okay with state and locals doing it. I just think the FBI is better suited to at least maintain the list and check for prior gun purchases. That is especially so where the location is on the border with another state.

If you want to have local officials make the determinations to get off the list, that makes sense to me.

Without due process?

In terms of initially being placed on the list, there are all sorts of situations where people can be temporarily detained or placed in custody when deemed a threat to themselves or others.

This is far less intrusive. The only thing it does it keep them from buying or keeping a gun when the red flag is raised. From there, a max 90 day process to get off the list and/or have guns returned, which can be renewed, is probably going to hold up to court scrutiny.

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

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

I think those are addressed above.

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.



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

The issue of guns possessed by their parents is an interesting one. I suppose if the parent can demonstrate that the child has absolutely no access to the firearm, ok. If he does, that's a problem.

There are plenty of occasions in which property is temporarily seized. Its all about balancing the hardship that creates versus the risk avoided.

In my view, if a school official gets to the point where they think a student needs to be reported such that they cannot have a firearm, then that risk is likely to be real, even if it never comes to pass. They are in the best position to see whether Johnny is having a bad week because he got turned down for prom, versus whether Johnny is withdrawn and seems oblivious to causing pain.

So balancing that risk against a short term deprivation of a firearm seems worth it to me, big picture. Plus, as I say, worst case scenario is 90 days absent a reason to keep it in place for a specific person.

 

[n_huffhines]

.

 

[Mick]

No, it’s not. You argued for argument’s sake, only to prove your d-baggery and inability to understand message board opinion/conversation.

Congrats!

Your results came back. You suffer from Peniscranium.

 

[Grand Vol]

I read an article a long time ago that the spikes in crime rates of the 60s-80s coincides with the nationwide de-funding and mass closures of mental institutions. That is something else that can be addressed on a national level.

Well...that also coincides with the demand for acceptance of mental health issues that 20-30 years ago were deemed as problematic.

Transgender for example. Sorry, science tells us you either have an XY or an XX set of chromosomes. You think you're something else? (obvious exceptions for hermaphrodites) Sorry, that's a mental health issue. There are two proven genders in science and any argument against that is false at the base levels. But we are being led to believe such things are not only ordinary, they are healthy.

WTF?

No, if you can pee and write your name in the snow without major twerking, you are a dude. Zero room for error here.

But regardless, mental health science has decided certain things that should stand out as red flags can and should be tolerated in society as a whole. Demand it practically. That medications and brief sessions of counseling can overcome the mental deficiencies inherent in people who may be a threat to themselves or others. Can't buy it.

Disclaimer: I am not saying transgender people are a threat, just an example of the way the mental health field has changed in the last 20-30 years.

Anyway, thoughts on that line.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I could suggest that the sale of semi automatic weapons and rifle to Caucasians in southern states be band. But we know that would cause a revolution in less than 24 hours...

I do think some things can be done. First, is to acknowledge the source of the problem. Second, is to require that these weapons be kept in a controlled environment such as a secured weapons storage facility. Anyone wanting to check out a weapon would have to submit a request 3 days in advance along with were they were going to use the weapon and for what purpose.
Ex: hunting deer in authorized zone 2, etc or at rifle range xyz, etc. This does not take guns away, it just limits impulsive use. These are not great guns for home protection so that argument is BS.

That's just a couple thoughts.

1) The gun is not the source of the problem. I fail to see how it is.
2) What do you include in "these weapons"?
3) The AR is quite possibly one of the best home defense weapons there is. The .223 can be loaded in a sub-sonic hollow point and the rifle fitted with scopes and lighting. Maximum fire power with a low velocity round that looses punch rapidly so that it doesn't go through outer walls or floors of the home.

You are an ignorant troll. Please stop posting in this thread as it is serious issue.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

No, it’s not. You argued for argument’s sake, only to prove your d-baggery and inability to understand message board opinion/conversation.

Congrats!

I would not be calling people out for being douche bags, if I were you. Glass houses and all.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I went to a one room school, remember getting indoor plumbing and remember getting electricity. Yea I'm 70... and lived in a rural ranching community as a kid.

But you hail from Oregon which when taken with Washington State is probably more liberal than the NE US if that is possible.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I agree its not perfect, but some are and it could help. I don't pretend to have all the answers, it's just that we have to start someplace with something that will help.

Eliminate deaths from tobacco and alcohol as a first line then we can talk. Starting with less than 100 deaths a year vs. those related to the "permissible killers" is stupid.

 

[tumscalcium]

Well...that also coincides with the demand for acceptance of mental health issues that 20-30 years ago were deemed as problematic.

Transgender for example. Sorry, science tells us you either have an XY or an XX set of chromosomes. You think you're something else? (obvious exceptions for hermaphrodites) Sorry, that's a mental health issue. There are two proven genders in science and any argument against that is false at the base levels. But we are being led to believe such things are not only ordinary, they are healthy.

WTF?

No, if you can pee and write your name in the snow without major twerking, you are a dude. Zero room for error here.

But regardless, mental health science has decided certain things that should stand out as red flags can and should be tolerated in society as a whole. Demand it practically. That medications and brief sessions of counseling can overcome the mental deficiencies inherent in people who may be a threat to themselves or others. Can't buy it.

Disclaimer: I am not saying transgender people are a threat, just an example of the way the mental health field has changed in the last 20-30 years.

Anyway, thoughts on that line.

Preach.

The “Science” now is working backwards. They start at the result the want, such as accepting mental issues like those that you pointed out and then they work backwards to make it appear healthy and normal. How does that happen? Start teaching that now there’s 800 different genders, you are want you want to be not what you actually are, such as transgenders, adult babies, etc.

 

[hog88]

Well...that also coincides with the demand for acceptance of mental health issues that 20-30 years ago were deemed as problematic.

Transgender for example. Sorry, science tells us you either have an XY or an XX set of chromosomes. You think you're something else? (obvious exceptions for hermaphrodites) Sorry, that's a mental health issue. There are two proven genders in science and any argument against that is false at the base levels. But we are being led to believe such things are not only ordinary, they are healthy.

WTF?

No, if you can pee and write your name in the snow without major twerking, you are a dude. Zero room for error here.

But regardless, mental health science has decided certain things that should stand out as red flags can and should be tolerated in society as a whole. Demand it practically. That medications and brief sessions of counseling can overcome the mental deficiencies inherent in people who may be a threat to themselves or others. Can't buy it.

Disclaimer: I am not saying transgender people are a threat, just an example of the way the mental health field has changed in the last 20-30 years.

Anyway, thoughts on that line.

Actually the biggest problem IMO is excusing bad behavior and laziness as a mental health issue.

 

[Squints]

I would not be calling people out for being douche bags, if I were you. Glass houses and all.

Why, because you couldn’t provide a cogent answer to the things I proposed several pages back?

Typical liberal BS. When you can’t manipulate the conversation to your favor, you resort to ad hominem retorts.

 

[Obsessed]

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.

Their should be a medical evaluation before you are allowed to drive a car or vote...

 

[DancingOutlaw]

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.

The opioid crisis is proof that we have a problem with overprescribing medication.

 

[82_VOL_83]

The debate needs to start with gun control. Only after rational minds are allowed to prevail, will we have even a remote chance of addressing the problem.

To claim that gun laws and regulations have no impact on the issue is beyond absurd.

Yes because one always puts a bandaid over the infection and let's it sit for days until you figure out the bandaid didn't and won't fix the problem.

 

[hog88]

The opioid crisis is proof that we have a problem with overprescribing medication.

Yep. How did they ever deal with the pain 30-40 years ago?

 

[82_VOL_83]

That's what they are made for.

Actually no. If you compare the number of AR's sold to the number of incidences of them being used to actually kill innocent people you would find out just how stupid your statement is. The AR platform is used now for a lot of hunting and for general target shooting and recreation. If these guns were made to kill people then I would hazard a guess and say there wouldn't be many liberal left if every AR killed 20 liberals.

 

[Grand Vol]

Its the kind of language I deal with every day, that's probably why.

Yeah, we know...

I'm okay with state and locals doing it. I just think the FBI is better suited to at least maintain the list and check for prior gun purchases. That is especially so where the location is on the border with another state.

If you want to have local officials make the determinations to get off the list, that makes sense to me.

Reasonable, but I'm thinking the FBI cannot (and likely should not) be responsible for investigating every potentially crazy person.

In terms of initially being placed on the list, there are all sorts of situations where people can be temporarily detained or placed in custody when deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Temporarily, but generally still based on probable cause. Which brings the questions of "how" and "why" it's determined in the first place.

You honestly trust teachers and school administrators that much?

This is far less intrusive. The only thing it does it keep them from buying or keeping a gun when the red flag is raised. From there, a max 90 day process to get off the list and/or have guns returned, which can be renewed, is probably going to hold up to court scrutiny.

Needs to come from the court to begin with.

No agency should have that kind of power.

I think those are addressed above.

Not sufficiently enough for my tastes. You are basically putting the power to decide Constitutional Rights in the hands of teachers that may or may not use that power correctly.

It's a judicial matter. Plain and simple.

The issue of guns possessed by their parents is an interesting one. I suppose if the parent can demonstrate that the child has absolutely no access to the firearm, ok. If he does, that's a problem.

So, we take the parents' word for it? And what happens if they do not have a way of securing it? You've now seized the property of those who are not committing any crime whatsoever and are only "guilty" by means of relationship to the accused party.

There are plenty of occasions in which property is temporarily seized. Its all about balancing the hardship that creates versus the risk avoided.

Who gets to make the determination of what "risks" are at stake here?

In my view, if a school official gets to the point where they think a student needs to be reported such that they cannot have a firearm, then that risk is likely to be real, even if it never comes to pass. They are in the best position to see whether Johnny is having a bad week because he got turned down for prom, versus whether Johnny is withdrawn and seems oblivious to causing pain.

Unfortunately, your faith in the education system in this country is ill placed in my opinion. Let's just say a child in school goes and learns to shoot with their parents over a weekend. Same child comes back in and talks about it on Monday with their friends. Teacher overhears this, overreacts because they may the staunchest anti-gun person on the planet and writes up the report about how this child may be a "threat" because they are talking about firearms.

That's a recipe for sheer abuse of the system. And furthermore, at what point does the "system" start thinking the teacher is crying wolf since they make these reports every two weeks?

No, I don't trust the education system to do anything more than follow a very strict checklist of items in reporting things like this.

So balancing that risk against a short term deprivation of a firearm seems worth it to me, big picture. Plus, as I say, worst case scenario is 90 days absent a reason to keep it in place for a specific person.

Who stores these firearms during this 90 day period?

And would you have LEOs accept the responsibility if this person was the victim of a crime (say it's a female that gets raped for example) while deprived of a basic Constitutional Right on an unfounded basis?