Stop looking at mass killers as unique murderers... How to really stop this..

[SeefourDC]

Even if you were right, your ideas wouldn't catch many of these kids. They're always described as "loners" and "quiet". Are we going to be profiling introverts now? There should be more support when they need someone to talk to, but how do you flag a kid for being weird? Seems like that's a pretty clear Second Amendment violation, without clear diagnosis.

That's an incredible leap. I'm incredibly introverted but no one would have ever called me a loner. Almost all my friends are introverted and no one would call them loners either. Although loners may be introverted that doesn't mean they are the same thing by a long shot.

Also you should flag people for being weird. A person has to see themselves fairly outside the bounds of common society to think they ought to commit a crime on this level. One of the most common threads in these situations is that "society doesn't understand them," it has "pushed them to feel the way they feel by reminding them they don't belong," and "they are seeking revenge against society as a whole by committing it against the people that made them feel this way directly."

These people need a lot of help but our society doesn't help the strange... only the downtrodden. We gave up on helping strange people when we deinstitutionalized starting in the 1970's.

 

[Byron Carter]

How is proposing "common sense" steps to curb school shootings working out for you Byron?

This thread is a good example of what "Common Sense gun control" is to the left.

Honestly, it's reaffirming my original hardline stance of "No new gun laws AT ALL".

You open the door to allowing mental health records to be part of a background check, and suddenly these freaks want a National Gun Database and mandatory buybacks?

 

[lilelvis]

Honestly, it's reaffirming my original hardline stance of "No new gun laws AT ALL".

You open the door to allowing mental health records to be part of a background check, and suddenly these freaks want a National Gun Database and mandatory buybacks?

There's nothing common about sense.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Suicide and homicide conflate in actions a lot. I realize there is a difference but it seems the two are partners in a sense.

Sure. A lot of conflation. Except for the roughly 123 suicides in the US per day that only leave one person dead.

There is a difference between having an irresistible urge to be dead, for its own sake, and having an irresistible urge to kill others. And accept that you will then have to kill yourself as a trade off rather than spend the rest of your existence either on the run or in prison.

The vast, vast majority of people with suicidal ideation express no wish or desire to harm others. Only themselves. Many do not even blame others for their depressed condition.

 

[sub_thug]

I didn't mean full disclosure of medical records. What I mean is *flags* from your medical record. If you have a suicide attempt on record, that should flag you for being unfit when a background check is performed. If you have a history of cutting, or self-harm... *a red flag* should appear on your background check. It wouldn't even have to tell the dealer what it is, but it should disqualify you from the purchase of guns.

This ultimately means that someone (probably a doctor) will have to determine which diseases and to what levels are required to ban ownership of a gun. Doctors are unelected officials, so I don't want them to have authority over my rights. In your situation, the realpolitik says that I need to have legal representation and fund a trial by jury. This is a terribly high burden, and it takes a great deal of time. You're creating quite the barrier to gun access in an easily abused system, which is a whole new set of problems. Sorry, I just can't get behind this.

 

[HomerThompson]

You've already demonstrated in more than one thread you don't have much of a clue about gun legislation. Maybe you should educate yourself before pretending to know what new infringements will accomplish whatever amount of deaths you'll find acceptable. Can you even say how few deaths will be required before you stop going down the slippery slope of more, more, more?

I'm perfectly educated. You're the one who conflated national with state. Frankly, I'm starting to think we should amend to constitution to greatly restrict firearm ownership. After interacting with so many idiots on this board, I don't trust people with guns anymore.

 

[Iceberg Slim]

The vast, vast majority of people with suicidal ideation express no wish or desire to harm others. Only themselves. Many do not even blame others for their depressed condition.

So guns for them then?

 

[sub_thug]

I'm perfectly educated. You're the one who conflated national with state. Frankly, I'm starting to think we should amend to constitution to greatly restrict firearm ownership. After interacting with so many idiots on this board, I don't trust people with guns anymore.

It seems as though what you actually want, after reading that list, is rescinding the 2A. That's a fine position to have, I suppose, but that appears to be what you want. Would you agree?

 

[Iceberg Slim]

Honestly, it's reaffirming my original hardline stance of "No new gun laws AT ALL".

But Jimmy Kimmel cried again!

 

[Byron Carter]

This ultimately means that someone (probably a doctor) will have to determine which diseases and to what levels are required to ban ownership of a gun. Doctors are unelected officials, so I don't want them to have authority over my rights. In your situation, the realpolitik says that I need to have legal representation and fund a trial by jury. This is a terribly high burden, and it takes a great deal of time. You're creating quite the barrier to gun access in an easily abused system, which is a whole new set of problems. Sorry, I just can't get behind this.

I would emphasize that the burden of proof is on the doctor to take away your right. The government would need to prove to a jury of your peers that you are unfit to own a gun. Unless you choose to not contest it. All of the trappings of our legal system would apply. Right to a public defender, etc. And we could make it so that it's only self harm diagnosis in X amount of years. Lets say 6?

If you've been hospitalized for cutting yourself or attempting suicide, you should be at risk for losing your right to own a gun temporarily.

Are we getting any closer to a compromise?

 

[TheGreatA]

That's an incredible leap. I'm incredibly introverted but no one would have ever called me a loner. Almost all my friends are introverted and no one would call them loners either. Although loners may be introverted that doesn't mean they are the same thing by a long shot.

Also you should flag people for being weird. A person has to see themselves fairly outside the bounds of common society to think they ought to commit a crime on this level. One of the most common threads in these situations is that "society doesn't understand them," it has "pushed them to feel the way they feel by reminding them they don't belong," and "they are seeking revenge against society as a whole by committing it against the people that made them feel this way directly."

These people need a lot of help but our society doesn't help the strange... only the downtrodden. We gave up on helping strange people when we deinstitutionalized starting in the 1970's.

Loners aren't necessarily introverted.

If they are, then they will have less of a problem with being a loner, since an introvert is usually more focused on the self and takes greater enjoyment in being by himself, than with other people.

The problem is when a person wishes for social contact with other people, but is incapable of taking initiative and making any. That's not an introvert, just a person lacking the required social skills to create relationships.

Some people are born to be "loners" because they don't want to share anything with other people. Some people become loners, because they don't know how to. The latter is usually the problem.

 

[HomerThompson]

It seems as though what you actually want, after reading that list, is rescinding the 2A. That's a fine position to have, I suppose, but that appears to be what you want. Would you agree?

No, I think the 2nd refers to militias. I'd be ok with every town and municipality having guns and ammo ready if the apocalypse breaks out. I'd even be ok with mandatory training for everyone in town of a certain age. Actual militias. Sounds fine. 300 million guns in circulation? Not fine. A heavily disturbed 19 year old with a violent past getting an AR-15 no problem? Not fine. Every home allowed to have up to 3 guns? Fine. People with 20+ weapons arsenals? Not fine.

 

[Byron Carter]

No, I think the 2nd refers to militias. I'd be ok with every town and municipality having guns and ammo ready if the apocalypse breaks out. I'd even be ok with mandatory training for everyone in town of a certain age. Actual militias. Sounds fine. 300 million guns in circulation? Not fine. A heavily disturbed 19 year old with a violent past getting an AR-15 no problem? Not fine. Every home allowed to have up to 3 guns? Fine. People with 20+ weapons arsenals? Not fine.

Shall not be infringed.

 

[Overtures]

This is what it takes for a conservative to rationalize common sense.

 

[HomerThompson]

Shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm perfectly educated.

You're the one who conflated national with state.

Frankly, I'm starting to think we should amend to constitution to greatly restrict firearm ownership.

Says the guy who liked a post saying citizens couldn't own full-auto since 1934 and didn't understand that background checks are already conducted federally.

No. I said my guns were on a registry and asked how it prevented them from being used in crime. Don't recall any answer from you that gave me hope the People's guns would somehow magically refrain from engaging in mass casualty events.

That would be the honest way to do it. Welcome aboard the team that respects the Constitution.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

Who are "The People"? Must be different than the militia or they would have said militia members.

 

[HomerThompson]

Says the guy who liked a post saying citizens couldn't own full-auto since 1934 and didn't understand that background checks are already conducted federally.

No. I said my guns were on a registry and asked how it prevented them from being used in crime. Don't recall any answer from you that gave me hope the People's guns would somehow magically refrain from engaging in mass casualty events.

That would be the honest way to do it. Welcome aboard the team that respects the Constitution.

Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL’s) are individuals “engaged in the business” of selling guns and are required to register with and be licensed by the US government. They are also required to conduct instant criminal background checks on all gun buyers -and are prohibited from selling guns to convicted felons, domestic abusers, and juveniles.

Unlicensed sellers are people who may sell a small or large amount of guns but do not (or are not supposed to) earn their livelihood from firearm sales. These sellers do not have to conduct criminal background checks on gun sales. Unlicensed sellers may sell guns at gun shows, out of their homes, or even over the Internet.

What is the “gun show loophole”?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not “engaged in the business” and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.



https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/gun-show-loophole-faq/

 

[HomerThompson]

Who are "The People"? Must be different than the militia or they would have said militia members.

The right is dependent on it being used for keeping a militia. Technically, individuals have no right to bear arms for personal use.

 

[sub_thug]

I would emphasize that the burden of proof is on the doctor to take away your right. The government would need to prove to a jury of your peers that you are unfit to own a gun. Unless you choose to not contest it. All of the trappings of our legal system would apply. Right to a public defender, etc. And we could make it so that it's only self harm diagnosis in X amount of years. Lets say 6?

If you've been hospitalized for cutting yourself or attempting suicide, you should be at risk for losing your right to own a gun temporarily.

Are we getting any closer to a compromise?

I'll be honest, not really. Everything that I am hearing boils down to trusting doctors in a political capacity, and then there are huge hurdles prior to access. I mean, public defenders are notoriously bad, and you'd be going up against the DA's office. I think what you're saying makes sense in a hypothetical perfect world, but as soon as the rubber meets the road, this is a really bad system.