Mass shootings

[USAF_Vet]

Under what criteria do we allow the government to bypass due process and lock someone up for being mentally ill? That's a question you have continued to evade. You don't believe that 'men in white coats' will be on every corner in America, waiting to drag off anyone who shows any odd behavior or has the potential to be dangerous, meanwhile, legislation is being pushed to make it that easy. The firearm restraining order bill makes it quite simple to confiscate property and lock people up. While both are temporary in nature, there are mile wide loopholes. Committal into a mental ward always has strings attached and a lot of fine print. Property confiscation is not any better.

alsaqr said "i refuse to buy into the "slippery slope" argument being put forth by those who oppose laws preventing adjudicated mental cases from owning guns."

We already have laws that prevent adjudicated mental cases from owning guns. They are loosely enforced. What good will another law do if we can't or won't enforce the ones we already have? Its not a slippery slope argument. Its an argument against redundancy. Not all mental illness diagnoses prevent gun ownership. Those that do, aren't clearly defined and not often reported to NICS. Someone mentioned they know a couple bi polar individuals, one is a problem, the other isn't. While it would be easier to blanket all bi polar diagnoses as potentially dangerous and therefore cannot own guns, you'd be stripping away a lot of rights from stable people. People like myself. The slippery slope isn't redundant legislation, or the constant threat a fear of being carted off to a mental ward, but its the violation of the civil rights of people who are no threat to anyone. But the fact is, every single person on the planet is potentially dangerous and violent.

We, as the gun owning community, are in large part responsible for this mess. When the antis said it was all about guns, we refuted that and said its about mental illness. Now that the legislative focus has shifted from guns (which we said weren't the problem) to mental health (which we said was the problem) we now want to shift the focus elsewhere. We constantly complain about politicians 'shifting the goalpost' but now we're doing the same.

I'm OK with a free society and the inherent danger it invites. But I feel like I'm in the minority with that opinion. I don't have the answers, maybe there are no answers.

Violence is a part of civilization. It always has been. That's never going to change, not with strategically placed armed guards, not with carting off potentially dangerous people, not with legislation, not with less guns, and not with more guns. Violence is a part of every society, from the most free, to the least. So with that in mind, do we turn the freest society into one less free, for a very small gain at a very large cost? Or do we accept the freedom is dangerous? Is there some acceptable middle ground where we are no less free, but yet still more safe? The idealist in me would love to think that's possible, but the realist doesn't buy it.

 

[justice06rr]

More guns on the street, and the increasing population of the world.

No, it will not really stop unless all guns are banned or people become robots (see the movie "Equilibrium" ).

What we can do is to educate the masses of "sheep" about 2A, and better yet, arm them with guns and the knowledge to use them properly.

 

[JRH6856]

Sounds like a candidate for life in prison, if committal is not an option. I thought assault with a deadly weapon (on an LEO, to boot) carried prison terms?

Sounds more like a candidat for an insanity defense. Which if successful would likely result in involuntary commitment where he would receive medication that would then result in his release. At which point, without managed care, he would stop taking his meds, and the cycle continues.

Yes, it would make sense to penalize for making a rational decision to discontinue medication, but many defense lawyers make their livings arguing otherwise.

It doesn't have to be anywhere close to "at every turn" to be morally repugnant. An innocent man's freedom is vastly more valuable than a guilty man's acquittal, and this belief fundamentally stems from the notion of our freedom as humans being the greatest gift there is (therefore, denying it erroneously is the highest crime there is, while a failure to rescind it is mere inefficiency in our enforcement systems)

See my previous regarding our increasingly risk-averse society. In a progressive, risk-averse society, the freedom of the individual is forfeit to the safety requirements of the collective. Each and every one of us has a comfort level where we balance freedom and risk. As a drastic example very few of us would tolerate our neighbor operating an unshielded nuclear reactor in his backyard. to provide his electrical power, but we would be comfortable with and array of solar screens (unless there was a homeowner's association). We have seen extreme differences of opinion among the members of this forum regarding acceptable limits to RKBA. Everyone is risk averse to some extent. Those that are extremely risk-averse, and those that are not risk averse at all are the ones that have mental/behavioral health issues. For the rest of us, we are trying to find a balance.

Liberty accepts that risk exists. Those who primarily love Liberty seek to negotiate over how much risk is acceptable to insure liberty.

But those who are primarily risk averse, operate from the principle that risk is not acceptable and want to negotiate over to what extent Liberty must to be restricted to reduce risk.

We are arguing issues, but the real disagreement is between the philosophies through which these issues are defined. As long as those philosophical/ideological disagreements exist, the issues will remain unresolved.

Under what criteria do we allow the government to bypass due process and lock someone up for being mentally ill?

Here ae a couple of thoughts, which I by no means represent as being a complete policy.

I suggest we don't bypass due process. Commitment should be by court order after testimony by expert witnesses with the defendant represented by adequate counsel.

Any commitment for evaluation should be for a limited, defined period (TBD), and upon release, if the evaluation is negative, there should be no record of the commitment. A positive result should return to court where the expert recommendations shall be subject to approval by a jury.

I may add more later...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Under what criteria do we allow the government to bypass due process and lock someone up for being mentally ill? That's a question you have continued to evade. You don't believe that 'men in white coats' will be on every corner in America, waiting to drag off anyone who shows any odd behavior or has the potential to be dangerous, meanwhile, legislation is being pushed to make it that easy. The firearm restraining order bill makes it quite simple to confiscate property and lock people up. While both are temporary in nature, there are mile wide loopholes. Committal into a mental ward always has strings attached and a lot of fine print. Property confiscation is not any better.

We're dealing with people who believe reality must adjust itself to whatever they say it is. No matter how wild or bizzare their claims.

 

[AKElroy]

This thread is disturbing. I have read dozens of posts recommending either government or other action to stem the outrage of mass killings. There are only two things that can be done, and they are these: 1. Recognize that violent crime can only be punished, not fully prevented, or...2. Identify every dangerous weapon owned by anyone, and then confiscate them all. Every gun, knife, flammable liquid, heavy object, toxins, pointy sticks, all of it.

Since option two is both illegal, impractical and impossible, we are left with option 1. Bad/disturbed/evil individuals will, in a populated world, commit atrocities. We only add to their damage when we seek to limit the freedoms of the law abiding as part of the solution.

While this next line may be offensive to some seeking a governmental solution, please note from history that all of the mass murderers the world has ever or will ever see will never kill so many as government itself. Not even close.

 

[alsaqr]

We already have laws that prevent adjudicated mental cases from owning guns.

Many states neglect to report or refuse to report their adjudicated mental cases to the FBI. Oklahoma is one of those states.

 

[jamesjames]

This thread is disturbing for another reason. Many of these recent, so-called mass shootings, mass killings don't really meet the traditional threshold or definition of a mass killing. 3 shot and 3 stabbed-- is that a mass shooting? Many stabbed in China or many shot in Finland-- is that news for American consumption? Every other week a news report marks the anniversary of a mass killing. If we go too many weeks without any mass killing news, we trot out a new interview with Charles Manson--- is all this really news? Or is it an agenda being pushed as news?

It seems that much of this is the news media sensationalizing stories that used to not make the front page. Many stories that once were local or regional stories are now trumpeted as national stories and national tragedies. We pull from the wire services for sensational stories to beef up the Nation section of the local paper

Violent crime is on the decline, yet you wouldn't know from the kind of press coverage that it gets. Now that the threshold has been lowered for what constitutes a "mass shooting" or a "mass killing" any garden variety shooting of more than one person will become a national tragedy.

 

[RPRNY]

Many states neglect to report or refuse to report their adjudicated mental cases to the FBI. Oklahoma is one of those states.

So more laws and expanded government powers are the solution to the failure of existing laws and powers? I can't follow that logic.

 

[AKElroy]

Those that are extremely risk-averse, and those that are not risk averse at all are the ones that have mental/behavioral health issues

I thought your post was exceptional but for this line. I believe I would be in the latter camp, and I do not believe I have mental/behavioral health issues. Setting nuclear reactors aside, we are talking about gun rights.

Freedom is dangerous, plain and simple. There is NO ACTION that any outside force can impose on my individual self that will prevent, alter, dissuade or curtail the ability of a deranged individual from causing harm. Nor should their be, because my individual self is not the problem. And yet, I may well be the focus of the restrictions many have proposed in this thread.

I may be over simplifying, but it seems to me that curtailing the freedoms of the "perfectly safe" is really a silly way of limiting the deranged.

 

[Tirod]

They don't need more laws. The House just voted more money to report the mentally unfit.

Unfunded mandates are usually ignored, dangle some free payroll in front of an administrator to enlarge his fiefdom and they usually snatch it up.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/...w-gun-control-bill-focusing-on-mental-health/

The AG Eric Holder is also reinventing the task force formed by Janet Reno after the OKC bombing, comprised largely of the agency heads, titled the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee. Goes to, see prior point. And who brought the donuts?

I'd link to a news story on that but it was an exploitative hit piece meant to stir up readers. And who knows, going there may put you on their watch list. Who knows, they may even be watching you read this . . . we really need a tinfoil hat smiley.

Anyway, the statistics are out, the number of actual incidents of violence have dropped a lot as CCW increased. What we have is an agenda to not let a crisis go to waste. So, every incident will be blown out of proportion.

In other news, it seems that no gun legislation is going to be even remotely considered before the election this fall. NONETHELESS, after that, all bets are off, and just like Sandy Hook, the next incident will get the full court press once again in the aftermath in order to maximize the results.

I suspect it will get even more resistance simply because legislators are already well aware of the backlash from voters stirred up by their stupidity. We have the SAFE Act being hashed out in numerous lawsuits, politicians deposed by recall, and serious civil disobedience in CT with a failed gun turn it. The Bundy Ranch incident got a lot more response from armed citizens than was likely expected over grazing rights on the worst public pasture land in America.

The problem in a nutshell - a free government of the people tends to keep getting more and more restrictive when those people feel "something needs to be done!" Well, the ugly reality is that nothing really needs to be done, it only leads to less freedom and elevates those in power who look like they are trying to fix the problem. The problem is trying to fix the problem creates more problems. And most humans in charge don't want to accept that doing nothing at all is sometimes the better decision.

Let's see, the NFA has kept full auto guns out of the hands of criminals. Every hear of the LA bank robbery shoot out? Plus, our government is shipping full auto M16's and M4's to Central American countries who are laundering them to the Cartels. Along with the 1 million M16's we left in Nam which are being imported there, too.

Fail.

I could go on about the Patriot Act, etc, but the point is that the harder some try, the more they alienate. It's becoming the exact same problem the French Paras had attempting to stop terrorists in Algiers in the 1950's. They were extremely effective - and because of it, they lost the hearts and minds of the people they were overseeing. The country was liberated just a few years later - and that resulted in the veterans blaming Degaulle and trying to assassinate him.

The most highly rated movie on terrorist activity is "The Battle of Algiers" - it was even course material for a well regarded instruction course given at the national level. The result - "Day of the Jackal." The very people who created the loss still can't assimilate they were the cause and blame someone else.

Clear your head - history repeats itself because human nature keeps blundering into the same emotional dead ends. Outrage and anger don't accomplish anything except to incite more outrage and anger.

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." It's not some Jedi saying - it was written by humans who knew ethics and studied them. They write things like that because YOU understand them not by logic but in your heart.

 

[AKElroy]

The problem in a nutshell - a free government of the people tends to keep getting more and more restrictive when those people feel "something needs to be done!" Well, the ugly reality is that nothing really needs to be done, it only leads to less freedom and elevates those in power who look like they are trying to fix the problem. The problem is trying to fix the problem creates more problems. And most humans in charge don't want to accept that doing nothing at all is sometimes the better decision.

+1!

We seem to think "society" has a right to know that "my individual self" is not a threat prior to exercising my rights to own a "whatever".The problem here of course is that society does not have rights, individuals do. Laws are not enforced at "society's" level, they are enforced at the individual level. Rights are not protected at society's level, they are protected at the individual's level. "They" want to feel safe from "them".

"They" ARE "them", so we are only restricting ourselves. The only entity made more free by such restrictions to exercise it's impressive will is the last entity that should be trusted with such a charge.

We cannot negate danger by surrendering liberty; doing so only empowers a more dangerous opponent.

 

[JRH6856]

Quote:
Those that are extremely risk-averse, and those that are not risk averse at all are the ones that have mental/behavioral health issues

I thought your post was exceptional but for this line. I believe I would be in the latter camp, and I do not believe I have mental/behavioral health issues. Setting nuclear reactors aside, we are talking about gun rights.

Yes, I know we are talking about gun rights...primarily. But when I refer to someone who is not risk avers at all, I am referring to someone whose lack of risk aversion is at the level of ignoring traffic lights and high voltage warnings. Or maybe someone who would walk a tightrope across the Grand Canyon without a safety net or harness for a box of .22LR.

There are many people who engage in high risk activities for fun. Skydiving is an example, but every skydiver I know is risk averse to the extent that they use a parachute when they jump. Someone who was not risk averse at all might jump without a chute, without considering the consequences. I do doubt you are in that category.

 

[JRH6856]

we really need a tinfoil hat smiley.

You mean like this? <:O

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Interesting. Most of y'all are only discussing the highly publicized and most public/school/work mass shootings of which there really are quite few when compared to the number of mass shootings that occur on the more local, non-national newsworthy level such as mass shootings during robberies or domestic incidents. There are a lot more mass shootings than most people realize. They just fail to attain national attention.

 

[barnbwt]

Many of these recent, so-called mass shootings, mass killings don't really meet the traditional threshold or definition of a mass killing.

The threshold is three, right? How many drive-by shootings in the 90's (when that MO was in vogue) killed that many? How many triple homicides occur today, but aren't reported as mass/spree shootings because the occurred in a house? Only a very narrow subset of incidents actually make the news the way mass shootings do, even when more severe crimes occur in less-visible areas. It is because they are highly marketable, both for advertisers and politicians.

TCB

 

[Ignition Override]

You guys made many excellent observations.

Tirod made one of the very best summations of the 'bigger picture' in post # 134.
Sorry, I have no idea how to copy/paste outside of my company's internal monthly schedule bidding.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The threshold is three, right?

Nope, it is 4 or more, not including the shooter.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I suspect it will get even more resistance simply because legislators are already well aware of the backlash from voters stirred up by their stupidity. We have the SAFE Act being hashed out in numerous lawsuits, politicians deposed by recall, and serious civil disobedience in CT with a failed gun turn it. The Bundy Ranch incident got a lot more response from armed citizens than was likely expected over grazing rights on the worst public pasture land in America.

I read this whole discussion and I'll go with this observation.

There's more going on here than mass shootings, which in my opinion can only be a subcategory of mass murder. I fall in line with those who believe that people are always at risk from something, whether it's a shooter or falling off of a ladder. Fifty years ago we went about our business and didn't worry too much about it. Now we have warnings on ladders saying things like "This is not a step". That has to be on that ladder to meet some gov't safety standard.

I think we have just about reached the saturation point of being protected from everyone and everything. The federal gov't has gone broke trying to protect us from rogue despots and ourselves. A good part of this discussion revolved around mental health and how the gov't should intervene to prevent more mass shootings. The fed doesn't have the resources to do that. The reason I know this is because I'm one of the 120000 vets that hve been ignored. I filed a claim for a service connected disability nine months ago and I'm still waiting for an appointment. Local gov't might be able to provide additional mental health services but that would require some additional taxes which most people are not willing to support.

The reaction to the Cliven Bundy incident should be a wake up call to politicians. That was an armed insurrection and bloodshed was avoided at the last minute by cooler heads. The fact that we have a growing segment of the population that fears the gov't and hoards ammo to the point of shortages might be an indication that less, not more, gov't is desired. Regarding the media, they covered that pretty well and made Cliven look like a rock star until he started talking. I would say they don't discriminate when there is an opportunity to sensationalize the news. One just needs to be smart enough to understand what is being reported. It's just information and it all comes with a bias of some sort. If you think that media spin is bad just try to wade through the BS that the adm wants you to believe.

Overall I think we need to realize that the gov't can't take care of us. We are on our own and the end of big gov't is near. People may not want to face the reality but it's a fact. I worked for the Gov't for 30 years in an engineering capacity and got a very good look at the way it works and the people who run it. I can tell you from experience that you do not want more of that.

 

[medalguy]

We had a shooting here in Albuquerque a few years ago. "Mentally disturbed" violent individual entered a Wal Mart store where his former wife worked, walked up to the deli counter and confronted her, stabbed her multiple times. A 72 year old CCW man waiting at the counter pulled his weapon and shot the murderer, ending his rampage. You don't hear about this one from the anti group.

This almost happened again in Las Vegas, except the male shooter's wife saw the CCW guy pull his weapon and she shot him before the guy could stop the male shooter. She then killed the male shooter, her husband, then shot herself.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

We had a shooting here in Albuquerque a few years ago. "Mentally disturbed" violent individual entered a Wal Mart store where his former wife worked, walked up to the deli counter and confronted her, stabbed her multiple times. A 72 year old CCW man waiting at the counter pulled his weapon and shot the murderer, ending his rampage. You don't hear about this one from the anti group.

No, you don't hear about this from the anti groups. I am not even sure it made news outside of New Mexico. For one, it wasn't a "rampage." It was a murderer stopped by a good guy with a gun. These events occasionally do happen, no doubt and don't get broad coverage because they are localized events without a lot of media draw. The same goes for numerous mass shootings that don't occur in malls, schools, or workplaces.

This almost happened again in Las Vegas, except the male shooter's wife saw the CCW guy pull his weapon and she shot him before the guy could stop the male shooter. She then killed the male shooter, her husband, then shot herself.

Almost doesn't really cut it. Brenden McKown almost stopped a mass shooter. Joe Zamudio almost stopped a mass shooter. Wilcox died as a result of trying to be helpful, trying to stop a gunman for which he didn't realize there was a second. He apparently drew his gun, but never fired.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...confronted-white-supremacists-longed-cop.html

 

[JRH6856]

We seem to think "society" has a right to know that "my individual self" is not a threat prior to exercising my rights to own a "whatever".The problem here of course is that society does not have rights, individuals do. Laws are not enforced at "society's" level, they are enforced at the individual level. Rights are not protected at society's level, they are protected at the individual's level.

While I agree with you on this, by my latest count, that makes two of us.

The reality is that They think collectively, which means They tend to identify at the group level. Groups now have rights, and many individuals have rights that exist only because they can claim a group identity : gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, children's rights, workers rights, student's rights, victims rights, farmer's rights, seniors rights, veterans rights. Rights are supported and lobbied for by interest groups, and some rights are protected only because of a group identity. and we have plenty of laws that reflect this fact.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The reality is that They think collectively,

And fail, therefore to realize that the best solution is to be prepared to defend ourselves INDIVIDUALLY.

 

[spitballer]

Probably the best course of action for our side would be to begin pushing state governments and the federal government to return to something closer to the policies that prevailed before Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in 1981, which ended federal funding for mental institutions, and left it to the states. As governor of California, he had signed legislation which dramatically cut back California's own system of such facilities. The idea was to shift the burden onto local communities, and dramatically reduce the number of involuntary committals. Patients would, it was expected, cooperate with mental health care workers in local clinics, and be treated more or less as outpatients. Much as I admire Reagan, this was not one of his wiser policies. A key component of mental illness is not having a firm grip on reality, so how anybody expected these people to follow a course of medication on their own, particularly when some of the meds have side effects the patients really dislike, is beyond me.

To be fair, this was not all Reagan's doing. A massive push from patients' rights advocates and even some doctors began gathering force in the late 1950s, when California was institutionalizing more people per capita than any other state, and medicating the $#!& out of them. Some were even being lobotomized (ironically a procedure that was banned in the Soviet Union at the time as inhumane.) The overburdened mental institutions were sometimes genuine horror shows, and this lent the patients' rights movement force. And Reagan and the others were reacting to genuine abuses and failings of the then current system. But the reformers swung the pendulum way too far in the other direction. First in California, and then in the rest of the country after 1981, we would only treat you for mental illness if you asked for it, or unless you were judged a danger to yourself or others.

As a detective, I learned that what is judged being a danger to yourself is pretty much only a willingness to do active violence. Neglecting your health to the point of serious injury or death, or being so deranged that you effectively do that, won't get it. We had a severely mentally ill woman come into our office (saying her roommate was raping her every night and erasing her memory with witchcraft, among other things) with a large, festering wound on her ankle (the skin was split, the wound was suppurating, and the whole ankle was swollen up as big around as her thigh). We called an ambulance for her, but she refused to go to the hospital. I called community mental health in the full expectation they would involuntarily commit her, and they didn't do it. Neglecting yourself to death is not grounds.

So the kinds of people who are doing these mass shootings are the sort who, forty-plus years ago, would have been in institutions. We need to start really pushing to put more of them back there. Even the ones who aren't violent are often homeless and living in shocking conditions. We need to reform the system again and make it, not perhaps as easy as it was to commit people involuntarily before 1981, but much easier than it is now.

Yeah, I remember that. Suddenly the streets were full of the homeless and mentally troubled individuals, a lot of them veterans. Set a poor precedent, and we gave Reagan a hard time about it

 

[george burns]

The prison system has become the warehouse for the mentally insane. Prisons were never built or designed to handle this, but that is where they are being warehoused.
It's a shame but in order to untangle this mess would be harder than balancing the budget. So don't end up in jail, because you will likely be surrounded by 30-50% insane inmates. This was exposed on the special I watched last week. There is little to no help being provided for these people other than heady meds to sedate their behavior. So make sure you stay safe, and what's the best way to do that, Carry all the time.
Because they do get out because there is no room to keep them all in.

 

[JRH6856]

The prison system has become the warehouse for the mentally insane. Prisons were never built or designed to handle this, but that is where they are being warehoused.

Well, there and the bridges, underpasses and street corners of nearly every major city in the country.