Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Shootist Jeff

The Charleston shooting gun control thread

Recommended Posts

I didn't want to hijack Sol's Charleston shooting thread with more gun vs anti-gun BS out of respect for the victims. I think its more appropriate that we discuss racism and terrorism and how a kid finds his way to committing that sort of atrocity.

 

But as more info comes out about the shooting, gun control advocates looking to use this tragedy as another galvanizing event to push for gun control are quietly hoping this goes away. Because the news is not good for them. Lets recap....

 

  1. The shooter did not use an assault weapon
  2. The shooter did not use hi capacity magazines
  3. The shooter reloaded multiple times (5 times according to CNN) and no one stopped him during the reloading
  4. The shooter purchased his own gun and passed a background check - therefore he did not buy it on the secondary market or at a gun show.
  5. Past criminal incidents should have prevented him from passing said BCG, but that process failed.

So obummer has said the magic words again: "we need to DO SOMETHING". So what is that something? All the things that have been proposed - AWBs, hi cap mag bans, stricter BCGs, etc ALL would not have prevented this at all. Even specious fuckhead ed's precious "registration" would not have stopped this.

 

So..... gun control bois - what the next step?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed - but shouldn't be - how everybody turns this into proof of their view on guns, racism, religion and mental health. I think it's a fine line between evil and crazy. Was Hitler crazy or evil? How do you distinguish one from the other? Perhaps at the polar extremes of each factor it's the clear "cause", but in the human experience it is rarely so clear cut....unless you want to focus on one element to the exclusion of all the others because that supports some position you hold. Are there crazy racists? Are there evil racists? Are there perfectly sane not evil people who hold racist beliefs? Come on folks........it's not that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we throw Roofs daddy into the public square. We shame him enough, perhaps other daddy's won't try to make the sons men by simply buying them a weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that kid was a prime candidate for State supervision. But we don't do that anymore cause we're cheap fucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know how many right wing racists have guns. Registration would provide that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Require every adult American to purchase and carry a weapon.

 

It's the only way.

I can already hear them bitching about the poor people and their ObamaGuns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Require every adult American to purchase and carry a weapon.

 

It's the only way.

I can already hear them bitching about the poor people and their ObamaGuns.

 

 

LOL, I can hear it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we throw Roofs daddy into the public square. We shame him enough, perhaps other daddy's won't try to make the sons men by simply buying them a weapon.

 

Hey FHe, new reports are saying daddy didn't buy the gun as earlier reported. Keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at Roof,Roger and Lanza they all had no chance of getting laid,at least the muslim kids can join the Islamic state and buy Yazidi sex slaves and have arranged marriages with up to 4 wives.

 

Were they all on prescription medication?

 

You have to stop criminals and the mentally ill from having guns then perhaps have safe storage regs to prevent people from having access to your guns while you are away.

 

Gun registration is bullshit,in the state of NSW there are 85-95 full time Police officers who administer the firearms registry, these police deal with people who have passed background checks for crime and mental health.

The Police said at the recent senate inquiry into firearms that licensed firearm owners are not the problem.

As an estimate I would say we have around 500+ police officers working full time to administer the firearms registry in Australia.

 

I agree with the forensic psychologist at 1 min 40 in this vid,perhaps the media should concentrate on the victims instead of the offenders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to hijack Sol's Charleston shooting thread with more gun vs anti-gun BS out of respect for the victims. I think its more appropriate that we discuss racism and terrorism and how a kid finds his way to committing that sort of atrocity.

 

But as more info comes out about the shooting, gun control advocates looking to use this tragedy as another galvanizing event to push for gun control are quietly hoping this goes away. Because the news is not good for them. Lets recap....

 

  1. The shooter did not use an assault weapon
  2. The shooter did not use hi capacity magazines
  3. The shooter reloaded multiple times (5 times according to CNN) and no one stopped him during the reloading
  4. The shooter purchased his own gun and passed a background check - therefore he did not buy it on the secondary market or at a gun show.
  5. Past criminal incidents should have prevented him from passing said BCG, but that process failed.

So obummer has said the magic words again: "we need to DO SOMETHING". So what is that something? All the things that have been proposed - AWBs, hi cap mag bans, stricter BCGs, etc ALL would not have prevented this at all. Even specious fuckhead ed's precious "registration" would not have stopped this.

 

So..... gun control bois - what the next step?

 

South Carolina has no gun registry.

 

The gun was traced back to purchase very quickly.

 

The registry in DC has never been used to solve a crime, but has been used to ban and confiscate guns.

 

Special? You're up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly Charleston-related, but we seem to have a very confused Pope.

 

Pope Francis, who's been espousing pro-life positions in all senses of the term, took a moment on Sunday to inform those involved in weapons manufacturing that they're not really Christians. "If you trust only men you have lost," he told thousands of young people during a rally in the Italian city of Turin. "It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn't it?" The crowd applauded and he went on to criticize those who invest in weapons industries, saying, "duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another."

 

 

OK, so I guess we should trust in God to protect us from bad people, or at least give us a spot in Heaven if they kill us.

 

...He also discussed the "the great tragedy of Armenia" – carefully avoiding the word "genocide," which led to Turkey recalling its ambassador to the Vatican earlier this year. He made up for it by criticizing the Allies for failing to stop the "tragedy" of the Holocaust. "The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn't they bomb (the railway lines)?" he said.

 

 

Umm... Wouldn't bombing the railway lines lead to a bit of distrust? And how would we do it without weapons manufacturers?

 

And why not just trust the Almighty to bend those rails?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly Charleston-related, but we seem to have a very confused Pope.

 

Pope Francis, who's been espousing pro-life positions in all senses of the term, took a moment on Sunday to inform those involved in weapons manufacturing that they're not really Christians. "If you trust only men you have lost," he told thousands of young people during a rally in the Italian city of Turin. "It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn't it?" The crowd applauded and he went on to criticize those who invest in weapons industries, saying, "duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another."

 

 

OK, so I guess we should trust in God to protect us from bad people, or at least give us a spot in Heaven if they kill us.

 

...He also discussed the "the great tragedy of Armenia" – carefully avoiding the word "genocide," which led to Turkey recalling its ambassador to the Vatican earlier this year. He made up for it by criticizing the Allies for failing to stop the "tragedy" of the Holocaust. "The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn't they bomb (the railway lines)?" he said.

 

 

Umm... Wouldn't bombing the railway lines lead to a bit of distrust? And how would we do it without weapons manufacturers?

 

And why not just trust the Almighty to bend those rails?

 

How about those swiss guards that carry rifles? Are those rifles manufacturers who supply the arms that protect the vatican also evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about we throw Roofs daddy into the public square. We shame him enough, perhaps other daddy's won't try to make the sons men by simply buying them a weapon.

 

Hey FHe, new reports are saying daddy didn't buy the gun as earlier reported. Keep up.

For someone who doesn't want to read or talk about this guy, you sure seem pretty intersted in keeping up. Heck, even started our own thread on him. So tell me, daddy didn't buy him his birthday gun? Was the uncle lying? Can we take his guns away for lying to the police?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How about we throw Roofs daddy into the public square. We shame him enough, perhaps other daddy's won't try to make the sons men by simply buying them a weapon.

Hey FHe, new reports are saying daddy didn't buy the gun as earlier reported. Keep up.

For someone who doesn't want to read or talk about this guy, you sure seem pretty intersted in keeping up. Heck, even started our own thread on him. So tell me, daddy didn't buy him his birthday gun? Was the uncle lying? Can we take his guns away for lying to the police?

 

 

Why don't you address the facts that I posted for a change rather than making your own up as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How about we throw Roofs daddy into the public square. We shame him enough, perhaps other daddy's won't try to make the sons men by simply buying them a weapon.

 

Hey FHe, new reports are saying daddy didn't buy the gun as earlier reported. Keep up.

For someone who doesn't want to read or talk about this guy, you sure seem pretty intersted in keeping up. Heck, even started our own thread on him. So tell me, daddy didn't buy him his birthday gun? Was the uncle lying? Can we take his guns away for lying to the police?

Why don't you address the facts that I posted for a change rather than making your own up as usual.

Which fact did I make up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Require every adult American to purchase and carry a weapon.

 

It's the only way.

I can already hear them bitching about the poor people and their ObamaGuns.

 

:D and they only come in black.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Require every adult American to purchase and carry a weapon.

 

It's the only way.

I can already hear them bitching about the poor people and their ObamaGuns.

 

:D and they only come in black.........

 

 

And those are the ones everybody hates!

 

RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

AR-15.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN

 

One key part of this horrific scheme -- the weapon -- came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development. His grandfather says that Roof was given "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/

 

Every source under the sun reported last week that his DAD gave him a gun for his birthday. Most of those stories are still out their with no updates. Typical move by the media

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slugs for thugs.

 

Seems you are the first inferring that the victims in Charleston were thugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Slugs for thugs.

 

Seems you are the first inferring that the victims in Charleston were thugs.

 

Only if you consider all blacks to be thugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Slugs for thugs.

 

Seems you are the first inferring that the victims in Charleston were thugs.

 

Only if you consider all blacks to be thugs.

 

 

Not me. You'll have to ask Sol about that but the victims in Charleston were the ones hit by the slugs and you used the term.

 

Congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN

 

One key part of this horrific scheme -- the weapon -- came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development. His grandfather says that Roof was given "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/

 

Every source under the sun reported last week that his DAD gave him a gun for his birthday. Most of those stories are still out their with no updates. Typical move by the media

Every source repeated what the racist's uncle said the day after the shooting. That his daddy had bought him the gun for his birthday. Should they have reported what the uncle said or waited for the gun registration to be traced back through the chain of custody?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CNN

 

One key part of this horrific scheme -- the weapon -- came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development. His grandfather says that Roof was given "birthday money" and that the family didn't know what Roof did with it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/

 

Every source under the sun reported last week that his DAD gave him a gun for his birthday. Most of those stories are still out their with no updates. Typical move by the media

Every source repeated what the racist's uncle said the day after the shooting. That his daddy had bought him the gun for his birthday. Should they have reported what the uncle said or waited for the gun registration to be traced back through the chain of custody?

 

And maybe even: which story is the most likely to be true? The off-the-cuff response from a family member, or the considered official position after lawyering up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

How about we throw Roofs daddy into the public square. We shame him enough, perhaps other daddy's won't try to make the sons men by simply buying them a weapon.

Hey FHe, new reports are saying daddy didn't buy the gun as earlier reported. Keep up.

For someone who doesn't want to read or talk about this guy, you sure seem pretty intersted in keeping up. Heck, even started our own thread on him. So tell me, daddy didn't buy him his birthday gun? Was the uncle lying? Can we take his guns away for lying to the police?

Why don't you address the facts that I posted for a change rather than making your own up as usual.

Which fact did I make up?

 

Yeah, I'd like to know too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Require every adult American to purchase and carry a weapon.

 

It's the only way.

I can already hear them bitching about the poor people and their ObamaGuns.

 

:D and they only come in black.........

 

 

Why do you think they call them EBRs*?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Evil Black Rifle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Require every adult American to purchase and carry a weapon.

 

It's the only way.

I can already hear them bitching about the poor people and their ObamaGuns.

 

:D and they only come in black.........

 

 

And those are the ones everybody hates!

 

RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

AR-15.png

 

 

That one doesn't count. Too much green in it. A true EBR lookes like this:

 

ar15-buttstock-considerations-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just put the image above under an 'ultra-violent' light, I could see your semen stains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just put the image above under an 'ultra-violent' light, I could see your semen stains.

 

I understand now why you prefer white wooley sheep/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what happened to the Sol's Charleston thread. Someone must have really pooped on the playground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what happened to the Sol's Charleston thread. Someone must have really pooped on the playground.

Dunno. It was a most inconvenient topic....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what happened to the Sol's Charleston thread. Someone must have really pooped on the playground.

 

I don't know but I posted something about whores sweating in pews about three hours ago. I can imagine that winding up as the O'Leary's Cow of it. All apologies, if so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sol doesn't know it must have pissed off the wrong person. Or maybe a US Attorney subpoenaed everyone's email address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder what happened to the Sol's Charleston thread. Someone must have really pooped on the playground.

Dunno. It was a most inconvenient topic....
. That's weird. Gee let's see who is on a time out and I guess we will know who crossed the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does any of this have to do with the resultant clamors for more gun control. I've asked point blank what new gun control would have stopped this latest shooting and there have been crickets. Let's refresh ourselves on the list of possible new initiatives and whether they would have changed the outcome:

 

  • Universal BCGs - Nope
  • Assault weapon bans - Nope
  • Hi cap mag bans - Nope
  • closing the gun show loophole - nope
  • waiting periods - nope
  • registration - nope
  • M855 steel core bullets - nope
  • More peer-reviewed studies - Nope
  • .50 BMG Barrets from Walmart - Nope

So, gun grabbys - what's the next silly plan since none of your other ideas would have changed fuck-all here? Here's one..... maybe we should have a law that says that drug abusers and convicted felons like SC racist fuckboy here was shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Oh wait, we already have that law on the books you say??? Well WTF then? Maybe we ought to enforce the existing laws a bit better. I know that a kooky thought, but hey maybe there's something to it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does any of this have to do with the resultant clamors for more gun control. I've asked point blank what new gun control would have stopped this latest shooting and there have been crickets. Let's refresh ourselves on the list of possible new initiatives and whether they would have changed the outcome:

 

 

  • Universal BCGs - Nope
  • Assault weapon bans - Nope
  • Hi cap mag bans - Nope
  • closing the gun show loophole - nope
  • waiting periods - nope
  • registration - nope
  • M855 steel core bullets - nope
  • More peer-reviewed studies - Nope
  • .50 BMG Barrets from Walmart - Nope
So, gun grabbys - what's the next silly plan since none of your other ideas would have changed fuck-all here? Here's one..... maybe we should have a law that says that drug abusers and convicted felons like SC racist fuckboy here was shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Oh wait, we already have that law on the books you say??? Well WTF then? Maybe we ought to enforce the existing laws a bit better. I know that a kooky thought, but hey maybe there's something to it.....

We need a law that birthday money can not be used to buy a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

 

Actually I call this the specious ed "too legged tool" approach......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

 

Actually I call this the specious ed "too legged tool" approach......

Is he proposing that everyone needs to pass a mental health screening to own a gun. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

 

Actually I call this the specious ed "too legged tool" approach......

 

 

Edit: I'll indulge you because I'd like to explore this mental health screening aspect for a moment..... You've said repeatedly that if one leg of your stool collapses the whole thing goes. I don't see that, but I'll play your game for a mo.

 

With BCGs and mental health screening - why do you need registration? Presumably, one or the other would have caught SC racist fuckboy. BCG did not screen him out, so that failed but presumably a mental health screen might have caught him and he doesn't get the gun. Where does registration come in? He can't buy the gun so there is nothing to register.

 

Conversely, lets say that he passes both the criminal BCG and a mental health screen and later snaps and kills 9 people in a black church. How does registration preemptively stop it? Unless you are talking about expanding the NSA and FBIs ability to monitor everyone in America for the slightest sign of mental instability and you go confiscate their guns the moment they post something even slightly questionable on FB - your registration scheme is worthless. I don't want to live in that kind of Big Brother world and would rather have the occasional mas murder.

 

Furthermore, flesh out for me what this mental health screening looks like. What are the disqualifying things? Please list them all and how do we discover them and track them? Who makes the decisions - local LE, a doctor or a judge?

 

I'm asking you honest questions - so don't be your usual troll cunt and answer like an adult for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

Actually I call this the specious ed "too legged tool" approach......

Is he proposing that everyone needs to pass a mental health screening to own a gun. LOL.

 

What is funny about that? It might have prevented young Mr. Roof from acquiring the tool with which he would set his plan for fomenting race war in action. Why wait until after he s-h-o-t nine people to death to give him a mental health screening? Nine people would be alive today, and more importantly, folks all over the south would not be having a traumatic debate about giving up a symbol of their heritage, and even more importantly, we'd all be able to play along with the notion that color doesn't matter anymore. I'd say this case presents an argument FOR mental health screenings, not against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

Actually I call this the specious ed "too legged tool" approach......

Is he proposing that everyone needs to pass a mental health screening to own a gun. LOL.

 

What is funny about that? It might have prevented young Mr. Roof from acquiring the tool with which he would set his plan for fomenting race war in action. Why wait until after he s-h-o-t nine people to death to give him a mental health screening? Nine people would be alive today, and more importantly, folks all over the south would not be having a traumatic debate about giving up a symbol of their heritage, and even more importantly, we'd all be able to play along with the notion that color doesn't matter anymore. I'd say this case presents an argument FOR mental health screenings, not against them.

 

 

We're going to need millions of mental health screenings each year. Who is going to pay?

 

Making people pay to exercise their rights can be bad sometimes, you know. Mental health professionals are not cheap and it takes time off work and money to travel to them. These things would be extremely disturbing if applied to a protected right like voting because of the regressive effects on poor people.

 

They might be extremely disturbing if applied to a protected right like our right to purchase a gun, but some rights are more important than others.

 

One thing that can't be debated: Favre was the best ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a very real cost to it, no doubt about it, one that goes well beyond the cost of no longer being able to look to the statehouse for a glimpse of the beloved stars and bars, but now that the race war has been (openly) declared, since we're talking about this in the wake of the inconvenient Charleston s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g. The good people of South Carolina get to pay for Mr. Roof's mental screening, now. If he had to pay for it before he chose to kill nine people in their church, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

 

Should people who would not be able to pass a mental health screening, i.e. crazy people, more specifically, people who think that killing groups of other people is acceptable behavior, be allowed to have guns or other weapons that could accomplish that?

 

Who bears the costs of the funerals for the nine people in Charleston?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

 

Actually I call this the specious ed "too legged tool" approach......

 

 

As usual, it looks like a stool and smells like a stool and lays there doing nothing like a stool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a very real cost to it, no doubt about it, one that goes well beyond the cost of no longer being able to look to the statehouse for a glimpse of the beloved stars and bars, but now that the race war has been (openly) declared, since we're talking about this in the wake of the inconvenient Charleston s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g. The good people of South Carolina get to pay for Mr. Roof's mental screening, now. If he had to pay for it before he chose to kill nine people in their church, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

 

Should people who would not be able to pass a mental health screening, i.e. crazy people, more specifically, people who think that killing groups of other people is acceptable behavior, be allowed to have guns or other weapons that could accomplish that?

 

Who bears the costs of the funerals for the nine people in Charleston?

 

Aren't you the guy who is usually asking "Who is going to pay for it"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a very real cost to it, no doubt about it, one that goes well beyond the cost of no longer being able to look to the statehouse for a glimpse of the beloved stars and bars, but now that the race war has been (openly) declared, since we're talking about this in the wake of the inconvenient Charleston s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g. The good people of South Carolina get to pay for Mr. Roof's mental screening, now. If he had to pay for it before he chose to kill nine people in their church, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

 

Should people who would not be able to pass a mental health screening, i.e. crazy people, more specifically, people who think that killing groups of other people is acceptable behavior, be allowed to have guns or other weapons that could accomplish that?

 

Who bears the costs of the funerals for the nine people in Charleston?

 

To answer the first question, I'd want to ask someone like soak-ed whether those in his business can really "screen" for crazy. If they can, I'd say such people shouldn't be allowed to vote or own guns. We don't want psychopaths choosing our leaders, do we?

 

There's a whole thread devoted to answering your second question about the costs of gun violence. In typically classy fashion, they call suicides "gun violence" to inflate the numbers. I think that's a buncha malarkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this thread was about gun control, in the wake of the Charleston s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g-s. I was responding to a comment about nut control, which I think is more important than gun control. I am not terribly interested in the rest of your propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this thread was about gun control, in the wake of the Charleston s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g-s. I was responding to a comment about nut control, which I think is more important than gun control. I am not terribly interested in the rest of your propaganda.

 

I was talking about nut control too. I agree we've both expanded on the thread topic.

 

On the subject of nuts, I'd say such people shouldn't be allowed to vote or own guns. That's effective nut control.

 

Come to think of it, before we get around to depriving them of the vote, we should probably get them off the roads. Nuts shouldn't be allowed to drive either.

 

Assuming we can really screen for crazy. I'm still not so sure about that aspect of nut control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manchin's take on nut control

 

Manchin specifically mentioned an effort aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people diagnosed with mental illness.

 

 

Not mentioned is whether he thinks anyone purchasing a gun should undergo a mental health screening.

 

Reid wants to do a little thing.

 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that something must be done to expand background checks.

 

“Is that asking too much? Couldn’t we at least do this little thing to stop people who are mentally ill, people who are criminals from purchasing guns?”

 

 

But of course he's not just talking about purchases, but about transfers, which include loans, trades, inheritance, etc.

 

He's also not asking for such a little thing. When I worked at a brokerage, there were lots of rules about how I could sell a boat. If I sell my own boat now, there are fewer rules. Subjecting me to brokerage rules on the sale of my own boat is not a "little thing" and there's not even a constitutionally protected right to buy and sell boats like there is for guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a very real cost to it, no doubt about it, one that goes well beyond the cost of no longer being able to look to the statehouse for a glimpse of the beloved stars and bars, but now that the race war has been (openly) declared, since we're talking about this in the wake of the inconvenient Charleston s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g. The good people of South Carolina get to pay for Mr. Roof's mental screening, now. If he had to pay for it before he chose to kill nine people in their church, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

 

Should people who would not be able to pass a mental health screening, i.e. crazy people, more specifically, people who think that killing groups of other people is acceptable behavior, be allowed to have guns or other weapons that could accomplish that?

 

Who bears the costs of the funerals for the nine people in Charleston?

 

Nothing in that post answers the question: who should pay?

 

We're well over ten million NICS checks per year, and that's if Senator Reid doesn't get his way and get NICS checks on private transfers.

 

14,000,000 times the cost of each screening performed would at least get us the number you're talking about spending, if not an answer to who should pay.

 

If we can get them for fifty bucks apiece, that's 700 million dollars, not counting all the lost time and such.

 

Yes, a very real cost. Anyone proposing such a bill should have an answer to my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to keep guns out of the hands of the nuts. My approach will do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

 

Actually I call this the specious ed "too legged tool" approach......

Is he proposing that everyone needs to pass a mental health screening to own a gun. LOL.

What is funny about that? It might have prevented young Mr. Roof from acquiring the tool with which he would set his plan for fomenting race war in action. Why wait until after he s-h-o-t nine people to death to give him a mental health screening? Nine people would be alive today, and more importantly, folks all over the south would not be having a traumatic debate about giving up a symbol of their heritage, and even more importantly, we'd all be able to play along with the notion that color doesn't matter anymore. I'd say this case presents an argument FOR mental health screenings, not against them.

I agree it's not a laughing matter. The issue is most mental health diagnosis are based on multiple interviews with highly paid doctors

Not some simple test. How do you deal with the true physco? The Bundy types that will easily pass any basic test. How about those that develope a mental illness after they have their gun? Then there is the biggest one of all HIPAA. Not sure how you get arround that law if you are planning to share a persons mental status. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/mhguidance.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree it's not a laughing matter. The issue is most mental health diagnosis are based on multiple interviews with highly paid doctors

Not some simple test. How do you deal with the true physco? The Bundy types that will easily pass any basic test. How about those that develope a mental illness after they have their gun?

 

That's where the other two legs of the stool comes in.

 

We live in modern times. It would not take a great deal of effort to use our existing infrastructure and methods as a source of data mining key information to make a decision. Stormy Rebs manifesto was on the internet for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

Actually I call this the specious ed "too legged tool" approach......

Is he proposing that everyone needs to pass a mental health screening to own a gun. LOL.

 

What is funny about that? It might have prevented young Mr. Roof from acquiring the tool with which he would set his plan for fomenting race war in action. Why wait until after he s-h-o-t nine people to death to give him a mental health screening? Nine people would be alive today, and more importantly, folks all over the south would not be having a traumatic debate about giving up a symbol of their heritage, and even more importantly, we'd all be able to play along with the notion that color doesn't matter anymore. I'd say this case presents an argument FOR mental health screenings, not against them.

 

 

We're going to need millions of mental health screenings each year. Who is going to pay?

 

Making people pay to exercise their rights can be bad sometimes, you know. Mental health professionals are not cheap and it takes time off work and money to travel to them. These things would be extremely disturbing if applied to a protected right like voting because of the regressive effects on poor people.

 

They might be extremely disturbing if applied to a protected right like our right to purchase a gun, but some rights are more important than others.

 

One thing that can't be debated: Favre was the best ever.

 

 

There is a difference between being nutty and having an undiagnosed or untreated mental illness. It's like the difference between having indigestion and gastric cancer, or a common headache vs a glioblastoma pressing on your brainstem. It is unhelpful to mock them.

 

Without going much detail about the various reasons for it, the treatment of the mentally-ill in our country is woefully-inadequate, and not because there isn't enough screening. Family members and various professionals usually know what is going on but are powerless to do anything because of the way the rules on involuntary commitment. It is no longer possible for an emergency room doc, psychiatrist or other doctor to make a decision to commit a dangerously crazy person for treatment who is threat to himself or others. The rules were changed in the 1970s with bureaucratic and legal barriers making it nearly impossible. That is why we have so many people sleeping on the streets in every city now, and have for decades. All you have to do is look around you on the street corners. Homeless or not, occasionally one of them becomes violent, gets their hands on a weapon, and we are faced with another mass shooting which liberals will always, inevitably exploit to further their tyrannical aims.

 

This is the reason these incidents have become 3x more common. It has nothing to do with the availability of guns, which Americans have always had access to. It is because we have untreated, mentally-ill persons free including a few monsters who in another time would have been locked up and rendered harmless to society.

 

It would behoove all of us who believe in gun rights to understand and take this issue seriously. It is a fundamental obligation of society to care not just for children until of age and the handicapped but those with psychiatric illnesses also. We have to do a better job of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Involuntary commitment brings up another aspect of nut control. Gun control won't stop a determined nut from acquiring a gun, especially if we are not going to repeal the second amendment.

 

So if someone is nutty enough to be denied the right to purchase a gun and the right to vote, that person should probably be locked up. Solves the driving problem too.

 

Was anything bad going on back in the 70s that caused people to think involuntary commitment might not be so good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loose guns and loose nuts makes us unsafe. My approach will solve that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Involuntary commitment brings up another aspect of nut control. Gun control won't stop a determined nut from acquiring a gun, especially if we are not going to repeal the second amendment.

 

So if someone is nutty enough to be denied the right to purchase a gun and the right to vote, that person should probably be locked up. Solves the driving problem too.

 

Was anything bad going on back in the 70s that caused people to think involuntary commitment might not be so good?

 

There is always a tension involved in civil rights issues, as you have mentioned. Gun control impinges on the 2A. Violent movies and video games -- which some people blame -- clash with 1A rights. In the case of involuntary commitment it is with the 5th Amendment.

 

The anti-psychiatry movement in the 1970s mixed with legitimate concerns about the civil liberties brought about needed legal reforms. But the pendulum swung too far, so we have these monsters who are free to act out their crazy with sometimes horrific consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Involuntary commitment brings up another aspect of nut control. Gun control won't stop a determined nut from acquiring a gun, especially if we are not going to repeal the second amendment.

 

So if someone is nutty enough to be denied the right to purchase a gun and the right to vote, that person should probably be locked up. Solves the driving problem too.

 

Was anything bad going on back in the 70s that caused people to think involuntary commitment might not be so good?

 

There is always a tension involved in civil rights issues, as you have mentioned. Gun control impinges on the 2A. Violent movies and video games -- which some people blame -- clash with 1A rights. In the case of involuntary commitment it is with the 5th Amendment.

 

The anti-psychiatry movement in the 1970s mixed with legitimate concerns about the civil liberties brought about needed legal reforms. But the pendulum swung too far, so we have these monsters who are free to act out their crazy with sometimes horrific consequences.

 

 

I guess the sensible solution would be to examine everyone, just in case.

 

We can get around the whole second amendment problem by falsely claiming that we have no right to purchase a gun, as Olsonist did in the now-disappeared thread.

 

That one's almost awesomely childish.

 

It's like saying, you have a right to use a printing press if you can get one, but we have a right to prevent you from buying one.

 

It really should come with a "Neener, neener, neener" at the end of the argument. And that's how Judge Chang treated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Involuntary commitment brings up another aspect of nut control. Gun control won't stop a determined nut from acquiring a gun, especially if we are not going to repeal the second amendment.

 

So if someone is nutty enough to be denied the right to purchase a gun and the right to vote, that person should probably be locked up. Solves the driving problem too.

 

Was anything bad going on back in the 70s that caused people to think involuntary commitment might not be so good?

 

There is always a tension involved in civil rights issues, as you have mentioned. Gun control impinges on the 2A. Violent movies and video games -- which some people blame -- clash with 1A rights. In the case of involuntary commitment it is with the 5th Amendment.

 

The anti-psychiatry movement in the 1970s mixed with legitimate concerns about the civil liberties brought about needed legal reforms. But the pendulum swung too far, so we have these monsters who are free to act out their crazy with sometimes horrific consequences.

 

 

I guess the sensible solution would be to examine everyone, just in case.

 

 

 

 

Who is suggesting that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

There is always a tension involved in civil rights issues, as you have mentioned. Gun control impinges on the 2A. Violent movies and video games -- which some people blame -- clash with 1A rights. In the case of involuntary commitment it is with the 5th Amendment.

 

The anti-psychiatry movement in the 1970s mixed with legitimate concerns about the civil liberties brought about needed legal reforms. But the pendulum swung too far, so we have these monsters who are free to act out their crazy with sometimes horrific consequences.

 

 

I guess the sensible solution would be to examine everyone, just in case.

 

 

 

 

Who is suggesting that?

 

 

Just seems like a SOLution that might make sense. It will be costly, but someone will pay. Don't worry your little head about who that might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

There is always a tension involved in civil rights issues, as you have mentioned. Gun control impinges on the 2A. Violent movies and video games -- which some people blame -- clash with 1A rights. In the case of involuntary commitment it is with the 5th Amendment.

 

The anti-psychiatry movement in the 1970s mixed with legitimate concerns about the civil liberties brought about needed legal reforms. But the pendulum swung too far, so we have these monsters who are free to act out their crazy with sometimes horrific consequences.

 

 

I guess the sensible solution would be to examine everyone, just in case.

 

 

 

 

Who is suggesting that?

 

 

Just seems like a SOLution that might make sense. It will be costly, but someone will pay. Don't worry your little head about who that might be.

 

OK, maybe a new job for the TSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted in Sol's deleted thread, the spree killer population over the last 30 years is only about 0.0001% of the lawful firearm population. There is no statistically sound basis to assume it's much different than that in any current or future buyer population. It's simply irrational to impose any political solution to hateful or irrational acts like the Charleston murders.

 

Simply irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Registration, background checks and mental health screenings. The three legged stool approach would have prevented this.

Actually I call this the specious ed "too legged tool" approach......

Is he proposing that everyone needs to pass a mental health screening to own a gun. LOL.

What is funny about that? It might have prevented young Mr. Roof from acquiring the tool with which he would set his plan for fomenting race war in action. Why wait until after he s-h-o-t nine people to death to give him a mental health screening? Nine people would be alive today, and more importantly, folks all over the south would not be having a traumatic debate about giving up a symbol of their heritage, and even more importantly, we'd all be able to play along with the notion that color doesn't matter anymore. I'd say this case presents an argument FOR mental health screenings, not against them.

I agree it's not a laughing matter. The issue is most mental health diagnosis are based on multiple interviews with highly paid doctors

Not some simple test. How do you deal with the true physco? The Bundy types that will easily pass any basic test. How about those that develope a mental illness after they have their gun? Then there is the biggest one of all HIPAA. Not sure how you get arround that law if you are planning to share a persons mental status. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/mhguidance.html

 

If the answers were easy, we'd have come up with them already. There are no simple answers to it, but I think that if we were to demand it of our leaders, our American Exceptionalism would come shining through. Aw, who am I kidding. I think that if we demanded it of our leaders, someone would pay them enough to get them to ignore our demands. That's the way the founding fathers wanted it. Publius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always someone else's fault that those questions can't be answered. And if only annoying meanies would shut up, our wise leaders could solve problems like whether we can actually screen for crazy, who would pay, how long a screening might be good for, you know, basic details of a plan.

 

It's a lot easier to just avoid spelling out a plan and blame someone else for it. Typically unimaginative SOLution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like White Cracker a was a sock of someone with a lifetime ban. So they deleted him with the nuclear option all posts gone, which wiped some threads. See the celebration thread Christmas in July

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would deleting his posts delete a thread started by someone else?

 

If it was Sol's thread it shouldn't have disappeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would deleting his posts delete a thread started by someone else?

 

If it was Sol's thread it shouldn't have disappeared.

I have no clue software glitch? Maybe his was the last post in that thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mental health screenings sound all solutionish.........but really? It might screen out an occasional super crazy.......but it's far...far from an exact science.

 

"So Mr Roof you want to buy a gun. Are you thinking of killing a bunch of black church people or starting a race war?"

 

"Nope".

 

"Seriously now, we need to know. Do you hate your parents?"

 

"Nope"

 

"Okay, here you go".

 

The issue really isn't mental health screenings which would be logistically and economically impractical, not to mention questionable in its efficacy at rooting out potential mass muderers. The issue is the mental health infrastructure and the ability to provide ongoing mental health care so less mentally ill people are left without resources to modify the cycle that leads to mass muderers as an action. Unfortunately, there will still be undiagnosed or simply evil people who will perpetrate despicable acts on innocent people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

There is always a tension involved in civil rights issues, as you have mentioned. Gun control impinges on the 2A. Violent movies and video games -- which some people blame -- clash with 1A rights. In the case of involuntary commitment it is with the 5th Amendment.

 

The anti-psychiatry movement in the 1970s mixed with legitimate concerns about the civil liberties brought about needed legal reforms. But the pendulum swung too far, so we have these monsters who are free to act out their crazy with sometimes horrific consequences.

 

 

I guess the sensible solution would be to examine everyone, just in case.

 

 

 

 

Who is suggesting that?

 

 

Just seems like a SOLution that might make sense. It will be costly, but someone will pay. Don't worry your little head about who that might be.

 

 

Let the damn gunowners pay for it. It's called being responsible.

I would definitely like to see screening for gun ownership insuitability.

But the definition of "high risk"will evolve, based on evidence, with or without screening.

 

I'd like to see more peer pressure in play to discourage hotheads, bullies, and loose cannons from arming up.

But I fear (and seem to notice) that the latter come with the turf. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

There is always a tension involved in civil rights issues, as you have mentioned. Gun control impinges on the 2A. Violent movies and video games -- which some people blame -- clash with 1A rights. In the case of involuntary commitment it is with the 5th Amendment.

 

The anti-psychiatry movement in the 1970s mixed with legitimate concerns about the civil liberties brought about needed legal reforms. But the pendulum swung too far, so we have these monsters who are free to act out their crazy with sometimes horrific consequences.

 

 

I guess the sensible solution would be to examine everyone, just in case.

 

 

 

 

Who is suggesting that?

 

 

Just seems like a SOLution that might make sense. It will be costly, but someone will pay. Don't worry your little head about who that might be.

 

 

Let the damn gunowners pay for it. It's called being responsible.

I would definitely like to see screening for gun ownership insuitability.

But the definition of "high risk"will evolve, based on evidence, with or without screening.

 

I'd like to see more peer pressure in play to discourage hotheads, bullies, and loose cannons from arming up.

But I fear (and seem to notice) that the latter come with the turf. :blink:

 

 

Ever heard of a pill mill?

 

Do you understand the implications of pharmaceutical advertising?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mental health screenings sound all solutionish.........but really? It might screen out an occasional super crazy.......but it's far...far from an exact science.

 

"So Mr Roof you want to buy a gun. Are you thinking of killing a bunch of black church people or starting a race war?"

 

"Nope".

 

"Seriously now, we need to know. Do you hate your parents?"

 

"Nope"

 

"Okay, here you go".

 

The issue really isn't mental health screenings which would be logistically and economically impractical, not to mention questionable in its efficacy at rooting out potential mass muderers. The issue is the mental health infrastructure and the ability to provide ongoing mental health care so less mentally ill people are left without resources to modify the cycle that leads to mass muderers as an action. Unfortunately, there will still be undiagnosed or simply evil people who will perpetrate despicable acts on innocent people.

 

Point Break, the psychologists sat down with the hotshot gun researchers. The psychologists enumerated their weaknesses and their strengths.

They listed what is presently known, by them, to work. See below.

 

Some here are not going to like some of their recommendations, but let's inform ourselves, they weighed in:

 

APA. ***Gun Violence: Prediction, Prevention, and Policy

American Psychological Assn

Summary: Conclusions and Recommendations

Gun violence is an urgent, complex, and multifaceted problem. It requires evidence-based, multifaceted solutions. Psychology can make important contributions to policies that prevent gun violence. Toward this end, in February 2013 the American Psychological Association commissioned this report by a panel of experts to convey research-based conclusions and recommendations (and to identify gaps in such knowledge) on how to reduce the incidence of gun violence — whether by homicide, suicide, or mass shootings — nationwide.

 

Following are chapter-by-chapter highlights and short summaries of conclusions and recommendations of the report’s authors. More information and supporting citations can be found within the chapters themselves.

 

Antecedents to Gun Violence: Developmental Issues

A complex and variable constellation of risk and protective factors makes persons more or less likely to use a firearm against themselves or others. For this reason, there is no single profile that can reliably predict who will use a gun in a violent act. Instead, gun violence is associated with a confluence of individual, family, school, peer, community, and sociocultural risk factors that interact over time during childhood and adolescence. Although many youths desist in aggressive and antisocial behavior during late adolescence, others are disproportionately at risk for becoming involved in or otherwise affected by gun violence. The most consistent and powerful predictor of future violence is a history of violent behavior. Prevention efforts guided by research on developmental risk can reduce the likelihood that firearms will be introduced into community and family conflicts or criminal activity. Prevention efforts can also reduce the relatively rare occasions when severe mental illness contributes to homicide or the more common circumstances when depression or other mental illness contributes to suicide. Reducing incidents of gun violence arising from criminal misconduct or suicide is an important goal of broader primary and secondary prevention and intervention strategies. Such strategies must also attend to redirecting developmental antecedents and larger sociocultural processes that contribute to gun violence and gun-related deaths.

 

Antecedents to Gun Violence: Gender and Culture

Any account of gun violence in the United States must be able to explain both why males are perpetrators of the vast majority of gun violence and why the vast majority of males never perpetrate gun violence. Preliminary evidence suggests that changing perceptions among males of social norms about behaviors and characteristics associated with masculinity may reduce the prevalence of intimate partner and sexual violence. Such interventions need to be further tested for their potential to reduce gun violence. The skills and knowledge of psychologists are needed to develop and evaluate programs and settings in schools, workplaces, prisons, neighborhoods, clinics, and other relevant contexts that aim to change gendered expectations for males that emphasize self-sufficiency, toughness, and violence, including gun violence.

 

What Works: Gun Violence Prediction and Prevention at the Individual Level

Although it is important to recognize that most people suffering from a mental illness are not dangerous, for those persons at risk for violence due to mental illness, suicidal thoughts, or feelings of desperation, mental health treatment can often prevent gun violence. Policies and programs that identify and provide treatment for all persons suffering from a mental illness should be a national priority. Urgent attention must be paid to the current level of access to mental health services in the United States; such access is woefully insufficient. Additionally, it should be noted that behavioral threat assessment is becoming a standard of care for preventing violence in schools, colleges, and the workplace and against government and other public officials. Threat assessment teams gather and analyze information to assess if a person poses a threat of violence or self-harm, and if so, take steps to intervene.

 

What Works: Gun Violence Prevention at the Community Level

Prevention of violence occurs along a continuum that begins in early childhood with programs to help parents raise emotionally healthy children and ends with efforts to identify and intervene with troubled individuals who are threatening violence. The mental health community must take the lead in advocating for community-based collaborative problem-solving models to address the prevention of gun violence. Such models should blend prevention strategies in an effort to overcome the tendency within many community service systems to operate in silos. There has been some success with community-based programs involving police training in crisis intervention and with community members trained in mental health first aid. These programs need further piloting and study so they can be expanded to additional communities as appropriate. In addition, public health messaging campaigns on safe gun storage are needed. The practice of keeping all firearms appropriately stored and locked must become the only socially acceptable norm.

 

What Works: Policies to Reduce Gun Violence

The use of a gun greatly increases the odds that violence will lead to a fatality: This problem calls for urgent action. Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups — domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat to themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence. The licensing of handgun purchasers, background check requirements for all gun sales, and close oversight of retail gun sellers can reduce the diversion of guns to criminals. Reducing the incidence of gun violence will require interventions through multiple systems, including legal, public health, public safety, community, and health. Increasing the availability of data and funding will help inform and evaluate policies designed to reduce gun violence.

 

Pasted from <http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is a difference between being nutty and having an undiagnosed or untreated mental illness. It's like the difference between having indigestion and gastric cancer, or a common headache vs a glioblastoma pressing on your brainstem. It is unhelpful to mock them.

 

Without going much detail about the various reasons for it, the treatment of the mentally-ill in our country is woefully-inadequate, and not because there isn't enough screening. Family members and various professionals usually know what is going on but are powerless to do anything because of the way the rules on involuntary commitment. It is no longer possible for an emergency room doc, psychiatrist or other doctor to make a decision to commit a dangerously crazy person for treatment who is threat to himself or others. The rules were changed in the 1970s with bureaucratic and legal barriers making it nearly impossible. That is why we have so many people sleeping on the streets in every city now, and have for decades. All you have to do is look around you on the street corners. Homeless or not, occasionally one of them becomes violent, gets their hands on a weapon, and we are faced with another mass shooting which liberals will always, inevitably exploit to further their tyrannical aims.

 

This is the reason these incidents have become 3x more common. It has nothing to do with the availability of guns, which Americans have always had access to. It is because we have untreated, mentally-ill persons free including a few monsters who in another time would have been locked up and rendered harmless to society.

 

It would behoove all of us who believe in gun rights to understand and take this issue seriously. It is a fundamental obligation of society to care not just for children until of age and the handicapped but those with psychiatric illnesses also. We have to do a better job of this.

 

 

I really, really like your post, NGS. I'd like to remember you by it's thoughtfulness.

But what was up with this bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Point Break, the psychologists sat down with the hotshot gun researchers. The psychologists enumerated their weaknesses and their strengths.

They listed what is presently known, by them, to work. See below.

 

 

HOTSHOT Gun Researchers!!!

 

Was that the name of their group or are getting all emotional here?

 

 

Touchy subject. Are certain researchers credible?

 

On the bad side, that panel had Dr. Daniel Webster and Ms. Sorenson PhD on it. They have both done studies and papers with 30 yr. gun research veteran Dr. David Hemenway, and have each used grants from Bloomberg and the Joyce Foundation. If any conspiracy of research is in play (such as defining their body of research as "advocacy" or "propaganda," as maintained by Tom Ray) these three must be in the thick of it. Ludvick, too, based on lots of shared work.

 

On the good side, they each maintain peer-reviewed status. Their biggest critic no scientist, but more at the level of Robert Farago. Science has accepted and logged their data...and the gun lobby, simply put, cannot match them.

 

These gun research hotshots (and also the M.D. Wintemute and the VPC's Sugarman), are the real deal. They will either become discredited by better science, or will become one's very intelligent enemy... if he is hiding behind blocked research and uninformed assumptions about the benefits of weak gun policies, etc.

 

Saorsa, if you want informed input on what is known about gun problems and Psychology, this quality group, with the APA, has made it available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mental health screenings sound all solutionish.........but really? It might screen out an occasional super crazy.......but it's far...far from an exact science.

"So Mr Roof you want to buy a gun. Are you thinking of killing a bunch of black church people or starting a race war?"

"Nope".

"Seriously now, we need to know. Do you hate your parents?"

"Nope"

"Okay, here you go".

The issue really isn't mental health screenings which would be logistically and economically impractical, not to mention questionable in its efficacy at rooting out potential mass muderers. The issue is the mental health infrastructure and the ability to provide ongoing mental health care so less mentally ill people are left without resources to modify the cycle that leads to mass muderers as an action. Unfortunately, there will still be undiagnosed or simply evil people who will perpetrate despicable acts on innocent people.

 

Point Break, the psychologists sat down with the hotshot gun researchers. The psychologists enumerated their weaknesses and their strengths.

They listed what is presently known, by them, to work. See below.

 

Some here are not going to like some of their recommendations, but let's inform ourselves, they weighed in:

 

APA. ***Gun Violence: Prediction, Prevention, and Policy[/size]

American Psychological Assn

Summary: Conclusions and Recommendations

Gun violence is an urgent, complex, and multifaceted problem. It requires evidence-based, multifaceted solutions. Psychology can make important contributions to policies that prevent gun violence. Toward this end, in February 2013 the American Psychological Association commissioned this report by a panel of experts to convey research-based conclusions and recommendations (and to identify gaps in such knowledge) on how to reduce the incidence of gun violence — whether by homicide, suicide, or mass shootings — nationwide.

 

Following are chapter-by-chapter highlights and short summaries of conclusions and recommendations of the report’s authors. More information and supporting citations can be found within the chapters themselves.

 

Antecedents to Gun Violence: Developmental Issues

A complex and variable constellation of risk and protective factors makes persons more or less likely to use a firearm against themselves or others. For this reason, there is no single profile that can reliably predict who will use a gun in a violent act. Instead, gun violence is associated with a confluence of individual, family, school, peer, community, and sociocultural risk factors that interact over time during childhood and adolescence. Although many youths desist in aggressive and antisocial behavior during late adolescence, others are disproportionately at risk for becoming involved in or otherwise affected by gun violence. The most consistent and powerful predictor of future violence is a history of violent behavior. Prevention efforts guided by research on developmental risk can reduce the likelihood that firearms will be introduced into community and family conflicts or criminal activity. Prevention efforts can also reduce the relatively rare occasions when severe mental illness contributes to homicide or the more common circumstances when depression or other mental illness contributes to suicide. Reducing incidents of gun violence arising from criminal misconduct or suicide is an important goal of broader primary and secondary prevention and intervention strategies. Such strategies must also attend to redirecting developmental antecedents and larger sociocultural processes that contribute to gun violence and gun-related deaths.

 

Antecedents to Gun Violence: Gender and Culture

Any account of gun violence in the United States must be able to explain both why males are perpetrators of the vast majority of gun violence and why the vast majority of males never perpetrate gun violence. Preliminary evidence suggests that changing perceptions among males of social norms about behaviors and characteristics associated with masculinity may reduce the prevalence of intimate partner and sexual violence. Such interventions need to be further tested for their potential to reduce gun violence. The skills and knowledge of psychologists are needed to develop and evaluate programs and settings in schools, workplaces, prisons, neighborhoods, clinics, and other relevant contexts that aim to change gendered expectations for males that emphasize self-sufficiency, toughness, and violence, including gun violence.

 

What Works: Gun Violence Prediction and Prevention at the Individual Level

Although it is important to recognize that most people suffering from a mental illness are not dangerous, for those persons at risk for violence due to mental illness, suicidal thoughts, or feelings of desperation, mental health treatment can often prevent gun violence. Policies and programs that identify and provide treatment for all persons suffering from a mental illness should be a national priority. Urgent attention must be paid to the current level of access to mental health services in the United States; such access is woefully insufficient. Additionally, it should be noted that behavioral threat assessment is becoming a standard of care for preventing violence in schools, colleges, and the workplace and against government and other public officials. Threat assessment teams gather and analyze information to assess if a person poses a threat of violence or self-harm, and if so, take steps to intervene.

 

What Works: Gun Violence Prevention at the Community Level

Prevention of violence occurs along a continuum that begins in early childhood with programs to help parents raise emotionally healthy children and ends with efforts to identify and intervene with troubled individuals who are threatening violence. The mental health community must take the lead in advocating for community-based collaborative problem-solving models to address the prevention of gun violence. Such models should blend prevention strategies in an effort to overcome the tendency within many community service systems to operate in silos. There has been some success with community-based programs involving police training in crisis intervention and with community members trained in mental health first aid. These programs need further piloting and study so they can be expanded to additional communities as appropriate. In addition, public health messaging campaigns on safe gun storage are needed. The practice of keeping all firearms appropriately stored and locked must become the only socially acceptable norm.

 

What Works: Policies to Reduce Gun Violence

The use of a gun greatly increases the odds that violence will lead to a fatality: This problem calls for urgent action. Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups — domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat to themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence. The licensing of handgun purchasers, background check requirements for all gun sales, and close oversight of retail gun sellers can reduce the diversion of guns to criminals. Reducing the incidence of gun violence will require interventions through multiple systems, including legal, public health, public safety, community, and health. Increasing the availability of data and funding will help inform and evaluate policies designed to reduce gun violence.

 

Pasted from <http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx>

 

I agree with much of what you quoted. It really underscores my point that mental health is not a snapshot screening. Teams that chat with identified individuals (as described) is not screening, it's intervention and should be part of the entire approach. It is certainly a public health issue. I take exception to the notion in the section labeled gender and culture which describes "self sufficiency, toughness, and violence" as 1) intertwined and 2) undesirable characteristics in males (or anybody for that matter). I am self sufficient and tough but not violent. My children - both genders - are self sufficient and tough, but not violent. Mrs PB is the toughest women I have ever met. She spent 28 years as a firefighter/paramedic earning her living on a par with men in a male dominated workforce. If you ever saw her climb an aerial ladder to the roof of a burning building in full protective clothing wearing a breathing apparatus carrying a chainsaw, start the saw and put in ventilation cuts with flames coming out of the hole around the bar.......you'd be hard put to say she wasn't tough. She is certainly not violent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't you find any 'gun studies' from unbiased, unpaid sources?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put 50 hrs in during the last 4 days, so been a bit outta touch. Deleted threads? What's up with that?

 

Mod 'splanation can be found in the replacement cleavage thread in GA. I'd repeat it but it's probably for the best taht you check it out for yourself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Put 50 hrs in during the last 4 days, so been a bit outta touch. Deleted threads? What's up with that?

 

Mod 'splanation can be found in the replacement cleavage thread in GA. I'd repeat it but it's probably for the best taht you check it out for yourself...

 

 

Much thanks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites